If you have been sued in California for defamation (someone claims that you made a statement of fact about them that hurt their reputation), the first thing you should consider is whether the lawsuit is a "Strategic Lawsuit against Public Policy" (SLAPP). A SLAPP is a lawsuit filed to scare someone from exercising their free speech rights protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or California Constitution. California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(a). The California Anti-SLAPP Statute used to be "construed broadly."

To successfully use this defense, one must show that the speech was intended to address an issue of "public interest." However, the defense does not apply if the allegedly wrongful statements were made "for the purpose of obtaining approval for, promoting, or securing sales releases, or commercial transactions in, the person's goods or services, or the statement or contact was made in the course of delivering the person's goods or services" AND the intended audience was "an actual or potential buyer or customer, or a person likely to repeat the statement to, or otherwise influence, an actual or potential buyer or customer, the statement or conduct arose out of it within the context of a regulatory approval process, proceeding or investigation,..." . California Code Of Civil Procedure §425.17(c)(1) and (2).

If your statements were on topic of public interest and not factual statements intended to prevent a business from selling its goods or services, you may be entitled to file "Special Motion to Strike" to end the lawsuit before any discovery takes place. You must file this motion within 30 days of being served with the lawsuit. Then, the court must decide whether the party who sued you will probably win the lawsuit. If the court determines that the plaintiff is not likely to win the lawsuit, and you will be entitled to your attorneys fees and costs. If the court determines that the plaintiff will likely prevail, the case will go forward. If the court decides that the plaintiff is likely to prevail and that your motion was frivolous or brought slowly to delay the case or harass the other side, the court will order you to pay the attorneys fees and costs of the other side in the case will go forward.

You must carefully evaluate the decision of whether to file a "Special Motion to Strike" under California's Anti-SLAPP statute. Smith, Chapman & Campbell is available to help you make this decision.

On Monday, April 20, 2009, a federal judge, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian, granted an application brought by William D. Chapman, on behalf of his client, BPW Financial Corporation for a right to attach order in the amount of $1.8 million. The order was issued against Money and More, Inc., a Nevada Corporation based in Hemet, California. Judge Chooljian stayed the order for 10 days to allow Money and More an opportunity to appeal the ruling.

The stay on the writ of attachment order was lifted on Tuesday, May 5, 2009 and the Federal District Court Clerk issued 2 writ of attachments in favor of Mr. Chapman's client, BPW Financial Corp. One of the writs was directed to the bank of Defendant Money and More, the other was directed to Money and More's accounts receivable, claimed to be in excess of $40 million.

Mr. Chapman is now seeking documents such as bank accounts of Money and More in addition to examining Gale Robinson, founder and President of Money and More.Mr. Chapman was ordered to "meet and confer" with his opposing counsel regarding scheduling the examination of Ms. Robinson. The examination will take place in the federal court where the writ of attachment issued.

According to a clarification by the Consumer Products Safety Commission, used products are not required to certify that they meet the standards of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (HR 4040). However, if the products they sell violate the Act, they can face civil and/or criminal penalties.

We are claiming this blog on Technorati. Here is the link:Technorati Profile.

According to a USA Today article, used item retailers and thrift stores will be especially hard hit by the new regulations which seek to eliminate lead hazards in children's toys and clothing. Particularly disturbing is the requirement of the regulations that manufacturers and retailers destroy perfectly safe merchandise and less they can afford to put all such merchandise through a rigorous testing protocol.

Many smaller businesses and thrift stores could be put completely out of business if required to conduct testing on every item of merchandise in their stores. Although the Consumer Product Safety Commission has agreed to review criticisms, the 30 day review period will not expire until after the law goes into effect on February 10, 2009.