Brill Media Co. v. TCW Group, Inc.

Bad Law
132 Cal. App. 4th 324·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1374·2005 Daily Journal DAR 10685·33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 371·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7917
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 30, 2005No. B175827California10,063 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Turner, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, 74 media related companies operated by Alan Brill, 1 appeal from an order granting a Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 special motion to strike brought by 16 defendants. 2 Effective January 1, 2004, Code of Civil *328 Procedure section 425.17 was enacted which created two exceptions to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the special motion to strike statute. This case involves alleged efforts by some bondholders and their related entities to take control of the issuer’s assets as well as those of others. In the published portion of this opinion, we examine the second exception to the special motion to strike remedy, which is found in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, subdivision (c). We conclude that Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, subdivision (c) prevents the use of the special motion to strike procedure in this case. All of plaintiffs’ claims arise from speech or conduct described in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, subdivision (c). Therefore, we reverse the order granting the Code of Civil Procedure section 426.16 special motion to strike.

II. THE BASIS OF DEFENDANTS’ ATTACKS ON THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

A.…

dissent Opinion

Mosk, J.

I respectfully dissent.

Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 425.16, which provides for a special motion to strike or “SLAPP” motion, governs a “cause of action . . . arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech . . . .” “[T]he statutory phrase ‘cause of action . . . arising from’ means simply that the defendant’s act underlying the plaintiff’s cause of action must itself have been an act in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech.” (City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 78 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 519 , 52 P.3d 695 ].) The acts complained of here are rights of petition or speech specified by the statute. The requirements of section 425.17 that would exempt the action from the provisions of section 425.16 have not been met.

1. The Allegations of the Complaint Arise From Acts in Furtherance of the Right of Petition.

Each of plaintiffs’ causes of action includes the general allegation that defendants breached the indenture by “mov[ing] to liquidate the Brill Media Companies’ properties prior to . . . satisfying the requirements of the Indenture Contract.” In addition, plaintiffs’ first cause of action for breach…

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.