Scott

Scott v. Metabolite International, Inc.

Good Law
115 Cal. App. 4th 404·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 115·2004 Daily Journal DAR 1018·9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 242·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 840
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 29, 2004C041029California7,323 words

Opinion

Opinion

Robie, J.

Plaintiff Joan Scott sued Metabolife International, Inc., (Metabolife) for personal injuries she alleges she suffered after taking its product— Metabolife 356. Metabolife appeals the denial of its special motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Metabolife contends the trial court erred in concluding section 425.16 did not apply. We conclude Scott’s personal injury causes of action “arise from” Metabolife’s act of manufacturing and selling of the allegedly defective product that caused Scott’s injury, not from any act in furtherance of Metabolife’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitutions. Scott also included a false advertising cause of action. We conclude Metabolife’s for-profit advertising of the safety and efficacy of its product does not concern an issue of public interest under section 425.16. We shall affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A

The Complaint

Boiled down to its essential relevant allegations, Scott’s complaint claims she used Metabolife 356 and suffered a stroke as a direct result. From this kernel of relevant information, Scott alleges four personal injury causes of…

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.