Summary
The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the denial of a special motion to dismiss under the Commonwealth’s anti-SLAPP statute, G. L. c. 231, § 59H. The court held that although filing consumer class actions constituted protected petitioning activity, the plaintiffs’ claims also concerned alleged disclosure of confidential information on a commercially motivated website and alleged sabotage of settlement negotiations, conduct outside the statute’s protected activity. Because each count included allegations beyond petitioning activity, the anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiffs' claims were based solely on protected petitioning activity so as to require dismissal under G. L. c. 231, § 59H.
- Whether filing consumer class actions constituted petitioning activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.
- Whether dissemination of information through a commercially motivated website constituted petitioning activity.
- Whether allegations that defendants undermined settlement negotiations for personal gain implicated protected petitioning activity.
- Whether the anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied when each count included allegations concerning both petitioning and nonpetitioning conduct.
Holdings
- The special motion to dismiss was properly denied because each count included allegations of conduct outside the statutory definition of petitioning activity; the claims therefore were not based on petitioning activities alone.
- The filing of the consumer class actions was petitioning activity within the meaning of G. L. c. 231, § 59H.
- The website's dissemination of information and solicitation of potential clients was not petitioning activity.
- An allegation that an attorney sabotaged litigation or settlement negotiations beneficial to others in order to restart the matter in a way more beneficial to himself did not implicate protected petitioning activity.
Key quotations
“[T]he party seeking dismissal (the defendant) must demonstrate, through pleadings and affidavits, that the plaintiff’s claims are based on ‘petitioning activities alone and have no substantial basis other than or in addition to the petitioning activities.’” (74 Mass. App. Ct. at 536-537)
“In the last analysis, the Web site was not simply an “interactive public forum on issues relating to” the Nestle lawsuits.” (74 Mass. App. Ct. at 541)
“Instead, and as in Cadle Co., “it is the palpable commercial motivation behind the creation of the Web site that so definitively undercuts the petitioning character of the statements contained therein.”” (74 Mass. App. Ct. at 541-542)
Factual background
Several bottled-water competitors and their attorneys planned claims against Nestle concerning alleged misrepresentations about Poland Spring water and contemplated a related consumer class action with Ehrlich as a potential class representative. Schlichtmann and Ehrlich disagreed with Stem, Sobol, and Ivey over a proposed settlement, after which Ehrlich discharged the latter attorneys and Schlichtmann negotiated a settlement with Nestle. Stem, Sobol, and Ivey then filed consumer class actions and disseminated information through a website, causing Nestle to withdraw from the settlement. Schlichtmann alleged approximately $9 million in lost anticipated fees, while Ehrlich alleged loss of the anticipated ability to direct $2.5 million to environmental causes.
Procedural history
Ehrlich and Schlichtmann sued Stem and other attorneys and their firms for contract, tort, fiduciary-duty, and conspiracy claims arising from the collapse of a proposed settlement involving Nestle. Stem filed a special anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss, arguing that the claims were based on protected petitioning activity. The Superior Court denied the motion, and the Appeals Court affirmed. The opinion notes that the underlying case later proceeded to summary judgment in Superior Court, but that development did not moot the appeal because statutory attorney-fee consequences remained at issue.