Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, No. S251392 (Cal. Jul. 11, 2019)
About a year ago, the Court of Appeal held in this case that an attorney couldn’t be bound by a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement because, notwithstanding the confi’s application to “the parties and their attorneys, the attorneys signed only as “approved as to form and content.” The Supreme Court reverses. The posture of the case is an anti-SLAPP motion so the plaintiffs only need to show “minimal merit,” i.e., make a prima facie showing on the issue. The Supreme Court finds (unanimously) that because the substantive provisions of the agreement contained several provisions that purported to bind the attorneys, a reasonable trier of fact could find that the attorneys agreed to be bound, notwithstanding the signatures being limited to approvals. That was enough to fend off an anti-SLAPP challenge.
Court of Appeal reversed.
No comments:
Post a Comment