What is trade libel?

Useful Rulings on Trade Libel

Recent Rulings on Trade Libel

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

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.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MATTHEW JACQUES VS THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALITY, ET AL.

D'Alessio Investments, LLC (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 383 [“The torts of trade libel and defamation are not encompassed by [Government Code] section 818.8 because they involve reputational harm for which the Legislature did not intend to grant immunity,” citation omitted].)

  • Hearing

GARRETT D. LEEVERS VS NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.

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.

  • Hearing

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

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.

  • Hearing

NATIONAL VOLLEYBALL ASSOCIATION INC. VS VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE OF AMERICA INC.

Defendant Lloy Ball’s Demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action for Trade Libel in Plaintiff’s Complaint is OVERRULED. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (e)). The complaint adequately alleges facts required to state a cause of action for trade libel. (See Polygram Records, Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 543, 548; Erlich v. Etner (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 69, 74; CACI 1731).

  • Hearing

TULLY VS CHOUINARD

Even the trade libel claim has different elements from defamation. (See, e.g., CACI no. 1731.) Therefore, Plaintiff has not met his burden on the non-defamation claims, and the motion is granted as to causes of action three, four and five.

  • Hearing

GLOBAL HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC VS DOE 1 DOE 1

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.”

  • Hearing

KENNETH L. CREAL; ET AL VS AMITISS NASIRI; ET AL

On June 10, 2019, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint for (1) defamation per se, (2) defamation per quod, (3) trade libel, and (4) intentional infliction with prospective economic advantage. On August 30, 2019, the court denied defendant Nasiri’s special motion to strike. The FSC was set for February 6, 2020, and continued to February 18, 2020. On July 29, 2020, defendant Nasiri dismissed the cross-complaint. On August 10, 2020, defendant filed the herein motion.

  • Hearing

BLACKBERRY CORPORATION, ET AL. V. SENTINEL LABS, INC., ET AL.

In their opposition, plaintiffs urge that their complaint states a claim under the UCL’s unlawful prong, because they allege conduct by SentinelOne amounting to trade libel. (See Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

HOME FROM HOME HAYNES, LLC, ET AL. VS GREEN MOVEMENT BUILDERS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On June 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their 14 cause of action complaint for Invasion of Privacy (False Light), Defamation (Per Se and Per Quod – Libel and Slander), Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Trade Libel, Civil Harassment, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, Wrongful Eviction, Forcible Entry, Quiet Title, Declaratory Relief, Intentional Misrepresentation, Conversion, and Trespass to Chattels.

  • Hearing

AASIR AZZARMI VS WENDY CHAU, ET AL.

Relihan, Clifford Schwenker, Hana Bruce, Kristina Keifer, Jazzmaine Francis, Susan Judson, Christ Catania, and Charlotte Ling for (1) defamation-libel, (2) defamation-libel per se, (3) defamation-slander, (4) defamation-slander per se, (5) defamation at common law and pursuant to Civil Code §46, (6) IIED, (7) trade libel, (8) violation of Bus. & Prof.

  • Hearing

BIZTRACKER SYSTEMS OF ST. JOHN, LLC VS LAVCO SOLUTIONS, INC.

Given the different subject matter and legal principles at issue here and in the federal case, the federal court's ruling on the trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, and unfair business practices claims, will likely not address issues relevant to the Court's determinations of the issues regarding the interference with Plaintiff’s contract with Amazon, trade libel, and unfair business act.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

EVO ENTERPRISES INC VS COOK

.) ¶ 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)." J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Phillips & Cohen LLP (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 87, 97 [201 Cal.Rptr.3d 782, 790] "[B]ecause a defamatory statement (or trade libel) must contain a provable falsehood, mere opinions are not actionable unless the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact. (GetFugu, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

EVO ENTERPRISES INC VS COOK

.) ¶ 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)." J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Phillips & Cohen LLP (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 87, 97 [201 Cal.Rptr.3d 782, 790] "[B]ecause a defamatory statement (or trade libel) must contain a provable falsehood, mere opinions are not actionable unless the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact. (GetFugu, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

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

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.

  • Hearing

AASIR AZZARMI VS WENDY CHAU, ET AL.

Relihan, Clifford Schwenker, Hana Bruce, Kristina Keifer, Jazzmaine Francis, Susan Judson, Christ Catania, and Charlotte Ling for (1) defamation-libel, (2) defamation-libel per se, (3) defamation-slander, (4) defamation-slander per se, (5) defamation at common law and pursuant to Civil Code §46, (6) IIED, (7) trade libel, (8) violation of Bus. & Prof.

  • Hearing

ESCAMILLA V. PERRY

The court’s decision striking paragraph 16 resulted in the court’s decision granting Defendants’ Motion as to the third cause of action for Trade Libel. This result carried no practical benefit to Defendants in the context of this case. Except for the Trade Libel cause of action, the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action rest upon the allegations of both paragraphs 14 and 16. (Complaint ¶¶ 17, 27, 28, 41, 42, 46, 47, 50, and 52.) The second cause of action for Slander Per Se remains.

  • Hearing

BRETT STRADER VS. LAFAYETTE-ORINDA

Background In this defamation action, plaintiff asserts three causes of action against his employer (defendant Lafayette-Orinda Presbyterian Church, hereinafter “LOPC”) and co-worker, David Englebrekston: (1) Slander Per Se, (2) Libel Per Se, and (3) Trade Libel. He alleges that Mr. Englebrekston told “LOPC management” that plaintiff was "abusive" toward janitorial staff working on the church premises. (Complaint, ¶¶14-16.)

  • Hearing

EFD USA INC ET AL VS BAND PRO FILM AND DIGITAL INC ET AL

This reference to false statements directly connects with Plaintiffs’ proposed trade libel which they purportedly are not reviving with this amendment. In a case like this which has been litigated for nearly three years and has featured numerous acrimonious discovery disputes, the addition of these new facts and causes of action is not warranted. C. Conclusion Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is denied.

  • Hearing

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

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.

  • Hearing

DOG & ROOSTER INC VS GREEN

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

DAMBROSIO TRADING, INC. V. NEIGHBORHOOD INDUSTRIES, INC.

., violence, misrepresentation, unfounded litigation, defamation, trade libel or trade mark infringement.” (PMC, Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 579, 603, internal citations omitted, overruled on other grounds by Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., supra, 29 Cal.4th 1134.) However, it is not enough that defendant acted with an improper motive in engaging in the conduct; the conduct itself must be independently wrongful. (Korea Supply Co., supra, at p. 1159, fn. 11.)

  • Hearing

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

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.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MONTECITO CARE AND MORE, INC., ET AL. V. DOROTA LOSITZKI

On November 27, 2019, MCM filed an amended complaint (“SAC”), adding the Laszuks as plaintiffs and additional causes of action against Lositzki for breach of contract – third party beneficiaries, fraud, intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, negligent interference with prospective economic relations, slander, and trade libel.

  • Hearing

MONTECITO CARE & MORE, INC., ET AL. V. DOROTA LOSITZKI

The SAC now asserts eleven causes of action, including requests for damages, and for temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of contract—third party beneficiaries; (3) trespass; (4) ejectment; (5) fraud; (6) intentional interference with contractual relations; (7) intentional interference with prospective economic relations; (8) negligent interference with prospective economic relations; (9) slander; (10) trade libel; and, (11) breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.