What is trade libel?

Useful Rulings on Trade Libel

Recent Rulings on Trade Libel

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

    Jul 08, 2020

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

    Jul 07, 2020

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

    Jul 07, 2020

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

    Jun 25, 2020

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

    Mar 13, 2020

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

    Feb 28, 2020

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

    Feb 27, 2020

  • 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

    Feb 25, 2020

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

    Feb 21, 2020

  • 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

    Feb 03, 2020

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

    Jan 27, 2020

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

    Jan 02, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

Defendant’s demurrer to Allied’s sixth and final cause of action for trade libel will likewise be sustained.

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

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

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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

MICHAEL EISENBERG VS CHAD MCQUEEN, ET AL.

The Complaint alleges four causes of action: (1) tortious interference with contract, (2) intentional interference with economic advantage, (3) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and (4) trade libel. On September 30, 2019, Defendant filed the instant motion. Plaintiff filed an opposition. DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS Exhibits The court overrules Defendant’s objections exhibits 1 & 2. The objections to exhibits 3 & 4 are sustained.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

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

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.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

JYOTISH PATEL, ET AL. V. ELEMENT HOSPITALITY, LLC, ET AL.

Trade libel consists of “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.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

BASIL RAGO VS. JOSE RAPOSO

., violence, misrepresentation, unfounded litigation, defamation, trade libel or trade mark infringement. [Citation.]” (Pmc, Inc. v. Saban Entm't (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 579, 603.) The Ragos allege that Lashkoff interfered in their economic relationship with the Raposos on September 27 and September 28. (Comp. ¶¶ 67-68.) Defendants argue that Lashkoff did not commit any wrongful act. This argument has merit.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2019

WELL-MED GLOBAL, LLC VS NHT GLOBAL, INC.; ET AL

., Joe Garcia, Dan Catto, Justin Crowder, Sandra Conard, and Awesome Synergy, Inc. for (1) intentional interference with contractual relations, (2) intentional interference with prospective economic interest, (3) trade libel, (4) misappropriation of trade secrets, (5) violation of Bus. and Prof. Code §17200, and (6) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

MARTIN VS SAINI

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.]

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2019

101 VERMONT AUTO GROUP INC ET AL VS THE JOONG ANG DAILY NEW

Plaintiffs filed the complaint on January 17, 2017, alleging four causes of action against all Defendants: (1) defamation — libel; (2) trade libel; (3) false light; and (4) negligence. Defendant Kim now moves the court for summary adjudication in his favor on the following issue: ISSUE #1: Plaintiffs' Claims for Punitive Damages are Without Merit because there are no triable issues of material fact as to this issue and Defendant is entitled to summary adjudication on this issue as a matter of law. (Not.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2019

DURAN V. HR BENEFITS CONSULTING, INC. ET AL.

Trade Libel 15. Injunctive Relief 16. Declaratory Relief (Non-Solicitation) Procedurally, the party moving to compel arbitration must file a noticed motion (or petition if no lawsuit is currently pending), prepared in accordance with the rules applicable to motions generally. (Knight, Fannin, Chernick & Haldeman, California Practice Guide: Alternative Dispute Resolution (Rutter Group 2017) “Contractual Arbitration” §§ 5:301, 5:304; Code Civ. Proc. §1290.2.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.