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.
Showing posts with label confidentiality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label confidentiality. Show all posts
Monday, August 19, 2019
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
Approved as to Form and Content
Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, No. E066267 (D4d2 Aug. 13, 2108)
A settlement agreement at issue in this case obliged "the parties and their attorneys” to keep the settlement confidential. Plaintiff’s attorney signed the agreement, but only “approved as to form and content.” He then proceeded to tell a shady media outlet (which might have been controlled by his firm) about the settlement. Defendant sued the attorney. But the Court of Appeal held that the agreement didn’t actually bind the attorney. The client couldn't bind the attorney, just by adding them into the agreement. And the attorney's signing under "approved as to form and content” language was not an assent by the attorney to be bound. Which means a SLAPP motion prevailed because the claim couldn't succeed.
The lesson here is clear: If you are facing an Avenatti, he needs to actually agree to be a party to the confi, or else your only remedy is going to be against Stormy.
Reversed.
A settlement agreement at issue in this case obliged "the parties and their attorneys” to keep the settlement confidential. Plaintiff’s attorney signed the agreement, but only “approved as to form and content.” He then proceeded to tell a shady media outlet (which might have been controlled by his firm) about the settlement. Defendant sued the attorney. But the Court of Appeal held that the agreement didn’t actually bind the attorney. The client couldn't bind the attorney, just by adding them into the agreement. And the attorney's signing under "approved as to form and content” language was not an assent by the attorney to be bound. Which means a SLAPP motion prevailed because the claim couldn't succeed.
The lesson here is clear: If you are facing an Avenatti, he needs to actually agree to be a party to the confi, or else your only remedy is going to be against Stormy.
Reversed.
Friday, October 28, 2016
So Much for Your Privacy . . .
Doe v. Superior Court, No. B271508 (D2d1 Sept. 29, 2016)
Last year, California enacted a “revenge porn” law, which provides for a private right of action against someone who without consent distributes naked or sexual images that were obtained under conditions where the subject of the images had a reasonable expectation that they would remain private. See Civ. Code § 1708.85. The statue permits the plaintiff to file anonymously, and requires the court to “keep the plaintiff’s name and excluded or redacted characteristics confidential.” Id. § 1708.85(f). Plaintiff availed himself of that process, filing along with his complaint a judicial council form that included his real name and info for the court’s use. That form too is supposed to be kept confidential by the court.
But it wasn’t. Somehow, LA Superior Court posted it, unredacted, to its online docket. The trial court—deciding that the cat was out of the bag—then proceeded to rule that from that point on, Plaintiff needed to litigate under his true name. Plaintiff took a writ, which the Court of Appeal grants.
Code of Civil Procedure § 367 requires the prosecution of an action in the name of the real party in interest, unless a statute provides otherwise. Section 1708.85(f) does, in fact, provide otherwise. The court’s posting of the form was not the fault of plaintiff, and thus it would be inequitable to find that the court’s own mistake somehow waived Plaintiff’s right to proceed anonymously. Indeed, the Court’s order—requiring public filing—would just compound the harm to the Plaintiff.
Writ granted.
Last year, California enacted a “revenge porn” law, which provides for a private right of action against someone who without consent distributes naked or sexual images that were obtained under conditions where the subject of the images had a reasonable expectation that they would remain private. See Civ. Code § 1708.85. The statue permits the plaintiff to file anonymously, and requires the court to “keep the plaintiff’s name and excluded or redacted characteristics confidential.” Id. § 1708.85(f). Plaintiff availed himself of that process, filing along with his complaint a judicial council form that included his real name and info for the court’s use. That form too is supposed to be kept confidential by the court.
But it wasn’t. Somehow, LA Superior Court posted it, unredacted, to its online docket. The trial court—deciding that the cat was out of the bag—then proceeded to rule that from that point on, Plaintiff needed to litigate under his true name. Plaintiff took a writ, which the Court of Appeal grants.
Code of Civil Procedure § 367 requires the prosecution of an action in the name of the real party in interest, unless a statute provides otherwise. Section 1708.85(f) does, in fact, provide otherwise. The court’s posting of the form was not the fault of plaintiff, and thus it would be inequitable to find that the court’s own mistake somehow waived Plaintiff’s right to proceed anonymously. Indeed, the Court’s order—requiring public filing—would just compound the harm to the Plaintiff.
Writ granted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)