Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
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 citing City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio Investments, LLC (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 376.; see also ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1010; Polygram Records, Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 543, 548; CACI 1731.)
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. City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio Investments, LLC (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 376 citing ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1010. Trade libel also requires a showing by plaintiff that “it actually suffered some pecuniary loss.” (J-M Manufacturing, supra 247 Cal.App.4th at 97.)
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.” City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio Investments, LLC (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 376. “To constitute trade libel, a statement must be false.” Id.
The tort of trade libel is a form of injurious falsehood similar to slander of title. See Polygram Records, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 543, 548; Erlich v. Etner (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 69, 74.
Trade libel requires a statement that is false and “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.” Id.; see also Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 277, 291.
A claim for trade libel must be pled specifically and to survive a demurrer the complaint must set forth the specific statements alleged to be harmful. (Industrial Waste & Debris Box Service, Inc. v. Murphy (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1135, 1157; Vogel v. Felice (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1017, fn. 3 (“[T]he words constituting an alleged libel must be specifically identified, if not pleaded verbatim, in the complaint.”).)
The elements of a claim of trade libel are:
Nichols v. Great American Ins. Companies (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 766, 773; see also, ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1011 (generally discussing elements); J-M Manuf. Co., Inc. v. Phillips & Cohen LLP (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 87, 97; also CACI no. 1731.
“Trade 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,... [T]he 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.... Usually,...the damages claimed have consisted of loss of prospective contracts with the plaintiff’s customers.’” Nichols, supra, 169 Cal.App.3d at 773 citing Erlich v. Etner (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 69, 73. “[N]otwithstanding, it is not absolutely necessary that the disparaging publication be intentionally designed to injure. If the statement was understood in its disparaging sense and if the understanding is a reasonable construction of the language used or the acts done by the publisher, it is not material that the publisher did not intend the disparaging statement to be so understood. Rest.2d Torts, Sec. 629, com. f, at 350. The possibility of liability for negligent disparagement is crucial in the instant case, because if defendant’s conduct was intentional... there was no ‘occurrence’ as defined by the policies.” Id; see also Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 299, 295. “Disparagement by ‘reasonable implication’ requires more than a statement that may conceivably or plausibly be construed as derogatory to a specific product or business. A ‘reasonable implication’ in this context means a clear or necessary inference.” Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 299, 295 (citations omitted).
Trade libel differs from defamation in that the plaintiff “must prove special damages in the form of pecuniary loss; he must carry the burden of proving that the disparaging statement is false; and ‘such personal elements of damage as mental distress have been strictly excluded from these claims.’” Guess v. Super. Ct. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 473, 479 (citation omitted); see Polygram Records v. Super. Ct. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 543, 549 (citing the text distinguishing trade libel and defamation).
The statute of limitations for a trade libel claim is two years pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code § 339.
A party may raise the statute of limitations as a basis for challenging the sufficiency of a pleading, it must be shown that the statute clearly and affirmatively bars the action. (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315-16.)
Unlike “ordinary” libel, general damages are not presumed in a trade libel cause of action. To recover for trade libel, there is a greater burden of proof resting on the plaintiff to show special damage in all cases. (Erlich v. Etner (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 69, 73-74.)
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. (Id.)
Plaintiffs can only get fees “[i]f the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay”. Code of Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c).
A “prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs”. Code of Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c). However, a fee award is not required when the motion, though partially successful, was of no practical effect. Moran v. Endres (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 952, 955–956; see also Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 328, 340 (“Where the results of the motion are ‘“minimal”’ or ‘insignificant’ a court does not abuse its discretion in finding the defendant was not a prevailing party”).
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.
INSTANT INFOSYSTEMS INC VS OPENTEXT INC
BC619405
Oct 03, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
SCSA GROUP, INC. VS. WORDEN
30-2017-00902045-CU-MC-CJC
Aug 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
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.
ALLIANCE ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL. VS HARRY HOU, ET AL.
19GDCV00845
Nov 22, 2019
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.
HRD COFFEE SHOP INC. VS. RICHARD TOM
CGC15544434
Dec 14, 2015
San Francisco County, CA
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.
SPOTLIGHT TICKET MANAGEMENT, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION VS EBAY INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
20VECV00691
Jul 27, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.” 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.”
VIDILLION, INC. VS. LKQD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
30-2019-01086411
Feb 17, 2021
Orange 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.]
MARTIN VS SAINI
MSC19-00297
Oct 16, 2019
Contra Costa 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.)
J&J MARSHALL VS KONETI
56-2013-00445653-CU-NP-VTA
Jun 02, 2014
Ventura County, CA
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.
JLS DEVELOPMENT GROUP VS SWAUGER HEARING RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COMPLAINT OF JLS DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC BY CATHLEEN MARMON, MICHAEL MARMON
PSC1800925
Oct 27, 2020
Riverside County, CA
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.
INHERITOR CELL TECHNOLOGY (USA), INC. VS AGAPECORD, LLC, ET AL.
20STCV03185
Jun 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.)
BURN YOUNG, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS HOME SHOPPING WORLD, AN ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM, ET AL.
20STCV40759
Feb 23, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.
I3 VERTICALS, LLC VS. TOOTIKIAN
30-2016-00870402-CU-BT-CJC
Mar 17, 2017
Orange County, CA
Conduct de novo review of $50 small claims J on "false light"/trade libel case alleging damages from unnecessary audit. gmr
GREEN PHARMACEUTICALS VS. SEAN THORNHILL
56-2009-00341391-SC-SC-VTA
Aug 03, 2009
Ventura County, CA
Other
Small Claims
The Complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for trade libel and permanent injunction. The Motion to Strike is DENIED.
STEIN VS. SAN DIEGO CENTER FOR FAMILY HEALTH APC
37-2019-00008552-CU-BT-CTL
Sep 19, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.
INFAB CORPORATION VS. LITE TECH INC.
56-2014-00454092-CU-BC-VTA
Feb 11, 2015
Ventura County, CA
Trade Libel and Defamation: Only Plaintiff Island Medical Devices, Inc. (“IMD”) alleges trade libel and only Plaintiff Kiper alleges defamation per se.
ISLAND MEDICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC. V. DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
30-2019-01061540
Aug 08, 2019
Orange County, CA
[Citation.] [¶ ] To constitute trade libel, a statement must be false.” (City of Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio Investments, LLC (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 376.) Here, the FAC fails to satisfy these pleading requirements against the Hologic Defendants because the FAC does not allege that Hologic or Pierce made any statements. IMD’s trade libel claim is based on three alleged statements.
ISLAND MEDICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC. VS HOLOGIC, INC.
30-2020-01136814
Mar 15, 2021
Orange County, CA
Fourth 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. 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.
FURRA V. PAPPAS, ET AL.
30-2018-01032672-CU-MC-CJC
Aug 09, 2019
Orange County, CA
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.
DOG & ROOSTER INC VS GREEN
37-2019-00031852-CU-DF-CTL
Feb 27, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
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.
ALLIED HEALTH RESOURCES, INC. VS ALAN E MALKI, MD
19CV03177
Feb 21, 2020
Santa Barbara 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.)
BOND 330 UNION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS COMMON LIVING, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
20STCV25798
Dec 23, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
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.
DIAMOND JAMBOREE, LTD. V ZHU
30-2015-00803740-CU-MC-CJC
Oct 18, 2016
Orange County, CA
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.
TSUNAMI VR INC VS KARP
37-2018-00026332-CU-DF-CTL
May 09, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
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.)
FIGULI, ET AL. V. MILANINIA, ET AL.
20CV370807
Jul 22, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
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.
SDPB HOLDINGS LLC VS. ROBERT EMERICK
37-2017-00016019-CU-BT-CTL
Apr 12, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.
SDPB HOLDINGS LLC VS. ROBERT EMERICK
37-2017-00016019-CU-BT-CTL
Oct 26, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.
ALLIANCE ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL. VS HARRY HOU, ET AL.
19GDCV00845
Feb 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.]
20STCV37618B
Jan 10, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
DR SEBIS OFFICE INC ET AL VS PATSY WILLIAMS ET AL
BC665526
Sep 12, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
CHRISTINA MEI-LING CHAO LIN VS JORGE GOMEZ
EC066342
Jan 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
J&J MARSHALL VS KONETI
56-2013-00445653-CU-NP-VTA
Mar 11, 2014
Ventura 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.
GARRETT D. LEEVERS VS NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.
SC128570
Nov 03, 2020
Los Angeles 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.
EAST & WEST VS. SAHARA AFGHANI
MSC18-01057
Feb 20, 2019
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
MANDANA NAZAR, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS SHAWN YADIDI, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
21STCV46583
Apr 14, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
NATIONAL STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION VS. GLASSMAN
37-2016-00014339-CU-DF-CTL
Jan 09, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
Thus, a one-year limitations period applies to the trade libel cause of action as it is alleged in the FACC.
DTI SERVICES, INC. VS SHINICHI KAKEFU
21TRCV00617
Feb 10, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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
PAMELA TAYLOR ET AL VS STEVEN J KENT ET AL
1159327
Apr 28, 2005
Denise deBellefeuille
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
DEBTOR IN POSSESSION DDC GROUP INC VS LUIS ANTHONY RIOS ET A
BC717004
Nov 20, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.
JLS DEVELOPMENT GROUP VS SWAUGER
PSC 1800925
Jul 10, 2018
Riverside County, CA
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.
NATIONAL FUNDING INC VS ELHAG
37-2019-00006309-CU-BT-CTL
May 16, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.
BAY AREA CONSTORIUM FOR QUALI VS ALAMEDA ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH
RG15763430
Feb 09, 2021
Alameda 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.”
GLOBAL HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC VS DOE 1 DOE 1
19STCV29305
Sep 08, 2020
Los Angeles 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.
R.P. INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS PLATA
CVPS2201562
Apr 18, 2023
Riverside County, CA
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.
SANDY KOBEISSI, ET AL VS. DAN KOBEISSI, ET AL
EC068937
Mar 15, 2019
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.
XINYUE GU VS YICHEN SUN
20STCV40876
Jan 14, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
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.
OZUNA ELECTRIC COMPANY INC. V. INTEGRATED PROCESS CONTROL ENGINEERING
30-2015-00827749-CU-BC-CJC
Sep 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
Moreover, Plaintiff offers that it could not have filed an action for trade libel when it first filed its Compliant given that California Courts have held that in trade libel cases [T]he plaintiff must prove in all cases that the publication has played a material and substantial part in inducing others not to deal with him, and that as a result he has suffered special damages. ( Erlich v. Etner (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 69, 74.)
JOSEPH CONSTRUCTION, A SOLE OWNERSHIP VS ANDY TRAN
22NWCV00977
Jan 02, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
RETROLOCK CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS NEXT CENTURY PARTNERS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
21STCV07384
Nov 01, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
DOG & ROOSTER INC VS GREEN
37-2019-00031852-CU-DF-CTL
Oct 03, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
Second Cause of Action – 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.
ATIAS V. PHILLIPS
30-2018-00969733-CU-BT-CJC
Jun 13, 2019
Orange County, CA
This amount fairly compensates Siegemunds counsel for their efforts in responding to the dismissed trade libel cause of action in the cross-complaint. Therefore, the motion for fees is GRANTED in the reduced total amount of $21,902.50. Costs are awarded in the total amount of $176.79. Fees are payable within 30 days.
KAREN SIEGEMUND VS LE LYCEE FRANCAIS DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
19SMCV01976
Apr 23, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, the Court agrees with the opposition in that the cause of action for trade libel directly responds to the Court’s reasons for sustaining the demurrer to the first amended cross-complaint’s interference claims that were required to but then did not plead wrongful conduct beyond the interference itself. The trade libel claim satisfies this standard.
PAULA THOMAS ET AL VS THOMAS WYLDE LLC ET AL
BC596495
Apr 18, 2017
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. 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."
MUIR DDS VS NATHAN J HORNSBY DDS INC
37-2023-00003658-CU-BC-CTL
Jun 23, 2023
San Diego County, CA
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).
MYCHOICE SOFTWARE, LLC VS. TRUSTED TECH TEAM, INC.
30-2017-00916709-CU-BT-CJC
Aug 01, 2017
Orange 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.
DISCOVER BANK VS JENNIFER M FLOYD
19SMCV01975
Sep 21, 2023
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.
XINYUE GU VS YICHEN SUN
20STCV40876
Apr 23, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ALAN ELLIOTT, ET AL. VS BARRY TYERMAN, ET AL.
20STCV42553
Feb 09, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
LAW OFFICIES OF MICHAEL M. AHMADSHANI, A.P.C. V. SAQIB
30-2020-01163776
Mar 04, 2021
Orange 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.
7T PHARMA LLC VS HOOTAN MELAMED
BC679542
Jan 18, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
The FAC sufficiently alleges facts to support each element of defamation, trade libel, tortious interference, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
MANDANA NAZAR, ET AL. VS SHAWN YADIDI, ET AL.
21STCV14376
Aug 13, 2021
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.]
SAREEN INCORPORATED VS. VEGA
30-2018-00997742-CU-DF-CJC
Sep 28, 2018
Orange County, CA
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.
MOHAMMED ABDOUN, ET AL. VS SOUTH BAY CENTER SPE, LLC
21TRCV00531
Feb 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
EVAN MANCUSO VS FORTIFI FINANCIAL INC, ET AL.
22STCV13182
Jul 01, 2022
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.
TANEESHA WHITE VS KDW AUTOMOTIVE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV21136
Oct 07, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
RESON A/S ET AL VS R2SONIC LLC ET AL
1342087
Jun 27, 2012
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.]
SUSANA CASTILLO VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL
BC574911
Nov 09, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
(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).
EDWIN NOVEL JEWELRY DESIGN, INC. VS REDDIT, INC.
23STCV14893
Feb 01, 2024
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.
AMERICAN HERITAGE CAPITAL, LP VS. KEMP
30-2019-01109473
Apr 29, 2021
Orange County, CA
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.
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.
22STCV19512
Sep 29, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
.: 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.
VALARIE J DAVIS VS CITIMORTGAGE INC ET AL
BC596636
Feb 03, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
.: 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
AROZZI NORTH AMERICA INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MICHAEL ALEXANDER JAHINA, ET AL.
19STCV01236
Dec 15, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.
CARTAMUNDI USA, INC. VS MIGUEL HENAO
VC066674
May 03, 2018
RAUL A.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
LUMINATI NETWORKS, LTD. V. TREND MICRO, INC.
19CV347274
Nov 07, 2019
Santa Clara 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.
R.P. INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS PLATA
CVPS2201562
Oct 22, 2022
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.
R.P. INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS PLATA
CVPS2201562
Oct 23, 2022
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.
R.P. INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS PLATA
CVPS2201562
Oct 24, 2022
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
STEMGENEX INC VS PERRICONE
37-2017-00012581-CU-BC-CTL
Jul 27, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
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.
SANDY KOBEISSI, ET AL VS. DAN KOBEISSI, ET AL
EC068937
Oct 18, 2019
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.
GLENOAKS RX INC ET AL VS MAUNG YE HTUT LOO
BC721862
May 13, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
RIVAS-STOLLER EQUITIES LLC VS ANDREW NATHAN SCHWARTZBERG, ET AL.
19STCV21477
Jul 13, 2021
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.
PARAMOUNT CONTRACTORS & DEVELOPERS INC VS RILEY RAY ROBBINS
BC632702
Jan 31, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
(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.
CAMACHO, OMAR VS HERNANDEZ, DANIEL
13K06367
Nov 28, 2018
Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi
Los Angeles County, CA
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
MANDANA NAZAR, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS SHAWN YADIDI, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
21STCV46583
Feb 14, 2024
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.
ABBEY RESTAURANTS AND BARS USA-LA, LLC, ET AL. VS MICHAEL GOSS
20SMCV00846
Jul 08, 2020
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].)
ABBEY RESTAURANTS AND BARS USA-LA, LLC VS HAELY SMALLE
21STCV30363
Nov 17, 2021
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.)
LESLIE GOULD, ET AL VS. JOEL D. KETTLER, ET AL
LC101909
Nov 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
.) ¶ 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.
EVO ENTERPRISES INC VS COOK
37-2020-00005592-CU-DF-CTL
Jul 16, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
As to the defamation and trade libel causes of action, the question is whether the alleged statements were of fact or opinion. (Campanelli v. Regents of University of California (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 572, 578.) "The critical determination of whether an allegedly defamatory statement constitutes fact or opinion is a question of law for the court." (Id.)
BASU VS SULLIVAN
37-2016-00042936-CU-BC-CTL
Jun 15, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
Eleventh and Twelfth COA: Slander Per Se (Defamation) and Trade Libel Defendants claim that the defamation and trade libel claims fail because they are not pleaded with particularity. Defendants argue that particularity is required, asserting “[w]ell developed case law” and citing no authority. Although the “general rule is that the words constituting an alleged libel must be specifically identified, if not pleaded verbatim, in the complaint,” Gilbert v.
VAEDYNN ERLANDSON VS ADVANCED NUTRIENTS US LLC ET AL
BC664883
Apr 30, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
As a result, on 7/21/21 Plaintiff filed this action for libel, trade libel/trade disparagement, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. On 10/17/22, Plaintiffs served Defendant with Requests for Admissions by mail making responses due on or before 11/21/22. CCP 2033.250(a); (Awad Decl. ¶4, Ex.1). No verified responses have been received. (Awad Decl. ¶8).
RANDALL AWAD, ET AL. VS MARY MIKHAIL NESSIM
21CHCV00538
Feb 10, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ASTON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INC VS METABRAND MARKETING ET AL
BC692057
Jul 15, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.
RESON A/S ET AL VS R2SONIC LLC ET AL
1342087
Feb 27, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
As a result, on 7/21/21 Plaintiff filed this action for libel, trade libel/trade disparagement, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.
RANDALL AWAD, ET AL. VS MARY MIKHAIL NESSIM
21CHCV00538
Dec 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
DITTENHOEFER VS 4030 GOLDFINCH INVESTMENTS
37-2016-00022839-CU-OR-NC
Oct 18, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
In opposition, Plaintiff correctly points out Defendants [m]otion does not specifically address any of the elements required to prove trade libel, but appears to contend that the evidence cannot establish that McQueens statement that he confirmed that Mr. [Steve] McQueen never gifted the watch in question to Loren Janes was false as a matter of fact, a central element for trade libel. (Opp., 19-20.)
MICHAEL EISENBERG VS CHAD MCQUEEN, ET AL.
19STCV19669
Aug 10, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
TRADE LIBEL & DEFAMATION — FIFTH AND SIXTH CAUSES OF ACTION Trade libel consists of the publication of false statements of fact about the quality of services or product of a business which the publisher intends, knows, or should recognize is likely to cause harm to the business. ( See ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1010.)
JOSH ZEIGER, ET AL. VS NEWHERE INC. (DBA CBDFX AND MAD HATTER JUICE), A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV22941
Apr 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Second Cause of Action for Trade Libel Trade libel requires a statement made with actual malice, that is, with knowledge it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. (J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Phillips & Cohen LLP (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 87, 97, see also 1 CACI 1731.) Plaintiff has not separately addressed this cause of action, which fails for the same reasons as described above with respect to the first cause of action.
SAN FRANCISCO FCU VS FIELDING
MSC21-00811
Aug 18, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
The libel, trade libel, false light, and abuse of process causes of action are based on the protected acts of “initiating an unlawful detainer action” and “publish[ing]” and serving notices to vacate. (See, e.g., Cross-Compl. ¶¶ 42, 52, 61, 66; see also Ulkarim v. Westfield LLC (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1266, 1275-1276; Copenbarger v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2013) 12 Cal.App.4th 1237, 1245.)
Rathvon v. InnVigorate Integrative
Nov 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
As to the 1st COA (trade libel), Defendant INTEGRA contends this COA fails because Plaintiff RAMBACHER admitted the truth of the alleged “false” statements made by Defendant DURAN during deposition testimony in another action. (See RFJN, Exh. J.) This testimony, however, is outside the four corners of the pleading at issue and the demurrer tests only the sufficiency of the pleading alone. (Exec. Landscape Corp. v. San Vicente Country Villas IV Assn. (1983) 145 Cal. App. 3d 496, 499.)
RAMBACHER VS. DURAN
30-2016-00877119-CU-DF-CJC
May 22, 2018
Orange County, CA
Alorica argues that Fortinet’s allegations might be relevant to a claim for 17 trade libel, but do not support a claim for defamation. 18 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, 19 trade libel requires a false statement of fact, not an expression of an opinion.
ALORICA INC. VS FORTINET, INC.
2019-1-CV-344971
Sep 06, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.