1 LINCOLN BANDLOW (SBN 170449) [email protected] 2 JEFF GRANT (SBN 218974) [email protected] 3 LATHROP & GAGE LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1000 4 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-4600 5 Fax: (310) 789-4601 6 Attorneys for Defendants 4TH STREET MEDIA, L.L.C., and 7 4 PARK PUBLISHING 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 11 12 JOSEPH R. FRANCIS and GGW Case No. BC 442226 BRANDS, INC., 13 DEFENDANTS 4TH STREET MEDIA, L.L.C. Plaintiffs, AND 4 PARK PUBLISHING’S NOTICE OF 14 MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE vs. PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16; MEMORANDUM 15 OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT RYAN D. SIMKIN, 4TH STREET THEREOF 16 MEDIA, L.L.C., 4 PARK PUBLISHING, and DOES 1 through 20, 17 Hon. Joanne O’Donnell Dept. 37 18 Defendants. Date: November 30, 2010 19 Time: 9:00 a.m. 20 [Declarations of Lincoln D. Bandlow, Shelli Stutz, 21 Brian Howie and Ryan Simkin, Notice of Lodging and Appendix of Non-California Authorities filed 22 concurrently herewith] 23 Complaint Filed: July 23, 2010 24 25 26 27 28 MOTION TO STRIKE (C.C.P. § 425.16) 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 30, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as 3 counsel may be heard, in Courtroom 37 of the above-entitled Court, the Honorable Joanne O’Donnell 4 presiding, located at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, defendants 4th Street Media 5 L.L.C. and 4 Park Publishing (the “Publishing Defendants”) will and hereby do move the Court for 6 an order striking the second and third claims for relief in the Complaint filed by plaintiffs Joseph R. 7 Francis and GGW Brands, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil 8 Procedure § 425.16 (“Section 425.16”).1 9 The Publishing Defendants are named in two claims: Claim Two for Intentional Interference 10 with Contractual Relations and Claim Three for Injunctive Relief. These claims are based on the 11 Publishing Defendants’ speech in connection with issues of public interest. Accordingly, these 12 claims fall within the scope of Section 425.16(e)(4) and, as such, the burden shifts to Plaintiffs to 13 establish, with competent and admissible evidence, a probability that they will prevail on those 14 claims. Section 425.16(b)(1). Plaintiffs cannot satisfy their burden for the following reasons: 15 (1) Claim Two, for tortious inference with contractual relations, fails for the following 16 independent reasons: 17 a. The activity that forms the basis of this claim is fully protected under the First and 18 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under Article I, 19 Section 2 of the California Constitution; 20 b. A tortious interference claim requires the existence of a valid contract and no valid 21 contract exists; 22 c. Assuming a valid contract existed, the Publishing Defendants had no knowledge 23 of any such contract prior to entering into an agreement with defendant Ryan 24 Simkin to publish the book in question; and 25 d. Assuming a valid contract existed, the Publishing Defendants did not engage in 26 any intentional acts to enduce defendant Ryan Simkin to breach any contract. 27 28 1 The acronym “SLAPP” stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. 1 MOTION TO STRIKE (C.C.P. § 425.16) 1 (2) Claim Three, for injunctive relief, is derivative of and dependant upon Plaintiffs’ tortious 2 interference claim and, therefore, fails for all the reasons listed above. 3 The foregoing grounds are addressed in detail in the attached Memorandum of Points and 4 Authorities, which is incorporated herein by reference. This Motion is based on this Notice, the 5 attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the concurrently-filed Declarations of Lincoln D. 6 Bandlow, Shelli Stutz, Brian Howie and Ryan Simkin, Notice of Lodging and Appendix of Non- 7 California Authorities, all papers, pleadings, records and files in this case, and on such other evidence 8 and/or argument as may be presented to the Court on the hearing on this Motion. The Publishing 9 Defendants respectfully request that the Court strike Claim Two and Claim Three, as alleged against 10 the Publishing Defendants, with prejudice and without leave to amend. 11 Dated: September 7, 2010 LATHROP & GAGE LLP 12 13 14 By: Lincoln D. Bandlow 15 4TH STREET MEDIA, L.L.C., and 16 4 PARK PUBLISHING 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 MOTION TO STRIKE (C.C.P. § 425.16) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 2 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................... 2 3 4 A. Joe Francis, GGW Brands and Mantra Films .................................................. 2 5 B. Plaintiffs’ Efforts to Restrict Free Speech ....................................................... 4 6 C. The Publishing Defendants and the Book........................................................ 4 7 III. LEGAL STANDARDS CONCERNING CALIFORNIA’S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE.................................................................................................................... 7 8 A. Two-Step Process to Determine Whether a Claim Must be Stricken.............. 7 9 10 B. The Anti-SLAPP Statute Broadly Protects Media and Entertainment Defendants ....................................................................................................... 7 11 C. The Anti-SLAPP Statute Applies to “Any Kind of Claim” Interfering with 12 Free Speech Rights – Including Claims for Tortious Interference .................. 8 13 IV. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS TAKE AIM AT THE PUBLISHING DEFENDANTS’ EXERCISE OF THEIR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS IN PUBLISHING A BOOK 14 THAT CONCERNS NUMEROUS MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ................ 8 15 V. PLAINTIFFS CANNOT DEMONSTRATE A PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS 16 ON THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST THE PUBLISHING DEFENDANTS.................... 9 17 A. Plaintiffs’ Tortious Interference With Contractual Relations Claim Fails....... 9 18 1. The First Amendment Bars Plaintiffs’ Claim ............................................ 10 19 2. No Valid Contract Precluded Defendant Simkin from Disclosing Any Information to the Publishing Defendants ................................................. 11 20 3. The Publishing Defendants Had No Knowledge of Any 21 Confidentiality Agreements Prior to Entering the Book Agreement......... 13 22 4. The Publishing Defendants Did Not Engage In Any Intentional 23 Improper Acts To Enduce Defendant Simkin To Breach Any Contract ... 13 24 B. Plaintiffs Cannot Present Competent and Admissible Evidence Showing that they Will Probably Prevail on Their Claim for Injunctive Relief............. 14 25 VI. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................ 14 26 27 28 i MOTION TO STRIKE (C.C.P. § 425.16) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1 CASES 2 Bartnicki v. Vopper, 3 532 U.S. 514 (2001)................................................................................................................10 4 Blanche Hall v. Time Warner, Inc., 153 Cal. App. 4th 1337 (2007) .................................................................................................9 5 Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, 6 19 Cal. 4th 1106 (1999) ........................................................................................................7, 8 7 Church of Scientology v. Wollershem, 42 Cal. App. 4th 628 (1996) .....................................................................................................8 8 Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club, 9 85 Cal. App. 4th 468 (2000) .................................................................................................7, 8 10 Dryden v. Tri-Valley Growers, 65 Cal. App. 3d 990 (1977).....................................................................................................13 11 Equilon Enters. v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 12 29 Cal. 4th 53, 67 (2002) ......................................................................................................7, 9 13 Gates v. Discovery Communications, Inc., 34 Cal. 4th 679 (2004) ..............................................................................................................7 14 Gritzke v. M.R.A. Holdings, LLC, 15 2002 WL 32107540 (N.D.Fla. 2002)........................................................................................9 16 Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2010).............................................................................................7, 8, 9 17 In re Trombley, 18 31 Cal. 2d 801 (1948) .............................................................................................................12 19 Ingels v. Westwood One Broad. Servs. Inc., 129 Cal. App. 4th 1050 (2005) .................................................................................................7 20 Jones-Harris v. State, 21 943 A.2d 1272 (Md.App. 2008)................................................................................................2 22 Lafayette Morehouse v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 37 Cal. App. 4th 855 (1995) .....................................................................................................7 23 Landmark Comms., Inc. v. Virgina, 24 435 U.S. 829, 838 (1978)........................................................................................................10 25 Lane v. MRA Holdings, LLC, 242 F.Supp.2d 1205 (M.D.Fla. 2002) .......................................................................................2