Vindication For Free Speech And Opposing Ideas
by Lisa Brooks-Pike, May 18, 2010
On Monday, May 17th, the Court of Appeals of the State of California, second appellate district, division four, reversed the previous ruling in Direct Shopping Network, LLC (DSN) v. Interweave Press, LLC.
In late 2008, Art Garabedian of Direct Shopping Network, LLC (DSN) filed a law suit against Robert James, Colored Stone Magazine, Colored-Stone.com, Interweave Press, LLC, and Does 1-1000, for trade libel, interference with contract, and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Attorneys for Interweave Press responded by filing an anti-SLAPP motion, a motion which would prevent the case from going further as they deemed it a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.”
The anti-SLAPP was heard in Los Angeles County Superior Court by Judge Laura Matz who denied the anti-SLAPP motion on 04/10/2009. Attorneys for Interweave immediately filed an appeal and yesterday won the case and were awarded costs when Judge Matz’s ruling was “Reversed in Full.” Click to View
The findings of the appellate court are profound and send a message to the gemstone and jewelry industry.
Regarding DSN’s claim for trade libel, the courts find that DSN presented no admissible evidence. Garabedian attempted to stand behind a solitary AGTA report listing as natural an Andesine sample purchased from Andegem. The court determined that not only was the test performed on only one sample, but that the AGTA report itself was hearsay, and that the report itself stated it was subject to numerous limitations and conceded that “some treatments commonly applied to gem materials are not currently detectable.”
The courts also outline that statements of opinion are protected speech, and go on to say, “under the first amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.” The court documents point out that “James and Dr. Rossman tested different stones and James offered to make the stones he tested available to DSN.”
The courts found that DSN produced no evidence that the claims of color treatment were false. DSN was also unable to provide proof that it lost sales because of the suggestion of Mexican origin rather than the presence of treatment, nor did DSN provide proof that any contract had been disrupted. It was the court's opinion that the artificial treatment of the gemstones superceded the issue of origin.
The conclusion of the courts: “DSN presented no evidence that defendants interfered with any particular relationship or expectancy. Moreover, DSN identified no wrongful conduct apart from the allegedly false and defamatory statements made about its product. As we have concluded the statements concerning treatment were not false and the statements concerning origin were not demonstrably defamatory, there is no support for the “wrongful conduct” element of the interference claims.”
“The order denying the motion to strike is reversed. Interweave is awarded costs on appeal.”
Click to see the 35 page court ruling
Copyright© 2010 Jewelers Ethics Association
The above article may be reprinted, reproduced and distributed in its entirety, with all copyrights in tact.
by Lisa Brooks-Pike, May 18, 2010
On Monday, May 17th, the Court of Appeals of the State of California, second appellate district, division four, reversed the previous ruling in Direct Shopping Network, LLC (DSN) v. Interweave Press, LLC.
In late 2008, Art Garabedian of Direct Shopping Network, LLC (DSN) filed a law suit against Robert James, Colored Stone Magazine, Colored-Stone.com, Interweave Press, LLC, and Does 1-1000, for trade libel, interference with contract, and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Attorneys for Interweave Press responded by filing an anti-SLAPP motion, a motion which would prevent the case from going further as they deemed it a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.”
The anti-SLAPP was heard in Los Angeles County Superior Court by Judge Laura Matz who denied the anti-SLAPP motion on 04/10/2009. Attorneys for Interweave immediately filed an appeal and yesterday won the case and were awarded costs when Judge Matz’s ruling was “Reversed in Full.” Click to View
The findings of the appellate court are profound and send a message to the gemstone and jewelry industry.
Regarding DSN’s claim for trade libel, the courts find that DSN presented no admissible evidence. Garabedian attempted to stand behind a solitary AGTA report listing as natural an Andesine sample purchased from Andegem. The court determined that not only was the test performed on only one sample, but that the AGTA report itself was hearsay, and that the report itself stated it was subject to numerous limitations and conceded that “some treatments commonly applied to gem materials are not currently detectable.”
The courts also outline that statements of opinion are protected speech, and go on to say, “under the first amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.” The court documents point out that “James and Dr. Rossman tested different stones and James offered to make the stones he tested available to DSN.”
The courts found that DSN produced no evidence that the claims of color treatment were false. DSN was also unable to provide proof that it lost sales because of the suggestion of Mexican origin rather than the presence of treatment, nor did DSN provide proof that any contract had been disrupted. It was the court's opinion that the artificial treatment of the gemstones superceded the issue of origin.
The conclusion of the courts: “DSN presented no evidence that defendants interfered with any particular relationship or expectancy. Moreover, DSN identified no wrongful conduct apart from the allegedly false and defamatory statements made about its product. As we have concluded the statements concerning treatment were not false and the statements concerning origin were not demonstrably defamatory, there is no support for the “wrongful conduct” element of the interference claims.”
“The order denying the motion to strike is reversed. Interweave is awarded costs on appeal.”
Click to see the 35 page court ruling
Copyright© 2010 Jewelers Ethics Association
The above article may be reprinted, reproduced and distributed in its entirety, with all copyrights in tact.
__________________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment