The parties' powers to terminate the contract were not the same: Mission could terminate the contract with 60 days' notice and irrespective of cause, while Pabst could terminate the contract only for one of ten enumerated reasons and then only if it gave Mission an opportunity to cure. In turn, Mission promised to “aggressively promote, encourage, and increase” the sales of, and “customer satisfaction” with, those beers. Pabst granted Mission the exclusive right to distribute many of its beers within specifically delineated boundaries within Los Angeles County. In January 2009, Pabst entered into a written Distributor Agreement (Agreement) with plaintiff and respondent Mission Beverage Company (Mission). This appeal presents two questions: (1) Does a brewer's cancellation of a contract, when that cancellation will be followed by negotiation and possibly arbitration under section 25000.2, qualify as “protected activity” within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute? and (2) Does the ousted distributor's lawsuit for breach of contract and declaratory relief lack minimal merit on the ground that section 25000.2 immunizes successor brewers from liability for breach of contract because it affirmatively grants those brewers a right to terminate distribution contracts and provides full compensation for the ousted distributor? We conclude that the answer to both questions is “no,” and accordingly affirm the trial court's denial of the brewer's anti-SLAPP motion in this case.ĭefendant and appellant Pabst Brewing Company, LLC (Pabst) is a brewer of beers among others, Pabst brews such American classics as Pabst Blue Ribbon, Colt 45 Malt Liquor, Old Milwaukee, Schlitz, and Stroh's. The brewer responded with a motion to strike the entire complaint under the anti-SLAPP 2 statute (Code Civ. 1 The ousted distributor sued the brewer for breaching the contract's termination-for-cause requirement and for declaratory relief. Gerber for Plaintiff and Respondent.Ī brewer of beer decided to replace one of its distributors, and sent that distributor a letter terminating their distribution contract and invoking the statutory procedure requiring an existing distributor to negotiate and, if necessary, arbitrate with its successor to settle the “fair market value” of its distributorship rights (Bus. PABST BREWING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant and Appellant. MISSION BEVERAGE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |