Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00008623-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-10 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 10, 2024

05/10/2024  01:30:00 PM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty SLAPP / SLAPPback Motion Hearing 37-2022-00008623-CU-BC-CTL HERRING NETWORKS INC VS AT&T INC [EFILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

No tentative rulings. The court will hear from the parties regarding the below comments.

First, the court is inclined to grant Defendants AT&T, Inc. and William Kennard's motions to quash service of process. Substantively, the motions have merit. They are also now unopposed; despite being afforded the opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiff Herring Networks, Inc. was unable to find evidence of sufficient minimum contacts to maintain a legitimate opposition to the motions.

Second, to the extent the court has discretion to both grant the motions to quash and make a ruling on Defendants AT&T, Inc. and Kennard's demurrers and special motion to strike, the court is not inclined to exercise such discretion. Most likely, the court will overrule as moot the demurrers, and deny as moot the special motion to strike, as to those two defendants over which the court lacks personal jurisdiction.

As stated below, the court's expectation is that the special motion to strike brought by the two AT&T entities and Defendant Kennard will be granted, rendering the demurrers moot. As the special motion to strike was brought by the three defendants together (and they are represented by the same counsel), there is little, if any, risk that Plaintiff may avoid the mandatory attorney fees provision of the anti-SLAPP statute.

Third, the court agrees with and adopts Judge Meyer's analyses and conclusions with respect to Defendant DirecTV's special motion to strike. (ROA #361.) In the court's view, there is substantial overlap in the allegations against Defendant AT&T Services and Defendant DirecTV. To the extent there are meaningful differences between the allegations and applicable authority as to each defendant and their respective motions, the court asks the parties to focus on those differences at oral argument.

Fourth, given Judge Meyer's decision with respect to DirecTV's motion, and based on the court's own review of Plaintiff's allegations and the briefing, the court is inclined to grant Defendant AT&T Services, Inc.'s special motion to strike in full, which would moot its demurrer. With respect to the first step in the anti-SLAPP analysis, the court has little trouble concluding Plaintiff's claims arise entirely from protected activity.

With respect to the second step, it appears to the court that Defendant AT&T Services has an even stronger case than Defendant DirecTV did in connection with its motion to strike. First, unlike with DirecTV, for which there is evidence of an email to Bloomberg News that disclosed the end date of the affiliation agreement, there is no evidence Defendant AT&T Services disclosed private, confidential information regarding the affiliation agreement. Second, the court is not persuaded the non-disparagement clause can or should be interpreted to encompass political commentary by CNN and Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3089887  59 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HERRING NETWORKS INC VS AT&T INC [EFILE]  37-2022-00008623-CU-BC-CTL HBO. Finally, as to the interference cause of action, the court does not see how, even if it can be proven that Defendant AT&T Services influenced Defendant DirecTV's decision not to renew the affiliation agreement with Plaintiff, that such influence was in any way independently wrongful.

Fifth, the court is not inclined to rule on Defendant DirecTV's motion in limine. It appears to the court the function of the motion is primarily adjudicatory, and not simply an effort to limit evidence. Consequently, the court believes the more appropriate manner of addressing the issue is via a motion for summary adjudication.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3089887  59