Michael Sansoe v. Ford Motor Co. , 668 F. App'x 718 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 25 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL J. SANSOE and ERIC No. 14-16124
FRAZER, dba DE Landscaping,
D.C. No. 4:13-cr-05043-PJH
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v. MEMORANDUM*
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 19, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and EDMUNDS,** Senior
District Judge.
Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) appeals the district court’s denial of its
special motion to strike pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds, Senior United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
Proc. Code § 425.16. We review the denial of this motion de novo, and we affirm.
Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar, 611 F.3d 590, 595 (9th Cir. 2010).
Strategic lawsuits against public participation (“SLAPP”) masquerade as
ordinary lawsuits but are “aimed at chilling expression through costly, time-
consuming litigation.” Price v. Stossel, 620 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir. 2001)). The
California legislature has attempted to discourage this practice by providing a
procedural mechanism “for the early dismissal of unmeritorious claims filed to
interfere with the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech
and petition. ” Club Members for an Honest Election v. Sierra Club, 196 P.3d
1094, 1098 (Cal. 2008).
We hold that Ford has failed to make the threshold showing that Plaintiffs’
causes of action are “based on an act in furtherance of [Ford’s] right of petition or
free speech.” City of Cotati v. Cashman, 52 P.3d 695, 701 (Cal. 2002). As the
district court correctly held, this question is dispositive of Ford’s motion.
We need not look beyond the opening paragraph of Plaintiffs’ complaint to
determine the impetus for this action. Each of Plaintiffs’ claims are premised on
the allegedly “unlawful, unfair and deceptive practices of Ford Motor Company in
reacquiring defective vehicles.” (Emphasis added.) Ford’s practices, as alleged in
2
the operative complaint, fall into two categories: first, “Ford routinely takes a
deduction for excessive damage and/or wear and tear . . . based on the condition of
the Lemon Car when it is reacquired”; second, “Ford requires the Lemon Car
owner to make certain improvements to the car at their own expense before it is
reacquired.” We therefore hold that the “act forming the basis for [Plaintiffs’]
cause[s] of action” is Ford’s purportedly illegal business practice of taking
excessive deductions in violation of California’s lemon laws. Feldman v. 1100
Park Lane Assocs., 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 13 (Ct. App. 2008).
Ford argues that Plaintiffs’ claims “arise from” protected conduct—i.e., a
number of allegedly fraudulent statements made during the settlement process. We
disagree. California law is clear that “a defendant in an ordinary private dispute
cannot take advantage of the anti-SLAPP statute simply because the complaint
contains some references to speech or petitioning activity by the defendant.”
People ex rel. Fire Ins. Exch. v. Anapol, 150 Cal. Rptr. 3d 224, 235 (Ct. App.
2012) (quoting Martinez v. Metabolife Int’l, Inc., 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 494, 499 (Ct.
App. 2003)). Rather, “it is the principal thrust or gravamen of the plaintiff's cause
of action that determines whether the anti-SLAPP statute applies.” Martinez, 6
Cal. Rptr. 3d at 499.
3
Here, there is seemingly no question that but for Ford’s allegedly illegal
deductions (i.e., unprotected activity) Plaintiffs’ fraud claims would have no basis.
Accordingly, we hold that the principal thrust of Plaintiffs’ claims are a challenge
to Ford’s reimbursement methodology, i.e., unprotected conduct.
AFFIRMED.
4