A.F. Arnold Co. v. Pacific Professional Ins

2 Citing briefs

  1. Holomaxx Technologies Corporation v. Yahoo!, Inc. et al

    Reply Memorandum re MOTION to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R Civ. P. Rule 12

    Filed February 11, 2011

    15 In fact, to determine whether particular conduct is justified, the Courts engage in a balancing test of several factors: “[w]hether an intentional interference by a third party is justifiable depends upon a balancing of the importance, social and private, of the objective advanced by the interference against the importance of the interest interfered with, considering all circumstances including the nature of the actor’s conduct and the relationship between the parties.” A.F. Arnold & Co., 27 Cal. App. 3d at 714 (citation omitted). Case5:10-cv-04926-JF Document31 Filed02/11/11 Page17 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 YAHOO!

  2. Lenz v. Universal Music Group Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Dismiss Complaint and Special Motion to Strike State Law Claim

    Filed September 21, 2007

    The defendant’s justification for its conduct is a complete defense to the claim. See, e.g., A. F. Arnold & Co. v. Pacific Prof’l Ins., Inc., 27 Cal. App. 3d 710, 714 (1972). Plaintiff has not shown, and cannot show, that she has a legally sufficient claim that survives the anti-SLAPP statute.