Plaintiff journalist appealed from the judgment on the pleadings and summary adjudication that was entered by the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California) in favor of defendant utility in an action alleging, inter alia, libel, slander, and interference with employment contract, economic relationships, and ratepayers’ rights, where plaintiff was fired after defendant’s officers accused her of a conflict-of-interest.

Overview

Prior to being hired by an energy trade publication, plaintiff journalist ended her membership with a group that opposed nuclear power. Later, officers of defendant utility contacted her employer and accused her of having a conflict-of-interest, alleging that a member of the activist group had said that plaintiff was still doing work for them. Consequently, plaintiff was fired. She similarly lost a free-lance position with another publication after an officer contacted it and accused her of bias. Plaintiff sued for libel, slander, and interference with contract, economic relationships, and ratepayers’ rights, but judgment on the pleadings and summary adjudication was entered for defendant. Plaintiff appealed with help from a small business attorney. In affirming in part, the court ruled that the ratepayers’ rights claim was unsupported by the evidence. In reversing in part with respect to the libel, slander, and the other interference claims, the court ruled, inter alia, that blacklisting plaintiff served no legitimate purpose under U.S. Const. amend. I and Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 453(a). Also, factual disputes existed as to certain defamatory comments, the issue of intentional conduct, and privilege to interfere.

Outcome

The judgment was affirmed as to the interference with ratepayers’ rights claim because the claim was unsupported by the evidence. The judgment was reversed in part with respect to the libel, slander, and the other interference claims because, inter alia, certain comments were not protected by the First Amendment and issues of fact existed regarding certain defamatory comments, the issue of intentional conduct, and privilege to interfere.

Procedural Posture

Appellant sales representatives sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles (California), which granted respondent corporation summary judgment in appellants’ action for breach of a sales representative contract, on the basis that appellants’ could not reasonably rely on respondent’s alleged representations or concealed facts, which were contradicted by a “without cause” termination provision in the agreements.

Overview

Appellant sales representatives previously worked as independent sales representatives under oral agreements with respondent corporation. Appellants entered into written contracts with respondent, which contained provisions allowing any party to terminate the agreements without cause. Appellants were subsequently terminated without cause and filed a complaint against respondent, alleging that appellants were induced to sign the written agreements as a result of respondent’s oral fraudulent representations and fraudulent concealment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent, and appellant sought review. The court reversed, holding that, while appellants could not have relied on oral fraudulent representations contradicted by the existence of integrated written agreements, summary judgment was proper that issue. However, appellants had also alleged fraudulent concealment arising from respondent’s duty to disclose. Because the issue of respondent’s duty to disclose was fact dependent, and thus a question for the trier of fact, not a question of law, summary judgment was improper as to that allegation.

Outcome

The court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent corporation, on the grounds that appellant sales representatives had alleged fraud based on concealment, and that the issue of respondent’s duty to disclose was a fact issue not properly disposed of by summary judgment.