Piping Rock Partners, Inc. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc.
946 F. Supp. 2d 957
| N.D. Cal. | 2013Background
- Germain and Piping Rock sue DLA, Lerner, and Dobbs for libel; DLA and Lerner counterclaim for tortious interference and related claims.
- The parties move under California anti-SLAPP law; the court holds a hearing on April 19, 2013 and issues this order.
- Dobbs is alleged to have authored eight identical Ripoff Reports posts targeting Germain and Piping Rock; eleven other posts are attributed to unnamed Doe defendants.
- Germain runs the REIT Wrecks blog; FINRA filed a complaint against DLA in 2011; publicity includes Bloomberg coverage and related class actions against DLA.
- Germain's posts on REIT Wrecks are claimed by DLA/Lerner to have damaged DLA’s business relations and investors; Germain contends his postings were to increase transparency.
- The court denies defendants’ special motion to strike the libel claim, but grants the motion to strike the counterclaims for tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and commercial disparagement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public-interest nexus of the Dobbs post | Dobbs post concerns a public issue and is protected speech. | Ripoff Report posts are private grievances; not public-interest speech. | Dobbs post involves a matter of public interest; threshold anti-SLAPP showing satisfied. |
| Libel claim’s viability (fact vs. opinion, defamation per se) | Dobbs's statements are false factual assertions; not mere opinion. | Statements are hyperbolic opinions entitled to First Amendment protection. | Post is an actionable statement of fact, not pure opinion; plaintiff prevails on likelihood. |
| Unclean hands defense availability at this stage | Unclean hands cannot bar at pleadings stage without conclusive evidence. | Germain engaged in identical conduct and email after the post. | Defense is premature; discovery needed; does not strike libel claim on this basis. |
| Counterclaims’ public-forum adequacy and governing law | REIT Wrecks is a public forum; anti-SLAPP applies to counterclaims. | REIT Wrecks is controlled by Germain; not public. | REIT Wrecks is a public forum; anti-SLAPP applies to the counterclaims; no material conflict in law. |
| Probability of prevailing on counterclaims (defamation/related allegations) | Counterclaims fail on elements; no specific contracts or damages shown. | Statements caused economic harm; counts relate to defamation and related torts. | Counterclaims for tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and commercial disparagement are not shown to have substantial probability; they are stricken. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weinberg v. Feisel, 110 Cal.App.4th 1122 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (guides public-interest considerations in SLAPP context)
- Wilbanks v. Wolk, 121 Cal.App.4th 883 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (public forums include brokers' consumer warnings; forum breadth)
- Chaker v. Mateo, 209 Cal.App.4th 1138 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (consumer information on Ripoff Reports as public-interest speech)
- Summit Bank v. Rogers, 206 Cal.App.4th 669 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (Craig-like online postings; relevance of reader expectations)
- Information Control Corp. v. Genesis One Computer Corp., 611 F.2d 781 (9th Cir. 1980) (test for distinguishing fact from opinion under defamation analysis)
- Kaelin v. Globe Communications Corp., 162 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1998) (defamatory meaning and jury question when publication is susceptible to defamation)
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) (two-step anti-SLAPP framework and burden shifting)