Facts

Plaintiff David Urzua donated $100 to defendant National Veterans' Services Fund Inc., on July 29, 2013, after viewing the organization's website. The plaintiff later learned that some of the donated money is used for fundraising, paying salaries of the organization's employees, and other expenses. Plaintiff believed that the donations went directly to the veterans that the organization assists.

A federal class action lawsuit was filed with Urzua as the only named plaintiff, purportedly with other similarly situated plaintiffs yet to be identified, based on alleged violations of Business and Professions Code sections 17500 and 17200.

The defendant organization filed a motion to dismiss, under FRCP 12(b)(6), and a motion to strike, per FRCP 12(f) and the California anti-SLAPP statute, CCP section 425.16. The plaintiff then filed a first amended complaint, adding a fraud claim.

The organization again filed motions to dismiss and to strike, this time against the FAC.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that the organization's website, on which Urzua relied, misled him into making his donation as he assumed that all or the vast majority of his donation would go toward veterans in need, per the mission statement on the organization's website. He later learned, from a newspaper article, that much of the money donated to the defendant organization has historically ended up paying for marketing and fundraising costs.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant argued that nowhere on its website did it list, much less misrepresent, the ratios between revenues earned and money directed to its target veterans and causes, nor did the FAC note any misrepresentation on the organization's website. Defendant contended that the article resulted from errant research, and contended that its entire financial history was available on its website, which defendant claimed plaintiff ignored. Defendant contended that its website also includes a posting of its most recent Internal Revenue Service form 990 filed with the government, which was open to public viewing, and its financial statements with an independent accountant auditing report, showing exactly where every penny was garnered and spent.

In its motions, defendant argued that four United States Supreme Court opinions barred the lawsuit, as it was based on protected charitable free speech, according to the First Amendment, and that California's anti-SLAPP statute authorized the court to strike the FAC in its entirety, for attempting to chill free speech on the organization's website.

Damages

Plaintiff claimed special, general, statutory, and attorney fees.

Result

The court granted defendant's motions, with prejudice, and issued a judgment in favor of the defendant organization and against Urzua.

Other Information

Urzua agreed to waive his post judgment rights, including to appeal, in exchange for the organization's waiver of a right to file a monetary cost judgment against Urzua. FILING DATE: Sept. 16, 2013.