California Appellate Tracker

JAMS, Inc. v. Superior Court

August 1, 2016

Trial court properly denied Anti-SLAPP motion brought by defendants—JAMS and one of its mediators—since plaintiff’s lawsuit alleging misrepresentations in the mediator’s website biography arose from defendants’ advertising of services for the purpose of enticing purchasers, thus falling within the CCP 415.17(c) exception to the Anti-SLAPP statute.

A litigant that chose JAMS and its panel member Sheila Sonenshine to handle a divorce proceeding, sued JAMS and Sonenshine claiming that Sonenshine’s bio on the JAMS website misrepresented her business experience by touting her relationship with two business entities, the first of which had resulted in a significant shareholder suit against her, and the second of which had never been activated. The suit also claimed that JAMS falsely claimed to exercise the highest ethical standards. This decision holds that the trial court properly denied JAMS’s and Sonnenshine’s Anti-SLAPP motion because the suit arose from their advertising their services for the purpose of enticing potential purchasers, such as the plaintiff, and thus fell within the CCP 415.17(c) exception to the Anti-SLAPP statute. The exception applies to omissions and half-truths as well as affirmative misrepresentations. The exception also applies despite the fact that the bio and JAMS’s statements may have served other purposes in addition to soliciting customers for JAMS’s and Sonnenshine’s services.

California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1 (McConnell, P.J.); July 27, 2016; 2016 WL 4014068

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

I Agree

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

California Appellate Tracker

JAMS, Inc. v. Superior Court

Categories

San Francisco

Severson & Werson

Orange County

Severson & Werson