Commercial Disparagement in California

What Is Commercial Disparagement?

“Whereas defamation, which includes libel and slander, concerns damage to the reputation of a person or business, disparagement concerns damage to the reputation of products, goods, or services.” (Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 277, 288–289.)

“Confusion surrounds the tort of ‘commercial disparagement’ because not only is its content blurred and uncertain, so also is its very name.” (Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc. (“Swift”) (2014) 59 Cal.4th 277, 289.) “The tort has received various labels, such as ‘commercial disparagement,’ ‘injurious falsehood,’ ‘product disparagement,’ ‘trade libel,’ ‘disparagement of property,’ and ‘slander of goods.’” (Id.) “In fact, all these labels denominate the same basic legal claim.” (Id.)

“Disparagement is often included now as ‘a specific example of the more general principle of injurious falsehood.’ Under the definition of an injurious falsehood, ‘[o]ne who publishes a false statement harmful to the interests of another is subject to liability for pecuniary loss resulting to the other if

  1. he intends for publication of the statement to result in harm to interests of the other having a pecuniary value, or either recognizes or should recognize that it is likely to do so, and
  2. he knows that the statement is false or acts in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.’”

(Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 277, 289–290.)

“In evaluating whether a claim of disparagement has been alleged, courts have required that the defendant's false or misleading statement have a degree of specificity that distinguishes direct criticism of a competitor's product or business from other statements extolling the virtues or superiority of the defendant's product or business. As explained below, disparagement involves two distinct but related specificity requirements. A false or misleading statement

  1. must specifically refer to the plaintiff's product or business, and
  2. must clearly derogate that product or business. Each requirement must be satisfied by express mention or by clear implication.”

(Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 277, 284.)

Rulings for Commercial Disparagement in California

The first cause of action is for trade libel. The tort of trade libel includes “all false statements concerning the quality of services or product of a business which are intended to cause that business financial harm and in fact do so.” (Leonardini v. Shell Oil Co. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 547, 572.) The tort of trade libel is a business tort, similar to libel or defamation, however it is a form of injurious falsehood more similar to slander of title. (Polvaram Records. Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.

  • Name

    JLS DEVELOPMENT GROUP VS SWAUGER HEARING RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COMPLAINT OF JLS DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC BY CATHLEEN MARMON, MICHAEL MARMON

  • Case No.

    PSC1800925

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

Twelfth COA: Commercial Disparagement / Trade LibelTrade libel is defined as an intentional disparagement of the quality of property, which results in pecuniary damage to plaintiff.... ‘Injurious falsehood, or disparagement, then, may consist of the publication of matter derogatory to the plaintiff’s title to his property, or its quality, or to his business in general,...

  • Name

    PAULA THOMAS ET AL VS THOMAS WYLDE LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC596495

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2017

Here, Cross-Complainants only allege a cause of action for Publication of Injurious Falsehood.

  • Name

    OLSON VS COALE

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01168784

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2021

The tort of trade libel is a form of injurious falsehood similar to slander of title. (See Polygram Records, Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 543, 548; Erlich v. Etner (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 69, 74.) “Trade libel is the publication of matter disparaging the quality of another's property, which the publisher should recognize is likely to cause pecuniary loss to the owner. [Citation.]

  • Name

    ISLAND MEDICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC. V. DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL EQUIPMENT

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01061540

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

Fifth Cause of Action – Trade Libel Trade libel is defined as an intentional disparagement of the quality of property, which results in pecuniary damage to plaintiff. Injurious falsehood, or disparagement may consist of the publication of matter derogatory to the plaintiff’s business in general. The plaintiff must prove in all cases that the publication has played a material and substantial part inducing others not to deal with him, and that as a result he has suffered special damages.

  • Name

    CARTAMUNDI USA, INC. VS MIGUEL HENAO

  • Case No.

    VC066674

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2018

  • Judge

    RAUL A.

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The tort of trade libel is a form of injurious falsehood similar to slander of title. (See Polygram Records, Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 543, 548; Erlich v. Etner (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 69, 74.) “Trade libel is the publication of matter disparaging the quality of another's property, which the publisher should recognize is likely to cause pecuniary loss to the owner. [Citation.]

  • Name

    ISLAND MEDICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC. VS HOLOGIC, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01136814

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2021

(CCP §435.5(d)) The Motion is granted as to the claims of breach of contract and commercial disparagement against defendant Anne Hoppe, as well as the claim for commercial disparagement against defendant Germar Bernhard. The Motion is denied as to the claim for breach of contact based on an arbitration provision in the contract between plaintiff and Germar Bernhard.

  • Name

    LE MEDRANO INC VS HOPPE

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00052147-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

The court has now determined that the motion should be granted as to the seventh cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and denied as to the third cause of action for publication of injurious falsehood, fourth cause of action for slander of title, the fifth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty and the sixth cause of action for intentional interference with contract.

  • Name

    BURLINGAME INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL VS. HERMAN KWAI ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC08477107

  • Hearing

    Feb 29, 2012

Here, Plaintiff need not allege an entirely new cause of action for trade libel, additional claims for damages including punitive damages, to correct the issues with the first cause of action. Accordingly, the motion to strike is GRANTED. Moreover, as established in the demurrer, the FAC reveals there is no basis for the trade libel claim.

  • Name

    INSTANT INFOSYSTEMS INC VS OPENTEXT INC

  • Case No.

    BC619405

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2016

Third Cause of Action for Trade Libel. The demurrer is sustained. The FAC fails to state sufficient facts to state a cause of action for trade libel. (See ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1011 [generally discussing elements].) Plaintiff SCSA Group, Inc. (“SCSA”) did not allege direct financial harm due to someone else’s reliance on Worden’s disparaging statement.

  • Name

    SCSA GROUP, INC. VS. WORDEN

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00902045-CU-MC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2017

Demurrer to the second cause of action for trade libel is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The cause of action does not specifically allege what statements, if any, constituted trade libel. On amendment, plaintiffs must allege verbatim each statement made by each of the defendants which plaintiffs allege constitute trade libel. Plaintiffs must also allege the context of the statement, namely, when, where, and by and to whom it was made. (See Industrial Waste & Debris Box Service, Inc. v.

  • Name

    ALLIANCE ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL. VS HARRY HOU, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19GDCV00845

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

Thus, a one-year limitations period applies to the trade libel cause of action as it is alleged in the FACC.

  • Name

    DTI SERVICES, INC. VS SHINICHI KAKEFU

  • Case No.

    21TRCV00617

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff contends that trade-libel is not subject to the one-year statute of limitations as [t]rade libel and product disparagement are injurious falsehoods that interfere with business. Unlike classic defamation, they are not directed at the plaintiff's personal reputation, but rather at the goods a plaintiff sells or the character of his other business, as such. ( Guess, Inc. v. Superior Court (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 473, 477.)

  • Name

    JOSEPH CONSTRUCTION, A SOLE OWNERSHIP VS ANDY TRAN

  • Case No.

    22NWCV00977

  • Hearing

    Jan 02, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendant Richard Tom's demurrer to the first amended complaint is sustained without leave to amend as to the ninth cause of action for trade libel and overruled as to all other causes of action. Plaintiff's trade libel claim fails as a matter of law because the allegedly libelous statements do not concern plaintiffs' services or products. All other arguments made in support of the demurrer lack merit. Except for the trade libel cause of action, all of the claims are adequately pled per governing law.

  • Name

    HRD COFFEE SHOP INC. VS. RICHARD TOM

  • Case No.

    CGC15544434

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2015

Third Cause of Action for Trade LibelTrade libel is the publication of matter disparaging the quality of another’s property, which the publisher should recognize is likely to cause pecuniary loss to the owner.” ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2007) 93 Cal. App. 4th 993, 1010, citing Leonardini v. Shell Oil Co. (1989) 216 Cal. App. 3d 547, 572. A cause of action for trade libel “requires (at a minimum): (1) a publication; (2) which induces others not to deal with plaintiff; and (3) special damages.”

  • Name

    VIDILLION, INC. VS. LKQD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01086411

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2021

Trade Libel Spotlight demurs to the second cause of action for trade libel on the grounds Stubhub does not plead special damages nor does Stubhub allege a statement that disparaged the quality of Stubhubs product or service. Trade libel is the publication of matter disparaging the quality of anothers property, which the publisher should recognize is likely to cause pecuniary loss to the owner. ( ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1010 [citing Leonardini v.

  • Name

    SPOTLIGHT TICKET MANAGEMENT, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION VS EBAY INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20VECV00691

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Trade Libel (Cause of Action Two) “Trade libel is an intentional disparagement of the quality of services or product of a business that results in pecuniary damage to the plaintiff. [Citations.] Like defamation, trade libel requires a false statement of fact, not an expression of an opinion. [Citations.] To constitute trade libel the statement must be made with actual malice, that is, with knowledge it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. [Citation.]

  • Name

    MARTIN VS SAINI

  • Case No.

    MSC19-00297

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2019

. § 1125(a)); (4) defamation; (5) trade libel (product disparagement or injurious falsehood); (6) unfair competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.); and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress (Federal Lawsuit). (FAC, ¶ 16, p. 3:8-13.) On November 30, 2017, the parties settled the federal lawsuit without admission of fault or liability and executed a Settlement and Release Agreement (Settlement Agreement). (FAC, ¶ 17; Complaint, Ex. A, ¶ 6.)

  • Name

    NHS GLOBAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS VERIFIED NUTRITION, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV20754

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BVR also complains that Plaintiff has not alleged the conduct was wrongful beyond the interference itself, but the same conduct is the basis for the trade libel cause of action. Trade Libel: Plaintiff alleges Defendants told customers that "the Budget Oxnard Location was closing, that it was terminating its one-way car rentals, and that going forward its car rental business would be serviced by the Avis Oxnard Location." (FAC ¶14.)

  • Name

    J&J MARSHALL VS KONETI

  • Case No.

    56-2013-00445653-CU-NP-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2014

Conduct de novo review of $50 small claims J on "false light"/trade libel case alleging damages from unnecessary audit. gmr

  • Name

    GREEN PHARMACEUTICALS VS. SEAN THORNHILL

  • Case No.

    56-2009-00341391-SC-SC-VTA

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2009

The Complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for trade libel and permanent injunction. The Motion to Strike is DENIED.

  • Name

    STEIN VS. SAN DIEGO CENTER FOR FAMILY HEALTH APC

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00008552-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

Third Cause of Action for Trade Libel. “Trade libel is the publication of matter disparaging the quality of another’s property, which the publisher should recognize is likely to cause pecuniary loss to the owner. [Citation.] The tort encompasses ‘all false statements concerning the quality of services or product of a business which are intended to cause that business financial harm and in fact do so.’ [Citation.] [¶] To constitute trade libel, a statement must be false.” City of Costa Mesa v.

  • Name

    I3 VERTICALS, LLC VS. TOOTIKIAN

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00870402-CU-BT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2017

Trade Libel Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to state a cause of action for trade libel. Trade libel requires “[a] false or misleading statement [that] (1) must specifically refer to the plaintiff's product or business, and (2) must clearly derogate that product or business.” ( Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 277, 291.)

  • Name

    BURN YOUNG, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS HOME SHOPPING WORLD, AN ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV40759

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

First Cause of Action for Trade Libel Trade libel is an intentional disparagement of the quality of services or product of a business that results in pecuniary damage to the plaintiff. ( City of Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio Investments, LLC (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 375-376, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 698; Leonardini v. Shell Oil Co. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 547, 572, 264 Cal.Rptr. 883.) Like defamation, trade libel requires a false statement of fact, not an expression of an opinion. ( Mann v.

  • Name

    INHERITOR CELL TECHNOLOGY (USA), INC. VS AGAPECORD, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV03185

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

Sykes (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 31 (internal quotations and citations omitted), libel is not synonymous with trade libel, and “what is commonly called ‘trade libel’ is a particular form of the tort of injurious falsehood and need not be in writing,” Polygram Records, Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d, 543, 548 (citing Restatement, § 626, comm. a.). Therefore, defendants fail to meet their burden of establishing that specific pleading is required. The demurrer is OVERRULED.

  • Name

    VAEDYNN ERLANDSON VS ADVANCED NUTRIENTS US LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC664883

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2018

disparagement/trade libel.”

  • Name

    WONDERWORKS PTE. LTD. V. HEWLETT-PACKARD CO., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    2014-1-CV-273632

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2018

(collectively, “Defendants”) for: 1) Breach of oral contract; 2) Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 3) Conversion; 4) Breach of fiduciary duty; 5) Fraud; 6) Aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; 7) Injurious falsehood; 8) Slander of title; 9) Demand for corporate records; 10) Accounting; and, 11) Declaratory relief.

  • Name

    RICHARDSON V. RICHARDSON, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18CV324826

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

Plaintiff should describe its damages -- e.g., loss of business profits from customers who Plaintiff lost due to the alleged trade libel, etc. Plaintiff is not required to identify particular customers and transactions it lost as a result of the alleged trade libel.

  • Name

    INFAB CORPORATION VS. LITE TECH INC.

  • Case No.

    56-2014-00454092-CU-BC-VTA

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2015

Fourth Cause of Action for Trade LibelTrade libel is the publication of matter disparaging the quality of another's property, which the publisher should recognize is likely to cause pecuniary loss to the owner. The tort encompasses ‘all false statements concerning the quality of services or product of a business which are intended to cause that business financial harm and in fact do so.’ To constitute trade libel, a statement must be false.” (City of Costa Mesa v.

  • Name

    FURRA V. PAPPAS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01032672-CU-MC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2019

The complaint alleged causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) libel; (3) trade libel; (4) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (5) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage; and (6) injunctive relief. The anti-SLAPP motion disposed of the causes of action for breach of contract, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and injunctive relief.

  • Name

    DOG & ROOSTER INC VS GREEN

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00031852-CU-DF-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

The court will sustain Malki’s demurrer to the trade libel cause of action without leave to amend. D. Order: The court sustains defendant Alan E. Malki, M.D.’s demurrer to plaintiff Allied Health Resources, Inc.’s first amended complaint without leave to amend.

  • Name

    ALLIED HEALTH RESOURCES, INC. VS ALAN E MALKI, MD

  • Case No.

    19CV03177

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

The anti-SLAPP motion is granted to the trade libel cause of action. Plaintiff cannot establish the probability of prevailing because there is no evidence Karp made any statements about plaintiff's quality of products or services. Trade libel is an intentional disparagement of the quality of services or product of a business that results in pecuniary damage to the plaintiff. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Phillips & Cohen LLP (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 87, 97.

  • Name

    TSUNAMI VR INC VS KARP

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00026332-CU-DF-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2019

The FACC fails to adequately allege an independently wrongful act, i.e., trade libel. Thus, the demurrers to the third and fourth causes of action are sustained. The Court will hear argument as to whether or not the Court should grant leave to amend.

  • Name

    DIAMOND JAMBOREE, LTD. V ZHU

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00803740-CU-MC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2016

Ninth Cause of Action for Injurious Falsehood In an action for injurious falsehood, the plaintiff must plead and prove, among other things, pecuniary loss resulting from the publication by the defendant of a false statement harmful to the interests of another. ( Polygram Records, Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 543, 549.) Thus, pecuniary loss is an essential element of an injurious falsehood claim. Damages are also an essential element of a fraud claim. (See, e.g., Engalla v.

  • Name

    PIH HEALTH HOSPITAL-WHITTIER, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, FORMERLY PRESBYTERIAN INTERCOMMUNITY HOSPITA VS CIGNA HEALTHCARE OF CALIFORNIA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20NWCV00666

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

To state a cause of action for trade libel, a plaintiff must plead the following elements: (1) a publication; (2) which induces others not to deal with plaintiff; and (3) special damages. ( Nichols v. Great American Ins. Companies (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 766, 773.) Trade libel requires a false statement of fact, not an expression of an opinion. ( J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Phillips & Cohen LLP (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 87, 97.)

  • Name

    BOND 330 UNION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS COMMON LIVING, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    20STCV25798

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

Defendants contend that they have an absolute defense to this claim: the statements made in the Yelp review are not actionable trade libel because they are their own opinions. To constitute trade libel, a statement must be false. (Leonardini v. Shell Oil Co, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at 572.) Because “mere opinions cannot by definition be false statements of fact, opinions will not support a cause of action for trade libel.” (ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1010-1011.)

  • Name

    FIGULI, ET AL. V. MILANINIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20CV370807

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2021

Defendants' Demurrer to the 1st Cause of Action (Slander per se), the 2nd Cause of Action (Trade Libel), the 3rd Cause of Action (Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage) and the 5th Cause of Action (Unfair Competition) is overruled; the Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the 4th Cause of Action (Injunctive Relief). The Slander per se claim is sufficiently set forth. See Paragraphs 35 and 37 of the Complaint.

  • Name

    DR SEBIS OFFICE INC ET AL VS PATSY WILLIAMS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC665526

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2018

Thus, plaintiffs have not established a probability of prevailing on the defamation claims. 5th Cause of Action for Trade Libel "Trade libel is an intentional disparagement of the quality of services or product of a business that results in pecuniary damage to the plaintiff." J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Phillips & Cohen LLP (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 87, 9.

  • Name

    SDPB HOLDINGS LLC VS. ROBERT EMERICK

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00016019-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2017

Thus, plaintiffs have not established a probability of prevailing on the defamation claims. 5th Cause of Action for Trade Libel "Trade libel is an intentional disparagement of the quality of services or product of a business that results in pecuniary damage to the plaintiff." J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Phillips & Cohen LLP (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 87, 9.

  • Name

    SDPB HOLDINGS LLC VS. ROBERT EMERICK

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00016019-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2018

In the oppositions, plaintiffs contend that the third cause of action restates the second cause of action for trade libel. However, the demurrer to the trade libel cause of action was sustained because of lack of specificity. The third cause of action addresses the damages from the Mid-Century lawsuit and does not address the lack of specificity in the alleged defamatory communications. Further, the third cause of action is essentially a malicious prosecution cause of action.

  • Name

    ALLIANCE ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL. VS HARRY HOU, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19GDCV00845

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

Overrule demurrer to 2nd cause of action on the ground that trade libel has been sufficiently alleged. Sustain demurrer to the 1st, 3rd and 4th causes of action with leave to amend, with the understanding that the 4th (intentional interference with contractual relations) will not be pursued. The 1st (intentional interference with economic advantage) lacks sufficient allegations of a relationship between plaintiff and a third party with the probability of future economic advantage to Plaintiff.

  • Name

    J&J MARSHALL VS KONETI

  • Case No.

    56-2013-00445653-CU-NP-VTA

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2014

The Court has read and considered Plaintiff's Complaint for 1) TRADE LIBEL; 2) DEFAMATION; and 3) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (ROA # 1), the Answer (ROA # 7) of Defendants GREG GLASSMAN, RUSSELL BERGER, RUSS GREENE, and CROSSFIT, INC. ("Defendants") with twenty six (26) affirmative defenses, ROA # 102, Plaintiff's objections, and Defendants' opposition (ROA # 110). Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED.

  • Name

    NATIONAL STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION VS. GLASSMAN

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00014339-CU-DF-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2018

To constitute trade libel , a statement must be false. [Citation.] Since mere opinions cannot by definition be false statements of fact, opinions will not support a cause of action for trade libel . [Citation.] In most cases, whether a statement is fact or opinion is a question of law. [Citation.]

  • Case No.

    20STCV37618B

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2024

Intentional Interference with Prospective Advantage: Defendant is entitled to adjudication in its favor because Plaintiff cannot prove any independently wrongful act; Trade Libel: Defendant is entitled to adjudication in its favor because Plaintiff cannot prove any false statement of fact; and Breach of Written Lease Agreement: Defendant is entitled to adjudication in its favor because it has demonstrated beyond dispute that the Lease did not restrict Defendants ability to advertise occupancies for other spaces

  • Name

    PAMELA TAYLOR ET AL VS STEVEN J KENT ET AL

  • Case No.

    1159327

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2005

  • Judge

    Denise deBellefeuille

  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

However, cross-complainants’ allegations concerning “false representations” are so vague that the Court cannot tell whether cross-complainants are attempting to sue for defamation or for trade libel. The two causes of action are distinct: Although trade libel bears similarity to the defamation claim that remained in the litigation, the two causes of action are not identical.

  • Name

    EAST & WEST VS. SAHARA AFGHANI

  • Case No.

    MSC18-01057

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2019

Defendants demur to the following causes of action: Second Failure to pay overtime wages Third Failure to provide meal periods Four Failure to provide rest periods Sixteenth Trade libel Twentieth Conversion Twenty-Second Unfair competition The Court rules as follows: A.

  • Name

    MANDANA NAZAR, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS SHAWN YADIDI, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV46583

  • Hearing

    Apr 14, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

COA 9: Trade Libel The Court previously sustained the demurrer to the trade libel cause of action with leave to amend. The trade libel claim was originally the tenth and last cause of action in the cross-complaint. The Court finds that Cross-Defendants have alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action for trade libel. Therefore, the demurrer is overruled as to the ninth cause of action. Motion to Strike A.

  • Name

    GARRETT D. LEEVERS VS NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.

  • Case No.

    SC128570

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

Fifth Cause of Action for Trade Libel The Cross-Defendant argues that this cause of action lacks sufficient facts because it does not identify the disparaging statements. Trade libel is a type of defamation in which the defendant engages in the intentional disparagement of the quality of services or product of a business and this results in pecuniary damage to the plaintiff. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Phillips & Cohen LLP (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 87, 97.

  • Name

    CHRISTINA MEI-LING CHAO LIN VS JORGE GOMEZ

  • Case No.

    EC066342

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2018

This allegation speculates about the future instead of alleging as a fact that Pico has suffered actual disruption of a business relationship. 6th Cause of Action: Injurious Falsehood Pico fails to state sufficient facts for this cause of action. Trade libel encompasses all false statements concerning the quality of services or product of a business which are intended to cause that business financial harm and in fact do so. ( City of Costa Mesa v.

  • Name

    MORSCO SUPPLY, LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DBA EXPRESS PIPE & SUPPLY VS 5050 PICO, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

  • Case No.

    21STCV14392

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Third Cause of Action for Common Counts, and Fourth Cause of Action for Trade Libel are HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court will prepare the order and mail copies to the parties. Defendant shall promptly file and serve the notice of entry of order on Plaintiff's counsel.

  • Name

    BAY AREA CONSTORIUM FOR QUALI VS ALAMEDA ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH

  • Case No.

    RG15763430

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2021

As pled the Complaint is not uncertain. 1st Cause of Action for Trade Libel: The tort of trade libel includes “all false statements concerning the quality of services or product of a business which are intended to cause that business financial harm and in fact do so.” Leonardini v. Shell Oil Co. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 547, 572. The Complaint as pled sufficiently sets forth a cause of action against the Marmon’s for Trade Libel.

  • Name

    JLS DEVELOPMENT GROUP VS SWAUGER

  • Case No.

    PSC 1800925

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2018

The statement alleged in the trade libel claim are similar to the statements alleged in defamation claim. Additionally, Plaintiff also asserts that the seven statements asserted in its opposition also support its trade libel claim.

  • Name

    DEBTOR IN POSSESSION DDC GROUP INC VS LUIS ANTHONY RIOS ET A

  • Case No.

    BC717004

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2018

TRADE LIBEL "Trade libel is the publication of matter disparaging the quality of another's property, which the publisher should recognize is likely to cause pecuniary loss to the owner. The tort encompasses 'all false statements concerning the quality of services or product of a business which are intended to cause that business financial harm and in fact do so.' To constitute trade libel, a statement must be false." ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal. App. 4th 993, 1010.

  • Name

    NATIONAL FUNDING INC VS ELHAG

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00006309-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2019

.; 6) unjust enrichment; and, 7) trade libel. On 6/13/22, Cross-Complainants, Jose Plata, Guadalupe Garcia, and Rosalio Plata Insurance Services, Inc. filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross Defendants, R.P. Insurance Services, Inc., Rosalio Plata, Jr., and Denise Plata alleging seven causes of action: 1) intentional interference with existing contractual relations; 2) trade libel; 3) violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et. seq.; 4) violation of Bus. & Prof.

  • Name

    R.P. INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS PLATA

  • Case No.

    CVPS2201562

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2023

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

On August 16, 2019 Plaintiff Global Healthcare Group, LLC filed this action against Does 1 through 100 for trade libel. Plaintiff is in the business of selling health care products to the public. On November 3, 2019, Doe 1, under the social media handle “realtaylorhunt5454,” publicly posted on Instagram the following statement: “This is a scam that is making people sick. This company is run by criminals.”

  • Name

    GLOBAL HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC VS DOE 1 DOE 1

  • Case No.

    19STCV29305

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

Demurrer to the Cross-Complaint: The demurrer to the first cause of action for trade libel is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND insofar as that claim is brought by cross-complainant DHA Holdings, Inc.; there are no clear allegations that cross-defendants made statements regarding that party. The demurrer to the first cause of action is also SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to cross-defendant KP Inc. as there are no charging allegations made against that party.

  • Name

    SANDY KOBEISSI, ET AL VS. DAN KOBEISSI, ET AL

  • Case No.

    EC068937

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2019

Although labeled trade libel, a demurrer looks to whether any cause of action is stated and is not bound by labels. General damages are presumed in a libel of a business person, while this is not so in action for trade libel. (Wong v. Tai Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1369.) Accordingly, the demurrer is overruled as to the third cause of action.

  • Name

    OZUNA ELECTRIC COMPANY INC. V. INTEGRATED PROCESS CONTROL ENGINEERING

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00827749-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2016

Trade libel is an intentional disparagement of the quality of services or product of a business that results in pecuniary damage to the plaintiff. ( City of Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio Investments, LLC (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 375-376, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 698; Leonardini v. Shell Oil Co. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 547, 572, 264 Cal.Rptr. 883.) Like defamation, trade libel requires a false statement of fact, not an expression of an opinion. ( Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc.

  • Name

    XINYUE GU VS YICHEN SUN

  • Case No.

    20STCV40876

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

Trade Libel "Trade libel is an intentional disparagement of the quality of services or product of a business that results in pecuniary damage to the plaintiff. (City of Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio Investments, LLC (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 375-376, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 698; Leonardini v. Shell Oil Co. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 547, 572, 264 Cal.Rptr. 883.) Like defamation, trade libel requires a false statement of fact, not an expression of an opinion. (Mann v.

  • Name

    DOG & ROOSTER INC VS GREEN

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00031852-CU-DF-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

These same false statements are alleged to form the basis for Plaintiffs trade libel claim, and are alleged to be unlawful under that standard. (SAC ¶¶ 203204.) Webcor, however, argues that the trade libel claim is also defective. A cause of action for trade libel thus requires (at a minimum): (1) a publication; (2) which induces others not to deal with plaintiff; and (3) special damages. ( Nichols v. Great American Ins. Companies (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 766, 773.)

  • Name

    RETROLOCK CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS NEXT CENTURY PARTNERS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV07384

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Second Cause of Action – Trade LibelTrade libel is the publication of matter disparaging the quality of another’s property, which the publisher should recognize is likely to cause pecuniary loss to the owner. [Citation.] The tort encompasses ‘all false statements concerning the quality of services or product of a business which are intended to cause that business financial harm and in fact do so.’ [Citation.] [¶] To constitute trade libel, a statement must be false.” City of Costa Mesa v.

  • Name

    ATIAS V. PHILLIPS

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00969733-CU-BT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2019

On June 29, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) commercial disparagement; (2) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; (3) extortion; and (4) unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200 et seq. On November 19, 2018, the Court held a case management conference along with an OSC re: dismissal.

  • Name

    AMERICAN DREAM INVESTING LLC ET AL VS MARK MUNOZ ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC712175

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2019

Cross-complainants allege facts sufficient for pleading purposes to constitute causes of action against cross-defendants for intentional interference with prospective economic relations (First Cause of Action by cross-complainant Trusted Tech Team, Inc., only), trade libel and defamation (Second and Eighth Causes of Action), conversion and trespass to chattels (Third and Fourth Causes of Action by Trusted Tech), and false designation of origin (Seventh Cause of Action by Trusted Tech).

  • Name

    MYCHOICE SOFTWARE, LLC VS. TRUSTED TECH TEAM, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00916709-CU-BT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2017

"Trade libel is an intentional disparagement of the quality of services or product of a business that results in pecuniary damage to the plaintiff. Like defamation, trade libel requires a false statement of fact, not an expression of an opinion. To constitute trade libel the statement must be made with actual malice, that is, with knowledge it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. The plaintiff must also plead and prove it actually suffered some pecuniary loss."

  • Name

    MUIR DDS VS NATHAN J HORNSBY DDS INC

  • Case No.

    37-2023-00003658-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

The FAC sufficiently alleges facts to support each element of defamation, trade libel, tortious interference, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Name

    MANDANA NAZAR, ET AL. VS SHAWN YADIDI, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV14376

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff 7T Pharma LLC filed this action against Defendant Hootan Melamed, alleging causes of action for (1) tortious interference with contract, (2) trade libel, (3) defamation, (4) violations of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and (5) declaratory relief. Defendant moves to strike the complaint pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16, the “anti-SLAPP” statute. In connection with the motion, Defendant requests judicial notice of court records; all RJNs are granted.

  • Name

    7T PHARMA LLC VS HOOTAN MELAMED

  • Case No.

    BC679542

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2018

As such, Defendant has carried his burden with respect to the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis regarding the defamation and trade libel causes of action. Even so, not every web site post involves a public issue for the purposes of C.C.P. § 425.16(e). (Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1366; C.C. v. R.R. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1226.)

  • Name

    LAW OFFICIES OF MICHAEL M. AHMADSHANI, A.P.C. V. SAQIB

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01163776

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2021

Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint on January 12, 2021, asserting causes of action for (1) trade libel/slander, (2) intentional and (3) negligent interference with prospective economic relations, (4) interference with contractual relations, (5) unfair competition, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (7) negligent supervision. The FAC alleges the following pertinent facts.

  • Name

    ALAN ELLIOTT, ET AL. VS BARRY TYERMAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV42553

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Trade libel is an intentional disparagement of the quality of services or product of a business that results in pecuniary damage to the plaintiff. ( City of Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio Investments, LLC (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 375-376, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 698; Leonardini v. Shell Oil Co. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 547, 572, 264 Cal.Rptr. 883.) Like defamation, trade libel requires a false statement of fact, not an expression of an opinion. ( Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc.

  • Name

    XINYUE GU VS YICHEN SUN

  • Case No.

    20STCV40876

  • Hearing

    Apr 23, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Trade Libel In opposition, Cross-Complainants argue that the trade libel claim was dismissed, mooting the instant motion. The Court concurs with Siegemund that dismissal does not moot the motion as to the trade libel cause of action. (See Law Offices of Andrew L. Ellis v.

  • Name

    DISCOVER BANK VS JENNIFER M FLOYD

  • Case No.

    19SMCV01975

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On May 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for defamation, trade libel, intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations. Plaintiff is a Los Angeles based manufacturer of electric buses. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sent three emails to prospective buyers.

  • Name

    TANEESHA WHITE VS KDW AUTOMOTIVE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV21136

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2019

R2Sonic and the individual defendants have cross-complained against Reson for trade libel, interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition. Trial is scheduled for November 7, 2012. On November 3, 2010, the court appointed Lawrence T. Sorensen as discovery referee to assist the court in resolving any discovery issues that may arise in the case. Since then, Mr.

  • Name

    RESON A/S ET AL VS R2SONIC LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    1342087

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2012

Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Written Contract; (2) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Negligence; (4) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (5) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; (6) Fraud; (7) Defamation/Trade Libel; (8) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (9) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

  • Name

    MOHAMMED ABDOUN, ET AL. VS SOUTH BAY CENTER SPE, LLC

  • Case No.

    21TRCV00531

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

As noted supra, none of Defendants’ statements were actually made about Plaintiff and Plaintiff therefore lacks standing to bring the cause of action of Libel. 2) Trade Libel ““Trade libel is the publication of matter disparaging the quality of another’s property, which the publisher should recognize is likely to cause pecuniary loss to the owner. [Citation.]

  • Name

    SAREEN INCORPORATED VS. VEGA

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00997742-CU-DF-CJC

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2018

TRADE LIBEL 4. UNJUST ENRICHMENT. MP Positions Moving party requests an order staying this case pending a decision and possible appeal, sometime after 1/5/23, on grounds including the following: · A temporary stay is necessary pending a Writ of Mandate decision involving the same parties in the action. · A stay will not prejudice any of the parties for a temporary stay.

  • Name

    EVAN MANCUSO VS FORTIFI FINANCIAL INC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV13182

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

.: 19STCV01236 Hearing Date: December 15, 2020 On January 15, 2019, Plaintiff Arozzi North America, Inc. filed suit against Michael Alexander Jahina, alleging: (1) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200—unfair business practices; (2) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200—false advertising; (3) trade libel; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) violation of Federal Unfair Competition Lanham Act, 15 USC

  • Name

    AROZZI NORTH AMERICA INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MICHAEL ALEXANDER JAHINA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV01236

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

.: BC596636 Hearing Date: February 3, 2017 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BACKGROUND On February 20, 2015, Plaintiffs Knights of Badassdom Production I, LLC, et al., filed a complaint asserting causes of action for (1) trade libel; (2) violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; (3) intentional interference with prospective economic relations; (4) libel; (5) libel per se; and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Name

    VALARIE J DAVIS VS CITIMORTGAGE INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC596636

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(Defendant or Reddit) with two causes of action for: (1) Trade Libel; and (2) False Light. On August 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint naming Defendant DOE 2 as Matt Fehring. On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint naming Defendant DOE 6 as Dan Moran and Defendant DOE 9 as Concierge Diamonda, Inc. On September 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC).

  • Name

    EDWIN NOVEL JEWELRY DESIGN, INC. VS REDDIT, INC.

  • Case No.

    23STCV14893

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Accordingly, the Court finds that KEMP failed to meet his initial burden that Plaintiffs’ causes of action for false light and trade libel arise under C.C.P. section 425.16(e) and the Motion is DENIED. Because the Second Amended Complaint does not arise from protected activity, the Court need not consider Plaintiffs’ probability of prevailing on the claims for false light and trade libel. (See California Back Specialists Med. Grp. v.

  • Name

    AMERICAN HERITAGE CAPITAL, LP VS. KEMP

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01109473

  • Hearing

    Apr 29, 2021

In Mann, the “[d]efendants successfully eliminated the trade libel cause of action.” Id. at 340. Mann reasoned, “Although trade libel bears similarity to the defamation claim that remained in the litigation, the two causes of action are not identical. Whereas defamation concerns injury to the reputation of a person or business, trade libel involves false disparagement of the quality of goods or services. [Citations.]

  • Name

    SUSANA CASTILLO VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC574911

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2016

disparagement / trade libel, (13) unfair competition, (14) inducing breach of contract, (15) intentional interference with contractual relations, (16) intentional interference with prospective contractual relations, (17) foreclosure of security interest, and (18) declaratory relief.

  • Name

    PAULA THOMAS ET AL VS THOMAS WYLDE LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC596495

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2017

Trade Libel (5 th COA) Trade libel is the publication of matter disparaging the quality of anothers property, which the publisher should recognize is likely to cause pecuniary loss to the owner. [Citation.] The tort encompasses all false statements concerning the quality of services or product of a business which are intended to cause that business financial harm and in fact do so. [Citation.] To constitute trade libel, a statement must be false. ( City of Costa Mesa v.

  • Name

    WASTEXPERTS, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV19512

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BACKGROUND: Cross-Complainant Maung Ye Htut Loo filed a cross-complaint on November 13, 2019 against Cross-Defendants Serj Soukaz Markarian and Arevik Soukazian for (1) fraud; (2) conspiracy to commit fraud; (3) breach of operating agreement; (4) trade libel; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; (6) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (7) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; (8) declaratory relief; and (9) breach of express warranty.

  • Name

    GLENOAKS RX INC ET AL VS MAUNG YE HTUT LOO

  • Case No.

    BC721862

  • Hearing

    May 13, 2019

Nonetheless, the Court does not find that the actions sufficiently share common questions of fact or law to warrant consolidation, particularly where one action concerns a business dispute and related claims of defamation and trade libel and the other action concerns allegations of childhood sexual abuse occurring decades ago.

  • Name

    SANDY KOBEISSI, ET AL VS. DAN KOBEISSI, ET AL

  • Case No.

    EC068937

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

.; 6) unjust enrichment; and, 7) trade libel. On 6/13/22, Cross-Complainants, Jose Plata, Guadalupe Garcia, and Rosalio Plata Insurance Services, Inc. filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross Defendants, R.P. Insurance Services, Inc., Rosalio Plata, Jr., and Denise Plata alleging seven causes of action: 1) intentional interference with existing contractual relations; 2) trade libel; 3) violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et. seq.; 4) violation of Bus. & Prof.

  • Name

    R.P. INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS PLATA

  • Case No.

    CVPS2201562

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

.; 6) unjust enrichment; and, 7) trade libel. On 6/13/22, Cross-Complainants, Jose Plata, Guadalupe Garcia, and Rosalio Plata Insurance Services, Inc. filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross Defendants, R.P. Insurance Services, Inc., Rosalio Plata, Jr., and Denise Plata alleging seven causes of action: 1) intentional interference with existing contractual relations; 2) trade libel; 3) violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et. seq.; 4) violation of Bus. & Prof.

  • Name

    R.P. INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS PLATA

  • Case No.

    CVPS2201562

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

.; 6) unjust enrichment; and, 7) trade libel. On 6/13/22, Cross-Complainants, Jose Plata, Guadalupe Garcia, and Rosalio Plata Insurance Services, Inc. filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross Defendants, R.P. Insurance Services, Inc., Rosalio Plata, Jr., and Denise Plata alleging seven causes of action: 1) intentional interference with existing contractual relations; 2) trade libel; 3) violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et. seq.; 4) violation of Bus. & Prof.

  • Name

    R.P. INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS PLATA

  • Case No.

    CVPS2201562

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

(CCP § 425.17(c)(1)-2)) In the 6th cause of action for trade libel [alleged against all defendants] and 7th cause of action for defamation [alleged against Perricone], plaintiffs allege: "Plaintiffs are informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, have made false and defamatory statements regarding StemGenex's products and services to the extend [sic] that they have informed prospective patients of StemGenex that StemGenex has not had any good outcomes of

  • Name

    STEMGENEX INC VS PERRICONE

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00012581-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2017

Third Cause of Action: Trade Libel The third cause of action is for trade libel. Trade libel is similar to defamation. A plaintiff must plead “a knowingly false or misleading publication that derogates another’s property or business and results in special damages.” (Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 277, 291.) TMI argues “[f]or the reasons discussed above, Luminati failed to state a claim for trade libel.” (Mem. of Pts. & Auth. at p. 10:8.)

  • Name

    LUMINATI NETWORKS, LTD. V. TREND MICRO, INC.

  • Case No.

    19CV347274

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

Plaintiff’s SAC, filed after Defendants’ demurrer was filed, alleges additional causes of action for commercial disparagement and defamation, among other new allegations. On December 20, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to strike the SAC on the grounds that Plaintiff had already amended its complaint once as a matter of right pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 472(a), and that the SAC was improperly filed without leave of court.

  • Name

    ALLIANCE READY MIX, INC. V. PAPICH

  • Case No.

    19CV-0561

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

Case No. 21STCV46583 MOTION TO QUASH Plaintiffs Mandana Nazar and Fole, Inc. dba as Suncare Medical Supplies (Suncare) (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against Defendants Shawn Yadidi, Promed Medical Supplies (Promed), and Navid Zad (collectively, Defendants) asserting 22 causes of action for employment-based claims, discrimination and sexual harassment, defamation and trade libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with existing and prospective contractual

  • Name

    MANDANA NAZAR, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS SHAWN YADIDI, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV46583

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Michael Goss, Case No. 20SMCV00846 Hearing Date 7/8/2020 Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Seal the Action and Case File and Set Aside Dismissal Plaintiffs filed this action on June 26, 2020, alleging defamation and trade libel. Plaintiffs’ complaint allegedly “included and disclosed erroneous information and wrongly, and in a faulty manner, confused parties and material witnesses.” Motion at pg. 3.

  • Name

    ABBEY RESTAURANTS AND BARS USA-LA, LLC, ET AL. VS MICHAEL GOSS

  • Case No.

    20SMCV00846

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action for malicious prosecution and trade libel against Defendant Daniel Hernandez (“Defendant”). (See Compl.) Default was entered against Defendant on May 27, 2014. On October 12, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate the Entry of Default (the “Motion”) under CCP § 585.5(b). II.

  • Name

    CAMACHO, OMAR VS HERNANDEZ, DANIEL

  • Case No.

    13K06367

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendant argues that the second cause of action for trade libel fails because Plaintiff cannot show any damages. Plaintiff’s evidentiary showing of damages, however, is not before the court on the instant motion. The Complaint is not legally deficient as to the trade libel claim as it clearly alleges damages. (Compl. ¶ 35.) Defendant’s reliance upon Erlich v. Etner (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 69, 73 and Mann v.

  • Name

    PARAMOUNT CONTRACTORS & DEVELOPERS INC VS RILEY RAY ROBBINS

  • Case No.

    BC632702

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2017

The notice of motion stated: Specifically, the Schwartzbergs seek to strike the FAC’s (i) Second Cause of Action for Breach of Written Contract, (ii) Fourth Cause of Action for Specific Performance, (iii) Tenth Cause of Action for Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, (iv) Eleventh Cause of Action for Trade Libel, and (v) Twelfth Cause of Action for Unfair Competition Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17200.

  • Name

    RIVAS-STOLLER EQUITIES LLC VS ANDREW NATHAN SCHWARTZBERG, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV21477

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Trade Libel Trade libel is the publication of matter disparaging the quality of anothers property, which the publisher should recognize is likely to cause pecuniary loss to the owner. ( ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1010 [citing Leonardini v. Shell Oil Co. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 547, 572].)

  • Name

    ABBEY RESTAURANTS AND BARS USA-LA, LLC VS HAELY SMALLE

  • Case No.

    21STCV30363

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Kettler’s trade libel claim asserted as his Fourth Cause of Cction requires proof that the Goulds made false statements that they knew to be true or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity – elements that are equivalent to intentional conduct. (CACI 1731.)

  • Name

    LESLIE GOULD, ET AL VS. JOEL D. KETTLER, ET AL

  • Case No.

    LC101909

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

The complaint, including the proposed amended complaint, revolves around property issues (i.e., quiet title, trespass, private nuisance and public nuisance) while the proposed cross-complaint revolves around defamation and trade libel arising from statements made in a Petition that was apparently circulated amongst neighbors of the defendants' property after the complaint was filed. This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing at 10:30 a.m. on Friday, October 19, 2018.

  • Name

    DITTENHOEFER VS 4030 GOLDFINCH INVESTMENTS

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00022839-CU-OR-NC

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2018

R2Sonic and the individual defendants have cross- complained against Reson for trade libel, interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition. Trial is scheduled for October 2, 2013. Motion: Defendants move to file under seal a motion for an order prohibiting disclosure of defendant’s highly confidential information to Raymond Andraka, who is plaintiffs’ retained expert, and two declarations in support of that motion.

  • Name

    RESON A/S ET AL VS R2SONIC LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    1342087

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2013

BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) unfair competition; (2) intentional interference with contracts; (3) intentional interference with prospective advantage; (4) trade libel. Plaintiff’s complaint arises from alleged wrongful actions by Defendants in misappropriating Plaintiff’s customer list and financial business model.

  • Name

    ASTON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INC VS METABRAND MARKETING ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC692057

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2019

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope