18-CIV-01687 CLAYTON COLLINS VS. WEDRIVEU, INC., ET AL.

CLAYTON COLLINS WEDRIVEU, INC.
STEPHEN F. HENRY HELEN M. MCFARLAND

MOTION TO STRIKE TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant WeDriveU, Inc.’s Special Motion to Strike the Ninth Cause of Action for Defamation in Plaintiff Clayton Collins’ 4-6-18 Complaint, filed pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16, is DENIED. Defendant has not made the required threshold showing that the challenged cause of action arises from protected activity. Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 67. Contrary to Defendant’s contention, neither § 425.16(e)(2) nor (e)(4) apply here. See Olaes v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 135 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1508–1509 (2006) (private company’s internal investigation into a complaint of sexual harassment involving an employee is not a governmental, quasi-governmental, or “official proceeding” under § 425.16(e)(2), nor does such an investigation involve an issue of “public interest” under § 425.16(e)(4); Rivero v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL–CIO (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 913, 924 (alleged defamatory statements do not fall with § 425.16(e)(4) merely because the public has a general interest in the subject matter); Baughn v. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Prot. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 328, 339 (investigation into sexual harassment claim, although it involves a serious issue, does not involve the “public interest” as contemplated by 425.16(e)(4)). Defendants’ contention that it foresaw a potential for litigation, and/or a DFEH or EEOC proceeding (see Govek and Lingenfelter declarations) is not sufficient to trigger § 425.16(e).

Given the foregoing, while the merits of Plaintiff’s defamation claim appear dubious, the Court need not reach the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis (whether Plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing).

Plaintiff’s Objections to Evidence (to the Govek and Lingenfelter declarations) are OVERRULED.

Defendant’s Objections to the Collins Declaration are ruled upon as follows:  Obj. Nos. 1-3, 5. SUSTAINED. Evid. Code § 800, 802.  Obj. No. 4. OVERRULED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions under § 425.16(c)(1) is DENIED. The Court finds Defendant’s motion was neither frivolous nor “solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.”