Daimlerchrysler Motors Co. v. Lew Williams, Inc.

Good Law
142 Cal. App. 4th 344·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1308·2006 Daily Journal DAR 11614·48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 233·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8125
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 3, 2006C049340California3,067 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nicholson, J.

In violation of an agreement not to protest, a car dealer

protested a manufacturer’s notice of its intent to establish a new car dealership. As a result of the protest, the manufacturer determined not to establish the new dealership. The company who had sought the dealership, not a party to this appeal, sued the manufacturer. In turn, the manufacturer filed a cross-complaint against the protesting dealer. The dealer filed a motion under the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) to have the cross-complaint stricken, but the trial court denied the dealer’s motion. The dealer appeals the trial court’s order, and we affirm.

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

State statutes regulate the establishment or relocation of an automobile dealership franchise. A manufacturer must notify the New Motor Vehicle Board (Board) of its intent to establish or relocate a dealership. (Veh. Code, § 3062, subd. (a)(1).)

The manufacturer must similarly notify each existing dealership offering the same line-make of vehicles within a radius of 10 miles from the new dealership. (Veh. Code, §§ 507, 3062, subd. (a)(1).) When it notifies the existing…

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.