Trade Libel in California

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.]

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.)

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

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

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.

Trade Libel and Defamation: Only Plaintiff Island Medical Devices, Inc. (“IMD”) alleges trade libel and only Plaintiff Kiper alleges defamation per se.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

.; 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.

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.”

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.

“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.

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.

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.)

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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).

"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."

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.

“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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.]

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.

(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).

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.

.: 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

.: 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.

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.

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.)

.; 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.

.; 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.

.; 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.

(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

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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

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.

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].)

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.)

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.)

.) ¶ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.)

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.)

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.

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.)

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.)

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.