Underground Solutions, Inc. v. Palermo
41 F. Supp. 3d 720
N.D. Ill.2014Background
- UGSI sues Palermo for trade libel, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, Illinois UDTPA violations, Lanham Act, and tortious interference with contract based on Palermo’s dissemination of allegedly defamatory information about UGSI’s Fusible PVC pipe at conferences and on his website.
- Palermo is a Tennessee resident and allegedly a paid spokesman for Performance Pipe; he moves to dismiss UGSI’s complaint and to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
- Court applies Illinois choice-of-law rules and dépegage to separate issues; determines the anti-SLAPP issue is controlled by the speaker’s domicile and selects the Tennessee anti-SLAPP statute over California’s.
- Chi v. Loyola Univ. Med. Ctr. supports prioritizing the speaker’s domicile in choosing which anti-SLAPP statute applies; privilege analysis is distinct from defamation determination.
- Court concludes there is no basis to apply Tennessee’s anti-SLAPP to statements made at industry conferences or on Palermo’s website to public officials; no immunity applies, so UGSI’s state-law claims are not stricken.
- Court denies Palermo’s motion to strike; UGSI must respond to the motion to dismiss by a deadline; Palermo must file a reply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable anti-SLAPP statute choice | UGSI argues Tennessee law should govern. | Palermo argues California law should apply due to UGSI’s California domicile and speech locations. | Tennessee law applies to anti-SLAPP issue. |
| Scope of protected conduct under Tennessee anti-SLAPP | Statements to industry audiences and via website targeted at business customers are protected. | If protected, statements to public officials could immunize; but facts show no government-facing statements. | No immunity under Tennessee statute since statements were not made to public officials. |
| Impact on UGSI’s state-law claims | Not addressed; UGSI contends claims should proceed irrespective of anti-SLAPP. | California anti-SLAPP would strike claims. | TN anti-SLAPP does not warrant striking UGSI’s claims; claims stay. |
Key Cases Cited
- West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Arbor Homes LLC, 703 F.3d 1092 (7th Cir. 2013) (choice-of-law and MSJ context for most-significant-contacts)
- Chi v. Loyola Univ. Med. Ctr., 787 F.Supp.2d 797 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (selection of anti-SLAPP statute; domicile central to analysis)
- Kamelgard v. Macura, 585 F.3d 334 (7th Cir. 2009) (defamation multistate context; victim’s domicile significance)
- Rice v. Nova Biomedical Corp., 38 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 1994) (multistate defamation; applicable law by victim’s domicile)