Blanchard

Blanchard v. DirecTV, Inc.

Good Law
123 Cal. App. 4th 903·20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 385·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1830·2004 Daily Journal DAR 13338·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9785
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 29, 2004B168901, B167729California6,546 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aldrich, J.

INTRODUCTION

We are asked to apply the newly enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, subdivision (b), which expressly excludes public-interest lawsuits from the reach of anti-SLAPP special motions to strike (§ 425.16).

DIRECTV sent demand letters to thousands of people who purchased certain devices that can pirate DIRECTV’s television programming, requesting the recipients cease using the devices. Plaintiffs, recipients of these demand letters, filed their complaint against DIRECTV, alleging that the conduct of mailing the demand letters was an unfair business practice (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 (the UCL)), a violation of plaintiffs’ civil rights, and extortion. The trial court granted the special motion of DIRECTV to strike (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) plaintiffs’ complaint and awarded DIRECTV attorney fees. Plaintiffs appeal.

Plaintiffs contend Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, subdivision (b) protects their UCL claim from dismissal under the anti-SLAPP procedure. In the published portion of this opinion (parts I & II), we hold: (1) plaintiffs’ UCL claim was not brought in the “public interest” and therefore is not entitled to protection under section…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.