A litigant that chose JAMS and its panel member Sheila Sonenshine to handle a divorce proceeding, sued JAMS and Sonenshine claiming that Sonenshine’s bio on the JAMS website misrepresented her business experience by touting her relationship with two business entities, the first of which had resulted in a significant shareholder suit against her, and the second of which had never been activated. The suit also claimed that JAMS falsely claimed to exercise the highest ethical standards. This decision holds that the trial court properly denied JAMS’s and Sonnenshine’s Anti-SLAPP motion because the suit arose from their advertising their services for the purpose of enticing potential purchasers, such as the plaintiff, and thus fell within the CCP 415.17(c) exception to the Anti-SLAPP statute. The exception applies to omissions and half-truths as well as affirmative misrepresentations. The exception also applies despite the fact that the bio and JAMS’s statements may have served other purposes in addition to soliciting customers for JAMS’s and Sonnenshine’s services.
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1 (McConnell, P.J.); July 27, 2016; 2016 WL 4014068