Heitkoetter

I. BACKGROUND

26 Plaintiffs filed this action on March 29, 2022. (Doc. 1.) On November 7, 2022, the Court 27 issued an order denying Defendant’s special motion to strike Plaintiffs’ complaint under 28 California’s Anti-SLAPP Statute but granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint, finding that the allegations as to supposedly defamatory statements were too general and interpretative. (Doc. 20 at 13-15.) Plaintiffs subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint on December 18, 2022. (Doc. 23.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs brought an unopposed motion to amend the First Amended Complaint. (Docs. 26, 30.) That motion was granted on January 5, 2023, and Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint the same day. (Doc. 32-2.) The Second Amended Complaint alleged false light, defamation by implication, defamation (libel and libel per se), intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and deceptive trade practices based on videos and comments that Defendant allegedly posted to YouTube regarding Plaintiffs and their investment program. (Doc. 33.) Defendant filed a motion to dismiss certain claims (Doc. 36), 12 …