Plaintiff consumer filed an action against defendant manufacturer, seeking redress for personal injuries sustained from ingesting the manufacturer’s product. The Superior Court of Placer County (California) denied the manufacturer’s motion to strike the complaint under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. The manufacturer appealed.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. can tell you more about CACI Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Overview
The consumer suffered a stroke as a result of ingesting the manufacturer’s weigh loss product in accordance with the product directions. The complaint listed four theories for personal injury liability and a claim of false advertising. On appeal the manufacturer claimed that its motion to strike the complaint under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 should have been granted, but the court disagreed. The court first held that the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply to the first four causes of action seeking recovery for personal injury under various theories because the gravamen of each cause of action was the injury sustained from an allegedly defective product; therefore, such causes arose from the manufacturer’s production and sale of a defective product, not from any furtherance of its right of petition or free speech. As to the false advertising claim, the court noted that the gravamen of the cause was false advertising conduct and assumed arguendo that such was protected speech. However, the court found that the advertising at issue was not a public issue as contemplated by § 425.16; hence, § 425.16 did not apply to the false advertising claim.
Outcome
The court affirmed and ordered that the consumer was to recover her costs on appeal.