"PLEASE DO NOT SCREW WITH MY FREE SPEECH YOU RACKETEERING CRIMINALS
Msg: 11979 of 11979
AIRBORNE EXPRESS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TERRENCE MOORE, aka
paladinrodentcontrol, and DOES
1 through 100 inclusive,
Defendant.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO
RULING
The special motion to strike of defendant Terrence Moore ("Moore") pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the California anti-SLAPP suit statute, is granted for the reasons set forth below.
Defendant Moore has made a prima facie showing that his alleged activities to date, occurring largely but not entirely on the Internet, are in furtherance of Moore's rights of petition and free speech under the United States and California Constitutions in connection with a public issue. (Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App. 4th 809, 820; Reno v. ACLU (1997) 521 U.S. 844.) Thus, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, Airborne Express,Inc. ("Airborne") to demonstrate that its lawsuit is legitimate and that there is a "probability that the [plaintiff] will prevail on the claim." (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(b)(1).)
Plaintiff Airborne has failed to provide evidence sufficient to establish that it will prevail on any of the three causes of action currently alleged. Airborne has failed to provide significant substantive evidence that any of Moore's alleged activities to date, annoying as they may be to Airborne's management, have caused either injury or actual damages to Airborne. Airborne has not shown that Moore's alleged interference with Airborne's independent contractors actually caused any contractors to cease doing business with Airborne. Airborne's alleged harms appear to be largely theoretical, as opposed to actual injury to its business relationships. No causes of action for defamation have been alleged.
In considering this motion, and over Moore's objections, the Court has exercised its discretion to consider the "Separate Statement of Facts and Evidence in Opposition" filed by plaintiff on July 26,2001, as well as the Supplement to Memorandum of Points and Authorities submitted by plaintiff on the day of the hearing.
Thus, based upon the evidence presented to the Court to date, Airborne's action, as currently pleaded, appears to fit squarely within the ambit of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The Legislature has explicitly required that this statute be "construed broadly" so as to effectuate its purposes.(Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(a).)
The defendant's motion is granted. Defendant Moore is awarded costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c). Counsel for defendant is directed to submit an appropriate order and judgment of dismissal for the court's signature within ten (10) days.
DATED this 20th day of August, 2001.
MARK W . SNAUFFER
Judge of the Superior Court
COUNTY OF FRESNO
Fresno, CA
Posted as a reply to: Msg 11978 by chapter_7_for_abf
Message Thread [ View ] Ignore this User | Report Abuse
< Previous | Next > [ First | Last | Msg List ] Msg #: Reply Post
All Subject Message Text Authors
Boards Search
symbol lookup
ABF Snapshot
ABF 13.75 +0.24
More Info: Real-time quote, Options, News, Profile, Research, Insider, SEC
quotes delayed 20 mins - disclaimer
Symbol Lookup
Track the ABF Board
Add to My Yahoo
Reminder: This board is not connected with the company. These messages are only the opinion of the poster, are no substitute for your own"
messages.yahoo.com |
