Martinez

Martinez v. Metabolife International., Inc.

Good Law
113 Cal. App. 4th 181·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1686·2003 Daily Journal DAR 12303·6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 494·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9787
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 12, 2003D040279California4,556 words

Opinion

Opinion

McDONALD, J.

Respondents Gloria and George Martinez (together Plaintiffs) filed this action against appellant Metabolife International, Inc. (Mil) alleging that Gloria used Metabolife 356 (the Product), a product manufactured and marketed by Mil, in accordance with the instructions provided by MU, and that she suffered a stroke caused by her use of the Product. Mil appeals from the order denying its motion to strike Plaintiffs’ complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16; all undesignated statutory references are to this code).

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Complaint

Gloria consumed the Product for approximately three years before she suffered a severe stroke in October 2000. Plaintiffs’ complaint, alleging that Gloria’s physical injuries were caused by the effects of ingredients (including ephedrine) contained in the Product, pleaded causes of action for product liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty and fraud, and sought compensatory and punitive damages.

B. The Anti-SLAPP Motion

MU moved to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. Mil argued Plaintiffs’ complaint targeted Mil’s commercial…

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.