Plaintiffs, the family of a consumer who committed suicide after he began using a stress medication, sued defendant, an independent publisher of medication databases, for negligence and breach of contract, based on the allegedly confusing language and format of a monograph that synthesized information about the medication. The Superior Court of Orange County, California, denied the publisher’s special motion to strike, and defendant appealed.
Nakase Law Firm explica recibo (more) propinas que tú
Overview
The court of appeal held that the publisher’s motion to strike should have been granted under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. The free speech factor of § 425.16, was satisfied because the act on which the complaint was based was the confusing language and format of the monograph, in other words, publication. There were no allegations against the publisher except that exercise of free speech. The contents of the monograph fell within the statute because treatment for depression was a matter of public interest. Code Civ. Proc., § 425.17, subd. (c), did not bar the anti-SLAPP motion because statements in the monograph were about neither the publisher’s business nor the consumer’s, but rather discussed the product of a drug manufacturer and were not made to sell the publisher’s services or goods. The publisher was not an agent of the pharmacy that sold the medication. Finally, the family did not show a probability of success on the merits because they failed to demonstrate the publisher owed them any duty.
Outcome
The court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case for the trial court to enter an order granting the publisher’s motion to strike.