Tamara Wareka v. Trusper Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAMARA WAREKA, Case No. 21-cv-02682-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING ANTI-SLAPP

v. MOTION TO STRIKE TRUSPER’S

COUNTERLCAIM

TRUSPER INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 65 Defendants.

Wareka’s Anti-SLAPP motion to strike Trusper’s counterclaim is denied, subject to renewal after the discovery period. Although Wareka has shown that Trusper’s counterclaim arises out of her First Amendment right to petition, Trusper has shown a probability of prevailing on the merits at this stage of litigation. Because discovery has not yet been conducted, the motion must be construed as challenging the legal sufficiency of the pleadings. See Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress, 890 F.3d 828, 834 (9th Cir. 2018). So the parties’ factual disputes cannot be resolved at this time.1 The only question is whether Trusper has plausibly alleged a claim for breach of contract. It has. According to the counterclaim, the Mai Couture Settlement Agreement released “all claims related to the Image” against Mai Couture and “all those acting in concert or participation with them…