This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Fraud

Martin-Baker Aircraft Company Ltd. v. Teledyne Risi Inc. dba Teledyne Electronic Safety Products, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive

Published: Nov. 6, 2020 | Result Date: Oct. 6, 2020 |

Case number: 2:20-cv-03796-PA-AFM Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Percy Anderson

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Joshua D. Lichtman
(Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP)

Katherine G. Connolly
(Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP)

Matthew H. Kirtland
(Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP)


Defendant

Gregory Evans
(McGuireWoods LLP)

Tanya L. Greene
(McGuireWoods LLP)

Piper A. Waldron
(McGuireWoods LLP)

Gregory J. DuBoff
(McGuire Woods LLP)


Facts

In a separate case, Teledyne RISI, Inc. doing business as Teledyne Electronic Safety Products sued Martin-Baker Aircraft Company, Ltd. for breach of contract, fraud, tortious interference with existing contracts, trade secrets misappropriation and violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The lawsuit terminated in Martin-Baker's favor. Subsequently, Martin-Baker filed a malicious prosecution lawsuit against defendant Teledyne stemming from the previous action.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant lacked probable cause to pursue all of its claims in the lawsuit against plaintiff. Plaintiff contended that defendant made false material allegations in its complaint. Further, plaintiff contended that defendant acted with malice when it filed the lawsuit against plaintiff.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim should be dismissed under the California's anti-SLAPP statute because: 1) plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim was based on protected litigation activity and 2) plaintiff could not establish a probability that it would prevail in its malicious prosecution claim.

Result

The court granted defendant Teledyne's special motion to strike plaintiff's complaint under the California anti-SLAPP statute.

Other Information

McGuireWoods LLP did not represent Teledyne in the previous action.


#135973

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390