Free Motion to Strike - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 1 of 35

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

FRANK S. MOORE, SBN 158029 Law Offices of Frank S. Moore, APC SUZY C. MOORE, SBN 151502 Law Offices of Suzy C. Moore 1374 Pacific Avenue San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 292-6091 Facsimile: (415) 292-6694 Attorneys for Defendant ROSA RIVERA KEEL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ROSA RIVERA KEEL AND DOES 1 through ) 10, INCLUSIVE, ) ) ) Defendant. ) / No. C07-04723 MHP DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTISLAPP STATUTE [Cal. Code of Civ.Proc., 425.16] Date: January 14, 2008 Time: 2:00 p.m. Place: Courtroom 15, 18th Floor Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel TO: THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND PLAINTIFF OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on January 14, 2008, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, of the above-captioned Court, defendant, ROSA RIVERA KEEL, will seek an Order from the Court striking the complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, on the grounds that the complaint is a "reactive declaratory action" designed to chill defendant Rosa Rivera Keel's protected conduct covered by California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivisions (e)(1) and (2).

DATED: December 3, 2007

/s/ signature on file Frank S. Moore Attorney for defendant Rosa Rivera Keel ____________________________________________________________________________________
OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al. Case No. C07-04723 MHP

DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE

1

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 2 of 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

FRANK S. MOORE, SBN 158029 Law Offices of Frank S. Moore, APC SUZY C. MOORE, SBN 151502 Law Offices of Suzy C. Moore 1374 Pacific Avenue San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 292-6091 Facsimile: (415) 292-6694 Attorneys for Defendant ROSA RIVERA KEEL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ROSA RIVERA KEEL AND DOES 1 through ) 10, INCLUSIVE, ) ) ) Defendant. ) / No. C07-04723 MHP DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE [Cal. Code of Civ.Proc., 425.16] Date: January 14, 2008 Time: 2:00 p.m. Place: Courtroom 15, 18th Floor Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al. Case No. C07-04723 MHP
DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 3 of 35

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 b. c. 3. b. 2. E.

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF RELIEF SOUGHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. B. C. D. California's Anti-SLAPP Statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The Applicability of California's Anti-SLAPP Statute in Federal Court . . . . . . . . . . 4 California's Anti-SLAPP Statute Applies to Plaintiff's Claims Brought Pursuant to Diversity Jurisdiction Under the Declaratory Judgment Act . . . . . . . . . . 5 Plaintiff's Declaratory Relief Complaint Arises Under Defendant's First Amendment Conduct and Defendant Can Prove a Prima Facie Application of California's Anti-SLAPP Statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Plaintiff Cannot Prevail in Its Declaratory Relief Complaint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1. Defendant's Conduct Giving Rise to Plaintiff's Claim of "a Case or Controversy" is Absolutely Privileged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Defendant Cannot Allege an Injury in Fact to Establish "a Case or Controversy" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 a. Defendant Cannot Allege an Injury "Traceable" to Defendant's Acts or Omissions to Establish a Case or Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Defendant Cannot Allege a Substantial Likelihood for Redress to Establish a Case or Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Various Abstention and Primary Jurisdiction Doctrines Can Prevent Plaintiff's Suit as an End-Run Around the California Department of Insurance's Regulatory Powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 a. The California Department of Insurance's Regulatory Power Over Consumer Complaints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 The Discretionary Nature of the District Court's Jurisdiction Militates Against Maintaining Jurisdiction of This Action . . . . . . . . 16 "Younger" Abstention Provides Another Basis to Avoid Federal Court Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 i. ii. A State Administrative Proceeding Was Pending When Plaintiff Filed the Federal Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 The Department of Insurance's Administrative Proceeding Implicates Important State Interests . . . . . . . . . . 19
Case No. C07-04723 MHP

OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al.

DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE i

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 4 of 35

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 e. d.

iii.

Plaintiff's Claim Does Not Raise a Federal Question and Plaintiff Has Adequate Judicial Review of the Department of Insurance's Administrative Proceeding . . . . . 19 The Policies Behind the Younger Abstention Doctrine Are Implicated by the Action Plaintiff Has Requested of the Federal Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

iv.

"Burford" Abstention Provides Yet Another Basis to Avoid Federal Court Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 The "Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies" and/or the "Primary Jurisdiction" Doctrines Provide Another Basis to Avoid Federal Court Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al.

Case No. C07-04723 MHP

DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE ii

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 5 of 35

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 Federal Cases:

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (1937) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Southern R.R. Co., 341 U.S. 341 (1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Allen v. Wright , 468 U.S. 737 (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir.2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Bradley Lumber Co. of Arkansas v. N.L.R.B., 84 F.2d 97 (5th Cir. 1936) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of America, 316 U.S. 491 (1942) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Budget Rent-A-Car v. Crawford, 108 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir.1997), overruled on other grounds in 133 F.3d 1220 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Bullfrog Films, Inc. v. Wick, 847 F.2d 502 (9th Cir.1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 California Ass'n of Emp. v. Building and Const. Trades Council of Reno, Nev. and Vicinity, 178 F.2d 175 (9th Cir. 1950) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Canatella v. California, 404 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Chamberlain v. Allstate Ins. Co., 931 F.2d 1361 (9th Cir.1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 17 CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 481 U.S. 69 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, __ U.S. __, 126 S.Ct. 1854 (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Karussos, 65 F.3d 796 (9th Cir.1995), overruled on other grounds in 133 F.3d 1220 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Erie v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5

OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al.

Case No. C07-04723 MHP

DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE iii

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 6 of 35

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

Eureka Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n of San Francisco v. Flynn, 534 F.Supp. 479 (N.D. Cal. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Far East Confer. v. United States, 342 U.S. 570 (1952) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Fletes-Mora v. Brownell, 231 F.2d 579 (9th Cir.1955) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564 (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Government Employees Insurance v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Gully v. Interstate Natural Gas Co., 82 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1936) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Intellectual Property Develop., Inc. v. TCI Cablevision of Calif., Inc., 248 F.3d 1333 (DC Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Kenneally v. Lungren, 967 F.2d 329 (9th Cir.1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 12, 13 Lutge v. Eskanos & Adler, P.C., 2007 WL 1521551 (N.D.Cal. May 24, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 M & A Gabaee v. Community Redevelop. Agency of City of Los Angeles, 419 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Meredith v. Oregon, 321 F.3d 807 (9th Cir.2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Mitcheson v. Harris, 955 F.2d 235 (4th Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 20 Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc., 477 U.S. 619 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Replay TV, 298 F.Supp.2d 921 (CD Cal. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al. Case No. C07-04723 MHP
DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE iv

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 7 of 35

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

Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19 Public Service Comm'n v. Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237 (1952) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 17 Rogers v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 57 F.Supp.2d 973 (CD CA 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66 (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Smith v. California Dept. of Corrections, 2006 WL 3518257 (E.D.Cal.2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Sonoma Foods, Inc. v. Sonoma Cheese Factory, LLC, 2007 WL 2122638 (N.D.Cal. Jul 23, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Thomas v. Fry's Electronics, Inc., 400 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir.2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 United States v. City of Las Cruces, 289 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 United States v. Culliton, 328 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir.2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir.1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5, 8 Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Verizon Delaware, Inc. v. Covad Communications Co., 377 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19, 20 California Cases: Bixby v. Pierno, 4 Cal.3d 130 (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Braun v. Chronicle Publ'g Co., 52 Cal.App.4th 1036 (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al. Case No. C07-04723 MHP
DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE v

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 8 of 35

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

Bunnett v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 35 Cal.App.4th 843 (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Dowling v. Zimmerman, 85 Cal.App.4th 1400 (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim, 42 Cal.App.4th 628 (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman, 47 Cal.App.4th 777 (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court, 78 Cal.App.4th 562 (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Equilon Enters., LLC v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 377 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 22, 23 Governor Gray Davis v. American Taxpayers Alliance, 102 Cal.App.4th 449 (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Hagberg v. California Federal Bank, 32 Cal.4th 350 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Jonathan Neil & Associates v. Jones, 33 Cal.4th 917 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ'g Co., 37 Cal.App.4th 855 (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 8 Maloney v. Rhode Island Ins. Co., 115 Cal.App.2d 238 (1953) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc., 120 Cal.App.4th 90 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 10 Paul for Council v. Hanyecz, 85 Cal.App.4th 1356 (2001), overruled on other grounds in 29 Cal.4th 53 (2002) . . . . . . . . 9 Pollock v. Superior Court, 229 Cal.App.3d 26 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Rubin v. Green, 4 Cal.4th 1187 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal.3d 205 (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al.

Case No. C07-04723 MHP

DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE vi

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 9 of 35

1 2 3 4 5

Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co., 92 Cal.App.4th 1068 (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 9 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Quackenbush, 64 Cal.App.4th 135 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 19 Wilcox v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.App.4th 809 (1994), overruled on other grounds in 29 Cal.4th 53 (2002) . . . . . . . . . 8 Docketed Cases:

6 7 8 9 10 11 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 California Insurance Code 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 12921, et seq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 21 Section 12921.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 2, 14 Section 12921.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 15 Section 12921.3(b)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Section 12921.3(b)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Section 12921.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Section 12921.4(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Section 12921.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Section 12921.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Section 12922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 California Code of Regulations
OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al. Case No. C07-04723 MHP
DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE vii

San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC 06-457269 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 6, 13, 14 Statutes and Rules: Declaratory Judgment Act 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 10, 11, 12, 16

Rule 15(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Rule 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 California Civil Code Section 47(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11, 23 Section 47(b)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Section 47(b)(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Section 425.16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 7, 9 Section 425.16(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Section 425.16(b)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 9 Section 425.16(e)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 23 Section 425.16(e)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 23

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 10 of 35

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
OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al. Case No. C07-04723 MHP
DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE viii

Title 10, Section 2694 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Title 10, Section 2695.7(b)(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 11 of 35

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

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF RELIEF SOUGHT Plaintiff OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY ("Om Financial") filed a one count claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201) against defendant ROSA RIVERA KEEL concerning a life insurance policy her deceased husband had arranged to purchase through Om Financial's agent, Family Direct Insurance Services, Inc. Plaintiff seeks an Order from this Court to declare that defendant is not entitled to the benefits under the policy, that it properly cancelled the policy and that its declaratory relief action was "brought in good faith." (See Prayer to Complaint, ¶¶1-3 ­ Exhibit "A" to the Declaration of Frank S. Moore in Support of Request for Judicial Notice ["RJN"] filed concurrently herewith.) The plaintiff filed this action after defendant Rosa Rivera Keel voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Court against its agents, Patrice Ann Pfitzer and Family Direct Insurance Services, Inc., and after initiating a consumer complaint with the California Department of Insurance regarding these agents' failure to arrange for direct withdrawal of the premium payments from her husband's bank account. Defendant, a widow, had the indignity of losing her husband to a senseless car-jacking and then found herself without a $620,000 death benefit her husband thought he had arranged to pay off their mortgage in the event of his death. Defendant Keel lost her house as a result of the denial of policy benefits. After initiating her lawsuit against the plaintiff's agents, defendant Rosa Rivera Keel discovered through that action that her husband had omitted pertinent information from his application for the life insurance policy regarding treatment he had received for drug abuse. As a result of the discovery of this information, defendant chose to voluntarily dismiss her lawsuit against Patrice Ann Pfitzer and Family Direct Insurance Services, Inc., rather than continue to litigate given the probability that the principal, Om Financial, would likely assert a rescission of the insurance policy in question and its agents would be able to rely on such assertion as a defense to the lawsuit. Nevertheless, defendant Rosa Rivera Keel decided that, because she considered an injustice had been done, she would pursue a consumer complaint with the California Department of Insurance pursuant to California Insurance Code section 12921.1 against Family Direct Insurance Services, Inc. Rather than accept the jurisdiction over such matters by the California Department of Insurance and
OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al. Case No. C07-04723 MHP
DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE 1

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 12 of 35

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

cooperate in the investigation, plaintiff chose to initiate this action in order to cause defendant to incur attorneys' fees and costs she cannot afford. The lawsuit has no purpose other than to chill defendant's protected conduct and is a class strategic lawsuit against public participation. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS Plaintiff's complaint contains a incomplete, false and misleading statement of facts in its attempt to state a "case of actual controversy." Plaintiff omitted from its pleading the undisputed fact that defendant Rosa Rivera Keel had filed suit last year against her deceased husband's broker, Patrice Ann Pfitzer and Family Direct Insurance Services, Inc., in San Francisco County Superior Court (Case No. CGC 06-457269) alleging negligence in the procurement of a life insurance policy but dismissed it on February 27, 2007, after learning through that litigation that her husband had omitted from his insurance application treatment for substance abuse. (See Declaration of Rosa Rivera Keel and Exhibits "C" and "D" to the RJN.) Also omitted from plaintiff's complaint is the undeniable fact that defendant initiated a consumer complaint against Family Direct Insurance Services, Inc., with the Department of Insurance pursuant to California Insurance Code section 12921.1 which involved inquiry into plaintiff's and its agents' practices which is pending and ongoing. (See Keel Decl., ¶6 and Exhibit "F" to the RJN.) In its complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant is a beneficiary of a life insurance policy issued to her late husband, Sean Kenneth Keel, which was cancelled due to alleged failure to make the premium payment. (Complaint, ¶1 ­ Exhibit "A" to RJN.) Plaintiff admits that Mr. Keel filled out an application for the policy and that he designated defendant Rosa Rivera Keel as the beneficiary of the policy. (Complaint, ¶8 ­ Exhibit "A" to RJN.) Plaintiff falsely asserts that Mr. Keel elected the option to make quarterly premium payments. (Id.)1 Yet, plaintiff admits that it issued Policy L0531119. (Complaint, ¶9 ­ Exhibit "A" to RJN.) Plaintiff alleged that Mr. Keel did not pay the initial quarterly premium in the amount of $378.30 when the policy was issued. (Complaint, ¶11 ­ Exhibit "A" to RJN.) Omitted from

As demonstrated herein, this is one of three materially false allegations contradicted by the allegations of the suit defendant filed against plaintiff's agents in San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC 06-457269 (Keel Complaint ­ Exhibit "C" to RJN.)
OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al. Case No. C07-04723 MHP
DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE 2

1

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 13 of 35

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

plaintiff's complaint is the fact that defendant Rosa Rivera Keel, as the plaintiff in San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC 06-457269, had alleged facts, along with supporting evidence, that Mr. Keel had opted to accept the option offered by Om Financial's agent, Patrice Ann Pfitzer and Family Direct Insurance Services, Inc., of arranging direct withdrawal payments by providing them a check for $97.47, which would pay for the first month after the policy was issued and future payments would be drawn from his checking account. (Keel Complaint, ¶¶9a-11 ­ Exhibit "C" to RJN.) Plaintiff alleges that it provided Mr. Keel notice of not receiving the initial premium payment and cancellation of the policy. (Complaint, ¶¶12-15 ­ Exhibit "A" to RJN.) Defendant Rosa Rivera Keel acknowledged in her complaint that the policy was delivered with a notice to pay the initial premium payment but that the policy also contained indication that the automatic withdrawal option for premium payments had been arranged. Indeed, omitted from plaintiff's complaint is the fact that defendant Rosa Rivera Keel, as the plaintiff in San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC 06-457269, had alleged that plaintiff's agent, Patrice Ann Pfitzer, had certified on behalf of Family Direct Insurance Services, Inc., that, if the initial premium was paid with the application, she had remitted it to the insurer and had delivered a Conditional Receipt to the Owner, that Ms Pfitzer had delivered a letter to Mr. Keel enclosing Policy L0531119 with a certificate of life insurance issued by Om Financial's predecessor and bound with Policy L0531119 a copy of the check for $97.78 with the word "VOID" written across it. (Keel Complaint, ¶¶12-15 ­ Exhibit "C" to RJN.) Plaintiff alleges that it received a check for $378.00 on January 26, 2006, "which was purportedly sent to OM Life by Mr. Keel." (Complaint, ¶18 ­ Exhibit "A" to RJN.) This allegation is then used to characterize defendant Rosa Rivera Keel as committing a fraud by "contending" that the $378.30 was paid by her deceased husband. Nothing could be further from the truth. As she alleged in her complaint in San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC 06-457269, it was she who paid the plaintiff the check. (Keel Complaint, ¶18 ­ Exhibit "C" to RJN ["On January 22, 2006, plaintiff (Rosa Rivera Keel) made payment of $378.30 as the premium for Policy No. L0531119"].) Nowhere in the Keel Complaint is there any "contention" that defendant's decedent husband paid the $378.30 premium as alleged in plaintiff's complaint (Complaint, ¶18 ­ Exhibit "A" to RJN).
OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al. Case No. C07-04723 MHP
DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE 3

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 14 of 35

1 2 3 4 5 6

Rather, the opposite is alleged: 18. Shortly after learning of her husband's death, plaintiff ROSA RIVERA KEEL consulted Policy No. L0531119 (Exhibit "E" hereto) and arranged to have a friend who worked for an insurance company review it. Plaintiff's friend informed her that it appeared that the policy was in effect because an original policy had been delivered to decedent. On January 22, 2006, plaintiff made payment of $378.30 as the premium for Policy No. L0531119 (Exhibit "E" hereto). A true and correct copy of the bank transaction reflecting said payment is attached hereto as Exhibit "F."

(Keel Complaint, ¶18 ­ Exhibit "C" to RJN.) 7 ARGUMENT 8 A. 9 "SLAPP" stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Governor Gray Davis v. 10 American Taxpayers Alliance, 102 Cal.App.4th 449, 454 n. 1 (2002). "SLAPP litigation, generally, 11 is litigation without merit filed to dissuade or punish the exercise of First Amendment rights of 12 defendants." Id. (quoting Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ'g Co., 37 Cal.App.4th 855, 13 858 (1995), superceded by statute on other grounds). The anti-SLAPP statute specifies that it should 14 be "construed broadly" (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(a)), and allows a defendant to move to strike 15 a plaintiff's complaint if the complaint stems "from any act of that person in furtherance of the 16 person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in 17 connection with a public issue." Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(b)(1). 18 B. 19 California anti-SLAPP motions to strike and entitlement to fees and costs are available to 20 litigants proceeding in federal court, and these provisions do not conflict with the Federal Rules of 21 22 23 statutes authorize fee awards to litigants in a particular class of cases such as California's anti24 SLAPP statute, the statutes are substantive for purposes of Erie v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) if 25 there is no "direct collision" with the Federal Rules. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Newsham v. 26 27 anti-SLAPP statute's provision allowing attorneys' fees to party successfully striking suit under 28 statute could be applied in diversity cases).
OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al. Case No. C07-04723 MHP
DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE 4

California's Anti-SLAPP Statute

The Applicability of California's Anti-SLAPP Statute in Federal Court

Civil Procedure. Thomas v. Fry's Electronics, Inc., 400 F.3d 1206, 1207 (9th Cir.2005); United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir.1999). When state

Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963, 971-73 (9th Cir.1999) (concluding that California

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 15 of 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

These particular provisions have been held "substantive" for Erie [Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)] doctrine purposes because they are not in conflict with the Federal Rules and advance the purposes of Erie by adopting the California procedural rules: "Plainly, if the anti-SLAPP provisions are held not to apply in federal court, a litigant interested in bringing meritless SLAPP claims would have a significant incentive to shop for a federal forum." United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc., supra, 190 F.3d at 973. The more specific state anti-SLAPP procedure is treated as "substantive" for Erie purposes and thus recognized in diversity cases in federal court. Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1025-1026 (9th Cir. 2003). [A] SLAPP motion, like a summary judgment motion, pierces the pleadings and requires an evidentiary showing. [T]he test applied to a SLAPP motion is similar to that of a motion for summary judgment. . . . [Citation.] Evidence is considered, but not weighed. If the initial evidentiary burden is met by the moving party, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to avoid dismissal of the action. [Citation.] Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co., 92 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1073 (2001). However, where an anti-SLAPP motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint, federal (not state) pleading standards apply: i.e., the complaint must be read broadly, all well-pleaded allegations are accepted as true, and leave to amend is readily granted. Verizon Delaware, Inc. v. Covad Communications Co., 377 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2004) ("granting a defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike a plaintiff's initial complaint without granting the plaintiff leave to amend would directly collide with FRCP 15(a)'s policy favoring liberal amendment"; Rogers v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 57 F.Supp.2d 973, 982-983 (CD CA 1999). Nevertheless, fees and costs may be awarded pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ.Proc., § 425.16). Rogers v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., supra, 57 F.Supp.2d at 983. C. California's Anti-SLAPP Statute Applies to Plaintiff's Claims Brought Pursuant to Diversity Jurisdiction Under the Declaratory Judgment Act Although the anti-SLAPP statute applies to state law claims brought in federal court, it does

24 not apply to federal question claims because such application would frustrate substantive federal 25 rights. See Smith v. California Dept. of Corrections, 2006 WL 3518257 (E.D.Cal.2006) and cases 26 cited therein. Here, plaintiff pleads no federal question. Plaintiff specifically alleges diversity as the 27 basis of this Court's jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Complaint, ¶2 ­ Exhibit "A" to 28 RJN.) Plaintiff does not allege a state law claim and seeks only a declaratory judgment under the
OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al. Case No. C07-04723 MHP
DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE 5

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 16 of 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Declaratory Judgment Act. The Declaratory Judgment Act merely enlarges the range of remedies available in federal courts. It does not afford an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Fletes-Mora v. Brownell, 231 F.2d 579, 581 (9th Cir.1955). Plaintiff's sole purpose in requesting declaratory relief is to establish a defense to a California Department of Insurance inquiry initiated by defendant as a consumer complaint. This sort of litigation tactic cannot establish federal question jurisdiction. Eureka Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n of San Francisco v. Flynn, 534 F.Supp. 479 (N.D. Cal. 1982). The Supreme Court has stated: Where the complaint in an action for declaratory judgment seeks in essence to assert a defense to an impending or threatened state court action, it is the character of the threatened action, and not of the defense, which will determine whether there is federal-question jurisdiction. Public Service Comm'n v. Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237 (1952).

11 D. 12 13 A defendant filing an anti-SLAPP motion to strike "must make an initial prima facie showing 14 that the plaintiff's suit arises from an act in furtherance of defendant's right of petition or free 15 speech." Braun v. Chronicle Publ'g Co., 52 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1042-43 (1997). The defendant need 16 not show that plaintiff's suit was brought with the intention to chill defendant's speech; the 17 plaintiff's "intentions are ultimately beside the point." Equilon Enters., LLC v. Consumer Cause, 18 Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53, 67 (2002). 19 Here, plaintiff's complaint asserts that a "controversy" arises out of defendant's "contention" 20 that the initial premium payment was made on the insurance policy and that she is entitled to the 21 benefits of the policy, without identifying where and how that "contention" was made. (Complaint, 22 ¶¶21-22 ­ Exhibit "A" to RJN.) There are only two sources of such a "contention," both of which 23 are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 24 The first source of any such "contention" is the complaint filed by defendant in San Francisco 25 26 27
2

Plaintiff's Declaratory Relief Complaint Arises Under Defendant's First Amendment Conduct and Defendant Can Prove a Prima Facie Application of California's AntiSLAPP Statute

Superior Court Case No. CGC 06-4572692 wherein she alleged that her husband's broker failed to

28

While we know that the protected conduct plaintiff's declaratory relief cause of action (continued...)
Case No. C07-04723 MHP

OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al.

DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE 6

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 17 of 35

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

properly set-up monthly automatic deductions from his bank account for his policy premiums or, alternatively, failed to inform him that his attempt to arrange for such a service was not properly executed. (Keel Complaint ­ Exhibit "C" to RJN.) Defendant alleged that her husband had submitted a check to brokers Patrice Ann Pfitzer and Family Direct Insurance Services, Inc., for $97.47 on or about September 10, 2005 (Check No. 93), payable to "F&G 20/20 ROP" (plaintiff's prior fictitious business name) to set up monthly automatic deductions from his bank account. (Keel Complaint, ¶11 ­ Exhibit "C" to RJN.) As demonstrated above, nowhere in the Keel Complaint is there any "contention" that defendant's decedent husband paid the $378.30 premium as alleged in plaintiff's complaint (Complaint, ¶18 ­ Exhibit "A" to RJN) and that the opposite is alleged (Keel Complaint, ¶18 ­ Exhibit "C" to RJN). The actual source of the "contention" that gives rise to plaintiff's false assertion in its complaint is the consumer complaint defendant made to the DOI. (Exhibit "E" to RJN.) In that complaint, defendant complained that her husband took out a life insurance policy and was subsequently killed as a result of a car-jacking and that the plaintiff was refusing to pay the benefits under the policy. (Id.) Moreover, defendant informed the DOI that she was choosing this method of redress because, based on the advice of counsel, it was the most cost-effective method of doing so. (Id.) Defendant requested the remedy that the insurance company, plaintiff, honor the policy because her husband had completed the paperwork and submitted the premium. (Id.) Again, nowhere in the consumer complaint is there any "contention" that defendant's decedent husband paid the $378.30 premium. (Exhibit "E" to RJN.) Consequently, the only focus that may properly be placed upon the defendant's "contention" is her protected conduct. Defendant's "contention" embraces both subdivisions (e)(1) and (2) of section 425.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure which expressly defines the First Amendment activity from which a cause of action must arise in order to be the proper subject of a special motion to strike

(...continued) "arises from" is defendant's consumer complaint with the DOI through plaintiff's counsel's admission (Exhibit "B" to RJN), this other source of protected conduct is relevant to a potential alternative source for the purported "contention" and whether plaintiff has a means of amending its complaint to state a cause of action against defendant for declaratory relief.
OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al. Case No. C07-04723 MHP
DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE 7

2

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 18 of 35

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

under the anti-SLAPP statute. Dowling v. Zimmerman, 85 Cal.App.4th 1400 (2001) (citing Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim, 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 647 (1996), overruled on other grounds). Plaintiff's lawsuit "masquerade[s] as [an] ordinary lawsuit[]" but is brought to deter common citizens from exercising their political or legal rights or to punish them for doing so. Wilcox v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 816 (1994), overruled on other grounds by Equilon Enter. v. Consumer Cause, Inc., supra, 29 Cal.4th 53 (2002). "The hallmark of a SLAPP suit is that it lacks merit, and is brought with the goals of obtaining an economic advantage over a citizen party by increasing the cost of litigation to the point that the citizen party's case will be weakened or abandoned, and of deterring future litigation." United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., supra, 190 F.3d at 970-71 (citing Wilcox v. Superior Court, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at 814-17). There can be no doubt that plaintiff's cause of action "arises from" defendant's protected conduct in making a consumer complaint with the DOI as reflected in plaintiff's counsel's letter to her explaining the reason for filing this action. See Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co., supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at 862-863 (In order to apply the anti-SLAPP statute to any cause of action asserted by a plaintiff, the cause of action in question must "arise from" the First Amendment rights of an appellant in the first instance.) In Equilon Enter. v. Consumer Cause, Inc., supra, 29 Cal.4th 53, declaratory and injunctive relief were sought with respect to the protected activity of a threatened lawsuit. The court found that the first prong of the anti-SLAPP test was satisfied because the dispute was fundamentally about the other lawsuit itself. (See Equilon, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 67; see also Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82, 90 (2002) [claims entirely concerned protected conduct].) It is instructive to note that, when she made the consumer complaint with the DOI, she had already dismissed her lawsuit against plaintiff's agent, Family Direct Insurance Services, Inc., and she had chosen to pursue the remedy with the DOI on the advice of counsel. The reason, as she put it, was "because costs and fees to litigate would be costly for me." (Exhibit "E" to RJN.) It is also worth observing plaintiff's counsel's "advice" to defendant when he informed her that she had been sued for declaratory relief: "While the Action does not seek damages against you, we recommend
OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al. Case No. C07-04723 MHP
DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE 8

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 19 of 35

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

that you obtain legal representation." This "suggestion" appears designed to accomplish precisely what a SLAPP lawsuit is designed to do: to deter defendant, as a common citizen, from exercising her political and legal rights or to punish her for doing so, after losing her husband to a mindless crime and losing her home because of her inability to receive the benefit of the life insurance policy. (Keel Decl., ¶9.) The court decides whether the defendant has made a threshold prima facie showing that defendant's acts of which the plaintiff complains were ones taken in furtherance of the defendant's constitutional rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. Paul for Council v. Hanyecz, 85 Cal.App.4th 1356 (2001), overruled on other grounds by Equilon Enter. v. Consumer Cause, Inc., supra, 29 Cal.4th 53 (2002) (citing Wilcox v. Superior Court supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at 820.) Defendant respectfully submits that California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivisions (e)(1) and (2) apply to plaintiff's complaint because the "contention" alluded to therein implicates her First Amendment rights.3 E. Plaintiff Cannot Prevail in Its Declaratory Relief Complaint If the trial court determines that the moving party has carried its burden, it considers the second component -- whether the party bringing the suit has established that there is a probability it will prevail on its claim. Section 425.16, subd. (b)(1); DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court, 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 567-568 (2000). The defendant has the burden on the first issue, the threshold issue; the plaintiff has the burden on the second issue. Wilcox, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 819.

(1) [A]ny written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law" (§§ 425.16, subd. (e)(1)); and (2) [A]ny written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law (§§ 425.16, subd. (e)(2)). A SLAPP defendant moving under section 425.16 to strike a cause of action arising from a statement made before, or in connection with an issue under consideration by, a legally authorized official proceeding within the meaning of clauses (1) and (2) of subdivision (e) "need not separately demonstrate that the statement concerned an issue of public significance." Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1123 (1999).
OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al. Case No. C07-04723 MHP
DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE 9

3

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 20 of 35

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

"A SLAPP motion, like a summary judgment motion, pierces the pleadings and requires an evidentiary showing." Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at 1073 [cited with approval in Sonoma Foods, Inc. v. Sonoma Cheese Factory, LLC, 2007 WL 2122638, *6 (N.D.Cal. Jul 23, 2007) and Lutge v. Eskanos & Adler, P.C., 2007 WL 1521551, *4+ (N.D.Cal. May 24, 2007)]. The plaintiff need not prove the challenged claims. "Rather, the court considers whether the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of facts based on competent admissible evidence that would, if proved, support a judgment in the plaintiff's favor." Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc., 120 Cal.App.4th 90, 105 (2004). A plaintiff need only establish the challenged cause of action has "minimal merit." Navellier v. Sletten, supra, 29 Cal.4th at 94. As set forth below, defendant is immune from suit under California's absolute privilege found in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b). In addition, plaintiff has not alleged any of the requisite elements to establish a "case of actual controversy" justiciable under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Nor can plaintiff cure this failure because nothing about defendant's protected conduct, when accurately characterized, would give rise to a case of actual controversy sufficient for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201). Indeed, as plaintiff's counsel's readily admitted in his letter to defendant, he filed this action on behalf of his client, the plaintiff, because of the consumer complaint defendant filed with the DOI and nothing more. (Keel Decl., ¶7; October 26, 2007 Letter from Plaintiff's Counsel - Exhibit "B" to RJN.) Plaintiff has not alleged, and has no basis to allege, a concrete harm necessary to invoke the Declaratory Judgment Act. Being subjected to an investigation authorized by a state statute does not establish the existence of an unconstitutional statutory scheme establishing the adjudicative body plaintiff has been subjected to by a consumer complaint. (See infra.) Finally, the various abstention doctrines outlined below either require this Court to abstain outright or provides ample reason for this Court to voluntarily decline to exercise jurisdiction that it would otherwise have to exercise under diversity jurisdiction. See Canatella v. California, 404 F.3d 1106, 1116 (9th Cir. 2005). /// /// ///
OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al. Case No. C07-04723 MHP
DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE 10

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 21 of 35

1 2

1.

Defendant's Conduct Giving Rise to Plaintiff's Claim of "a Case or Controversy" is Absolutely Privileged

Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b) protects communications made in preparation for or to 3 4 privilege statute "is intended to `"assure utmost freedom of communication between citizens and 5 public authorities whose responsibility is to investigate and remedy wrongdoing."'" (Id. at p. 360.) 6 The privilege is absolute and renders both statements and omissions immune from liability, 7 even when done with malice. Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal.3d 205, 213-214 (1990); Pollock v. 8 Superior Court, 229 Cal.App.3d 26, 28 (1991). Since defendant enjoys absolute immunity from suit 9 under section 47(b), appellant cannot demonstrate a probability of success to allow it to proceed on 10 its declaratory relief claim. See Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman, 47 Cal.App.4th 11 777, 784-785 (1996); Rubin v. Green, 4 Cal.4th 1187, 1194-1195 (1993). "If the policies underlying 12 section 47(b) are sufficiently strong to support an absolute privilege, the resulting immunity should 13 not evaporate merely because the plaintiff discovers a conveniently different label [declaratory relief] 14 for pleading what is in substance an identical grievance arising from identical conduct as that 15 protected by section 47(b)." (Rubin v. Green, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1203.) 16 2. 17 The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint is that it is not required to honor a policy of insurance 18 purchased by defendant's now-deceased husband. (Complaint, ¶¶7-24 ­ Exhibit "A" to RJN.) 19 Plaintiff does not allege a concrete harm necessary to invoke the Declaratory Judgment Act. (28 20 U.S.C. § 2201.) Nor can it. 21 The Declaratory Judgment Act requires a showing that plaintiff has suffered actual loss, 22 damage or injury, or is threatened with impairment of his or her own interests. This tends to assure 23 that plaintiff has a sufficient stake in the outcome of the suit to make it a real "case or controversy." 24 Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 100 (1979); Bullfrog Films, Inc. v. Wick, 25 26 27 28 In pertinent part, that statute provides that a "privileged publication or broadcast is one made. . . . [¶] In any . . . judicial proceeding, [or] in any other official proceeding authorized by law. . . ." Civ.Code, § 47, subds.(b)(2), (3).
OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al. Case No. C07-04723 MHP
DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE 11
4

prompt an investigation.4 Hagberg v. California Federal Bank, 32 Cal.4th 350, 370 (2004). The

Defendant Cannot Allege an Injury in Fact to Establish "a Case or Controversy"

847 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir.1988).

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 22 of 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

The "injury in fact" requirement must involve "an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559­560 (1992); DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, __ U.S. __, 126 S.Ct. 1854, 1862 (2006). Plaintiff's interest in the litigation must consist of obtaining compensation for, or preventing, the violation of a legally protected right. An interest unrelated to injury in fact does not give plaintiff standing to sue. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 772 (2000). The complaint does not state an "injury in fact" sufficient to state a claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act. (28 U.S.C. § 2201.) Rather, it is a "reactive declaratory action" as plaintiff's counsel explained in a letter to defendant describing the reason for the lawsuit, to wit: Subsequently, you [defendant Rosa Rivera Keel] contacted the California Department of Insurance ("DOI") regarding this matter. On or about June 11, 2007, the DOI inquired into this matter and demanded, among other things, that OM Life provide a narrative explanation of your claim history. OM Life provided a thorough explanation to the DOI, and stood by its decision. ¶ . . . Nevertheless, in an effort to give at least as much consideration to your interests as it gives its own interests, OM Life has decided to defer this matter to an impartial tribunal. To that end, OM Life has filed a declaratory relief action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entitled OM Financial Life Insurance Company v. Rosa Rivera Keel - Case No. C07-4723 (MHP) ("the Action"). (Keel Decl., ¶7; October 26, 2007 Letter from Plaintiff's Counsel - Exhibit "B" to RJN.)

17 Plaintiff's counsel's reference in his letter to defendant to the district court as an "impartial 18 tribunal" implies that plaintiff cannot obtain fair and unbiased treatment from the California 19 Department of Insurance. Yet, this is not alleged in the complaint and there is no factual basis for 20 such a contention. A claim of impending future harm arising out of the predicted bias of state 21 administrative officers may present a sufficiently live controversy. See Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 22 564 (1973). However, in Gibson there was clear evidence of: (1) a personal financial stake in the 23 outcome of the administrative proceeding on the part of the adjudicative body; (2) a previous state 24 court action by the adjudicative body against the party whose rights were to be adjudicated; and (3) 25 the existence of an unconstitutional statutory scheme establishing the adjudicative body. None of 26 those factors are present here. 27 28
OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al. Case No. C07-04723 MHP
DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE 12

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 23 of 35

1 2

a.

Defendant Cannot Allege an Injury "Traceable" to Defendant's Acts or Omissions to Establish a Case or Controversy

In addition to an "injury in fact," there must be a causal connection between plaintiff's injury 3 and the conduct complained of, i.e., the injury must be "traceable" to defendant's acts or omissions. 4 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, supra, 504 U.S. at 559-560; Allen v. Wright , 468 U.S. 737, 757 5 (1984). Plaintiff is purposefully vague as to defendant's conduct or omission. Rather, plaintiff 6 alleges that defendant has made a "contention." On information and belief, plaintiff alleges that 7 "Defendant contends that the initial premium payment on the Policy was made prior to the death of 8 Mr. Keel and that she is therefore entitled to receive the benefits under the policy." (Complaint, ¶21 9 ­ Exhibit "A" to RJN.) Furthermore, plaintiff's characterization of defendant's purported 10 "contention" is demonstrably false and contradicted by the very pleading she filed in San Francisco 11 Superior Court Case No. CGC 06-457269. 12 Thus, plaintiff has failed to allege that defendant has engaged in acts or omissions giving rise 13 to an "injury in fact." The party seeking declaratory relief must show an explicit threat of litigation 14 or other action creating a reasonable apprehension that he or she will be subjected to liability. 15 Intellectual Property Develop., Inc. v. TCI Cablevision of Calif., Inc., 248 F.3d 1333, 1340 (DC Cir. 16 2001); Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Replay TV, 298 F.Supp.2d 921, 924 (CD Cal. 2004). A 17 "contention" is not an act or omission giving rise to an "injury in fact" to give rise to a real "case or 18 controversy." This is particularly true here where the purported "contention" as alleged can be 19 conclusively proven to be false and privileged in any event. 20 b. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant Cannot Allege a Substantial Likelihood for Redress to Establish a Case or Controversy

Finally, there must be a substantial likelihood that the relief sought, if granted, will redress the injury. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, supra, 504 U.S. at 559-560; Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982). The relief must redress the "injury in fact" suffered by plaintiff. It is not enough that a favorable judgment will benefit the public at large or punish a wrongdoer or simply make plaintiff happy. Psychic satisfaction is not enough for Article III standing. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 107, 118 (1998).
OM FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. ROSA RIVERA KEEL, et al. Case No. C07-04723 MHP
DEFENDANT ROSA RIVERA KEEL'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE 13

Case 3:07-cv-04723-MHP

Document 8

Filed 12/03/2007

Page 24 of 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Here, the only redress plaintiff hopes to gain by this ill-conceived lawsuit is to chill the defendant's rights to pursue a consumer complaint with the California Department of Insurance (see supra.) There is simply no cognizable dispute that plaintiff can allege. The dispute must be "definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests"; and that it be "real and substantial" and "admi[t] of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts." Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937). Because the plaintiff's allegations are based on an allegation that is also demonstrably false, it also appears to be an abuse of process. Consequently, defendant respectfully submits that plaintiff cannot allege a substantial likelihood of obta