 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor v. Kuwatch6/30/2004
Defendant Edward Kuwatch appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found he had defamed plaintiffs Lawrence E. Taylor and Law Offices of Lawrence E. Taylor and had engaged in unfair business practices by utilizing false, misleading or deceptive advertising. Defendant raises a variety of issues concerning the propriety of the judgment but we address only two: whether the statute of limitations bars plaintiffs' defamation claims, which plaintiffs are estopped from denying, and whether defendant's conduct constituted an actionable unfair business practice.
We hold that inasmuch as the single publication rule applies to Internet publications, the statute of limitations does bar plaintiffs' defamation claims. We further hold that the doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes plaintiffs from arguing otherwise. Finally, we hold that certain of defendant's statements on his website were false, misleading and deceptive, and did constitute an actionable unfair business practice. We consequently reverse the judgment in part.
FACTS [FN1]
FN1. We set forth the facts as briefly as possible, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to that portion of the judgment which we affirm. (Young v. Gannon (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 209, 225.)
Plaintiff Lawrence E. Taylor has a distinguished legal background that includes service with the county counsel, the public defender and the district attorney, as well as a career teaching and writing. Defendant's legal pedigree is considerably less illustrious. Each has a reputation as a leading expert in the field of drunk driving (DUI) defense.
Defendant maintains an Internet website that includes a section entitled "15 Tips: Secrets About DUI Attorney Marketing." Defendant made certain representations on his website that are false, misleading or deceptive. [FN2] Plaintiffs' business suffered.
FN2. We shall set forth at length the facts concerning these
representations when they become pertinent to the discussion of the issues.
DISCUSSION
Statute of Limitations
Uniform Single Publication Act
The uniform single publication rule is codified in Civil Code section 3425.3. It provides that "[n]o person shall have more than one cause of action for damages for libel or slander ... founded upon any single publication or exhibition or utterance, such as one issue of a newspaper or book or magazine or any one presentation to an audience or any one broadcast over radio or television or any one exhibition of a motion picture."
As noted recently in Long v. Walt Disney Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 868, "[b]oth in language and intent, the [Uniform Single Publication Act] is a broad enactment, applying to 'libel or slander or invasion of privacy or any other tort founded upon any single publication or exhibition or utterance.' [Citation.]" (At p. 871.) In view of its breadth, the Act works "to protect defamation-like claims, implicating First Amendment values and arising from mass communications, from ungovernable piecemeal liability and potentially endless tolling of the statute of limitations." (Id. at p. 874.) The uniform single publication rule therefore applies to publication on the Internet. (Id. at pp. 873-874; accord, Traditional Cat Assn., Inc. v. Gilbreath (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 392.)
*2 In general, publication occurs "on the 'first general distribution of the publication to the public.' [Citations.] ... [Consequently,] the cause of action accrues and the period of limitations commences, regardless of when the plaintiff secured a copy or became aware of the publication. [Citations.]" (Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1245-1246.) Inasmuch as defendant did not himself hinder plaintiffs' discovery of the Internet publications, the general rule applies in this case. (Bernson
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|