Monster Energy may pursue its breach of contract claims against Bruce Schechter and his firm, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, the California Supreme Court said July 11.
The defendants argued that the suit was intended to chill their exercise of free speech, and the lower court dismissed it under the state’s law on Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.
But the high court said it’ss possible that the defendants intended to be bound, along with their clients, by the confidentiality agreement.
All parties signed the agreement, and their lawyers signed under a notation that they approved the written agreement “as to form and content.”
The lower court erred when it found that the “as to form and content” notation meant that counsel didn’t intend to be bound by its terms, the court said.
A factfinder considering all the circumstances could reasonably conclude Schechter agreed to be bound, the high court said.
The family of a 14-year old girl sued Monster Energy in 2012, alleging she went into cardiac arrest and died after drinking two Monster Energy drinks. The parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement in 2015.
Shortly after the settlement, an article appeared on the website “LawyersandSettlements.com” entitled “‘Substantial Dollars’ for Family in Monster Energy Drink Wrongful Death Suit.”
The article quoted Schechter as saying the case resulted in “substantial dollars” for the family, that he has filed three additional suits against Monster Energy, and that he believes its products are unsafe.
Judge Carol A. Corrigan wrote the opinion.
Shook, Hardy & Bacon represents Monster Energy. Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP and Grignon Law Firm represent Schecter.
The case is Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, 2019 BL 256186, Cal., No. S251392, 7/11/19.
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.