302 F. Supp. 3d 1005
N.D. Cal.2017Background
- Resolute Forest Products (and related entities) sued Greenpeace, Stand (ForestEthics), and individual employees alleging a coordinated, fraudulent public campaign that harmed Resolute’s business and reputation and asserting federal RICO claims and various California state-law claims including defamation, interference, conspiracy, and trademark dilution.
- Plaintiffs allege publications, reports, banners, petitions, and fundraising solicitations from ~2012 onward that labeled Resolute a "forest destroyer," misrepresented logging locations, and induced donations; Plaintiffs claim customers (e.g., 3M, Best Buy) cut ties causing economic loss.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and to strike state claims under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (and Georgia anti‑SLAPP earlier), arguing the conduct is protected speech; venue was transferred to the N.D. Cal.
- The court applied California choice‑of‑law and anti‑SLAPP rules, treated the RICO claims as grounded in fraud (triggering Rule 9(b)), and evaluated whether Resolute pleaded actual malice for its defamation‑type claims.
- The court dismissed all federal and state claims: RICO counts for failure to plead fraud particularity and proximate cause; state defamation and related torts for failure to plead actual malice and because many challenged statements were non‑actionable opinion or rhetorical hyperbole.
- The court granted anti‑SLAPP motions as to state claims, awarded defendants entitlement to fees under the statute, denied additional discovery as unnecessary for the legal insufficiency ruling, and gave Plaintiffs leave to amend within 21 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state defamation/tort claims survive First Amendment actual‑malice standard | Resolute argued it was not avoiding public‑figure status and alleged actual malice "in spades" based on fabricated photos, map redrawing, and coordinated campaign | Defendants argued Resolute is a public figure on forestry issues, so must plead actual malice with particularized facts; many statements were opinion/hyperbole | Held: Resolute is a limited public figure; complaint fails to plead actual malice with specificity and many statements are non‑actionable opinion — Counts 6–8 dismissed |
| Whether RICO claims (federal and state) survive pleading standards | Resolute alleged a unified fraudulent enterprise that used mail/wire fraud and induced donations, causing business injury | Defendants argued RICO claims sound in fraud and therefore must meet Rule 9(b); also proximate cause and lack of Hobbs Act extortion | Held: RICO claims dismissed for failure to meet Rule 9(b) particularity, failure to plead proximate cause, and no Hobbs Act extortion — Counts 1–5 dismissed |
| Applicability of California anti‑SLAPP to claims in federal court | Resolute contested anti‑SLAPP application to federal claims and argued need for discovery | Defendants contended speech was protected public‑interest activity and anti‑SLAPP applies to state claims in federal court; no discovery required where claim fails as a matter of law | Held: Anti‑SLAPP applies to state claims in federal court; defendants made prima facie showing and Resolute failed to show probability of success — state claims (Counts 4–11) struck and defendants entitled to fees |
| Whether discovery was required before ruling on actual malice/anti‑SLAPP | Resolute sought discovery to develop malice evidence and factual record | Defendants argued legal insufficiency; discovery unnecessary because further facts would not alter legal ruling | Held: No discovery required; dismissal and strike based on legal insufficiency were proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Makaeff v. Trump Univ., 715 F.3d 254 (public‑figure and actual malice analysis)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (actual malice standard for public figures)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (reckless disregard requires serious doubts about truth)
- Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (RICO proximate cause requirement)
- Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451 (limitations on RICO standing/causation)
- Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 537 U.S. 393 (Hobbs Act extortion requires obtaining property)
- Vess v. Ciba‑Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (claims sounding in fraud must meet Rule 9(b))
- Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d 666 (Rule 9(b) notice requirements)
- Metabolife Int'l, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832 (anti‑SLAPP and public‑interest speech)
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (procedure for anti‑SLAPP motions in federal court)