Michael Sansoe v. Ford Motor Co.
668 F. App'x 718
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs sued Ford alleging unlawful, unfair, and deceptive practices in Ford’s reacquisition of defective (“Lemon”) vehicles, specifically excessive deductions and requiring owner-paid repairs before buybacks.
- Ford moved to strike under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute, arguing the claims arise from protected settlement‑related statements and petitioning/speech activity.
- The district court denied Ford’s special motion to strike; Ford appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reviews anti‑SLAPP denials de novo and focused on whether Plaintiffs’ claims are "based on" protected petition or speech activity.
- The court held the gravamen of Plaintiffs’ claims is Ford’s business practice (reimbursement/deduction methodology), not protected settlement communications; therefore the anti‑SLAPP statute does not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint is "based on" protected petition/speech conduct such that anti‑SLAPP applies | Claims challenge Ford’s reacquisition practices and allege deception tied to Ford’s actions | Claims arise from fraudulent statements during the settlement process (protected speech/petition) | Held for Plaintiffs: principal thrust is Ford’s business practice (unprotected), so anti‑SLAPP fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar, 611 F.3d 590 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for anti‑SLAPP rulings)
- Price v. Stossel, 620 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing SLAPPs and chilling effect of meritless suits)
- Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (anti‑SLAPP purposes and analysis)
- Club Members for an Honest Election v. Sierra Club, 196 P.3d 1094 (Cal. 2008) (legislative purpose of early dismissal under anti‑SLAPP)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 52 P.3d 695 (Cal. 2002) (definition of acts in furtherance of petition or free speech)
- Feldman v. 1100 Park Lane Assocs., 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Ct. App. 2008) ("act forming the basis" inquiry for anti‑SLAPP)
- People ex rel. Fire Ins. Exch. v. Anapol, 150 Cal. Rptr. 3d 224 (Ct. App. 2012) (private disputes with incidental speech cannot invoke anti‑SLAPP)
- Martinez v. Metabolife Int’l, Inc., 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 494 (Ct. App. 2003) (gravamen/principal thrust test for anti‑SLAPP applicability)