HOLDINGS: [1]-In this ADEA action, defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied because defendants failed to raise their argument that the employees’ proposed collective and class definitions were not appropriately limited temporally in its motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (TAC), even though the TAC and Fourth Amended Complaint included the same five named plaintiffs, proposed class definitions that included individuals terminated under the workforce reduction plans with no end date, and alleged that defendants’ discrimination remained ongoing.
Outcome
Defendants’ through their litigation attorney motion denied.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff sweepstakes contestant challenged a decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which granted the motion of defendant contest holder to dismiss, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the sweepstakes contestant’s suit against it for breach of contract, fraud, and violation of the California Unfair Business Practices Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17203, 17500, 17535.
Overview
The sweepstakes contestant brought a breach of contract action against the contest holder for failure to pay the prize according to a sweepstakes announcement, which the sweepstakes contestant had interpreted as a promise to pay her $ 1,666,675.00. The district court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that there was no set of facts that would entitle the sweepstakes contestant to relief. In so holding, the court denied the sweepstakes contestant’s request for oral argument and noted that the district court did not err by declining to hear oral argument at that level.
Outcome
The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the sweepstakes contestant’s lawsuit against the contest holder.
Overview
ISSUE: On remand, the court’s task was to consider the renewed anti-SLAPP motion of defendant, a streaming internet radio service, given the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act’s (MMA’s) new affirmative defense and any intervening developments in California’s anti-SLAPP law, and specifically, to consider whether defendant illegally copied and broadcasted plaintiff’s recordings of a 1960s music group that were made before February 15, 1972. HOLDINGS: [1]-Defendant’s broadcasting no longer qualified as protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute; [2]-Even if it did, the MMA did not apply retroactively to pending claims; [3]-Even if it did, there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether defendant complied with the statutory licensing requirements necessary for preemption; [4]-Accordingly, the court denied defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion.
Outcome
The court denied defendant’s renewed anti-SLAPP motion to strike and denied plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs.