SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil ...

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division

)

THE PRAXIS PROJECT, et al.,

) Case No. 2017 CA 004801 B

)

Plaintiffs,

)

) Honorable Judge Elizabeth C. Wingo

v.

)

)

THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, et al., ) Next Event: Motion Hearing

) March 15, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.

______D_e_f_en_d_a_n_ts_. ________________

)

)

COCA-COLA'S SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAANTI-SLAPP ACT, D.C. CODE? 16-5501 ET SEQ.

Defendant The Coca-Cola Company ("Coca-Cola"), by and through the undersigned,

hereby moves this Court, pursuant to the District of Columbia Anti-SLAPP Act, D.C. Code ? 165501 et seq., to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice, to award Coca-Cola reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and to stay discovery in this case until ruling on this motion is made.

In support of the instant Motion, Coca-Cola respectfully refers this Court to the Memorandum of Law and Points ofAuthorities filed herewith.

ORAL HEARING REQUESTED Pursuant to Rule 12-I(h) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, Coca-Cola

respectfully requests an oral hearing on this motion.

[SIGNATURE BLOCK ON NEXT PAGE]

Dated: October 23,2017

Respectfully submitted,

Steven A. Zalesin (pro hac vice) Travis J. Tu (pro hac vice) Jane M. Metcalf (pro hac vice forthcoming) PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 (212) 336-2000 (telephone) (212) 336-2111 (facsimile) E-mail: sazalesin@

tjtu@ jmetcalf@

Is/Anthony T. Pierce Anthony T. Pierce (D.C. Bar No. 415263) Stanley E. Woodward Jr. (D.C. Bar No. 997320) Melissa D. Chastang (D.C. Bar No. 1028815) AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 887-4000 (telephone) (202) 887-4288 (facsimile) E-mail: apierce@

sewoodward@ mchastang@

Counsel for Defendant The Coca-Cola Company

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division

)

THE PRAXIS PROJECT, et al.,

) Case No. 2017 CA 004801 B

)

Plaintiffs,

)

) Honorable Judge Elizabeth C. Wingo

v.

)

)

THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, et al., ) Next Event: Motion Hearing

) March 15, 2018 at 11 :00 a.m.

Defendants.

)

____________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF COCA-COLA'S SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAANTI-SLAPP ACT, D.C. CODE

? 16-5501 ET SEQ.

Steven A. Zalesin (pro hac vice) Travis J. Tu (pro hac vice) Jane M. Metcalf (pro hac vice pending) PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 (212) 336-2000 (telephone)

Anthony T. Pierce (D.C. Bar No. 415263) Stanley E. Woodward Jr. (D.C. Bar No. 997320) Melissa D. Chastang (D.C. Bar No. 1028815) AKIN GUrviP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 887-4000 (telephone)

TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................................2

A. The Public Debate On SSBs ....................................................................................2 B. Plaintiffs' Allegations About Coca-Cola's Participation in the Debate ..................5 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 8 I. Plaintiffs Claims Are Barred By the Anti-SLAPP Act.................................................9 A. The Challenged Statements Are Protected By the First Amendment......................9 B. The Challenged Statements Fall Within the Scope of the Statute ......................... 11 C. Plaintiffs Cannot Demonstrate That Their Claim Is Likely to Succeed ................13 II. Coca-Cola Is Entitled to Other Relief.......................................................................... 14 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 15

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s)

Cases

Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head,

486 u.s. 492 (1988) .................................................................................................................. 10

American Bev. Ass 'n v. City and County ofSan Francisco, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18150 (9th Cir. Sept. 19, 2017) ...........................................................5

Baral v. Schnitt, 376 P.3d 604 (Cal. 2016) ...........................................................................................................9

Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F.2d 155 (3d Cir. 1988)..................................................................................................... 10

Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Mann, 150 A.3d 1213 (D.C. 2016) .................................................................................................8, 13

E.R.R. Pres. Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight,

365 u.s. 127 (1961) ..............................................................................................................9, 10

Farah v. Esquire Magazine, Inc., 863 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2012) ........................................................................................... 13

Feld Entertainment, Inc. v. ASPCA, 873 F. Supp. 2d 288 (D.D.C. 2012) ......................:..............................................................9, 10

Grayson v. AT&T Corp., 15 A.3d 219 (D.C. 2011) ......................................................................................................... 13

In re NY. Statewide Coalition ofHispanic Chambers ofCommerce v. NY. C. Dep 't ofHealth & Mental Hygiene, 16 N.E.3d 538 (N.Y. 2014) ....................................................................................................4, 5

Philip Morris v. United States, 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009) .....................:......................................................................... 10

Simpson v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 2016 CA 1931 B, Tr. of Oral Ruling at 39:18-21 (Jan. 13, 2017) .................................... 12

Sliding Door Co. v. KLS Doors, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71304 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2013) ........................................................ .10

11

Statutes

D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act, D.C. Code? 16-5501 et seq............................................................. passim

District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. Code? 28-3901 et seq. ........................................................................................................................... 1, 6, 7, 14

Other Authorities

79 Fed. Reg. 11880 (Mar. 3, 2014) ..................................................................................................3

81 Fed. Reg. 33742 (May 27, 2016) ................................................................................................3

Sonia Caprio, Calories from Soft Drinks-Do They Matter?, 367 NEW ENG. J. MED. 1462, 1462-63 (2012) .......................................................................................................3

Ravi Dhingra et al., Soft Drink Consumption and Risk ofDeveloping Cardiometabolic Risk Factors and the Metabolic Syndrome in Middle-Aged Adults in the Communiry ............................................................................................................3

Cara B. Ebbeling et al., A Randomized Trial ofSugar-Sweetened Beverages and Adolescent Body Weight, 367 NEW ENG. J. MED. 1407, 1408 (2012) .......................................3

Vasanti S. Malik et al., Sugar Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain in Children and Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis .......................................................... ......3

Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Act of2015, H.R. 1687, 114th Cong. 1st Sess. (Mar. 26, 20 15) ..........................................................................................................................4

Healthy California Fund, Assembl. 2782, 2015-2016 Sess. (Cal. 2016) .........................................4

An Act to Amend the Agriculture and Markets Law, In Relation to the Labeling of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages with Warnings, Assembl. A02320B, 2015 Leg. Sess. (N.Y. 2015) ...............................................................................................................4

An Act Imposing a Tax on Sugary Soft Drinks, Gen. Assembl. 5461, 2015 Sess. (Conn. 2015) ..............................................................................................................................4

Concerning Mitigation of the Adverse Impacts of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, H.R. HB 2798, 2016 Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2016) ............... :..........................................................4

Greg Trotter & Becky Yerak, Cook County retailers cheer soda tax repeal: (This was a nightmare', CHICAGO TRIB. (Oct. 11, 2017) available at 011-story.html; .................................................................................................................4

iii

How Did Berkeley Pass a Soda Tax? Bloomberg's Cash Didn't Hurt, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO (Nov. 5, 2014), available at 14/11/05/361793296/how-did-berkeleypass-a-soda-tax-bloombergs-cash-didnt-hurt............................................................................ .4

Hal Dardick & John Byrne, Vote to repeal Cook County soda tax delayed a month, as ad campaigns continue, CHICAGO TRIBUNE (Sept. 14, 2017), available at ....................................................4

Julia Terruso, Philly: Soda tax revenue to fall short, THE INQUIRER (June 13, 2017), available at .......................................................................................................4

Report of Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary on Bill18-893 (Nov. 18, 2010) ......................................................................................................................................2, 8

iv

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This suit is an attempt to bar The Coca-Cola Company ("Coca-Cola") from participating in public discussion about obesity, diabetes and heart disease. As these conditions have increased in prevalence, a national debate-among scientists, policymakers and citizens-has ensued about the causes of that trend and strategies for reversing it. Some, including Plaintiffs, argue that sugar-sweetened beverages ("SSBs") are "uniquely" to blame for obesity. This viewpoint has led lawmakers at various levels to consider, and in some cases adopt, restrictions on the marketing and sale of SSBs, such as SSE-specific taxes and health warnings. Others, such as Coca-Cola and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"), question the science underlying these initiatives. They maintain that numerous lifestyle factors contribute to obesity and that prevention depends on balancing overall calories consumed with those expended through physical activity. They credit the considerable scientific literature that shows that, to quote FDA, "sugar-sweetened beverages[] are no more likely to cause weight gain in adults than any other source of energy." 79 Fed. Reg. 11880, 11903-04 (Mar. 3, 2014). CocaCola therefore opposes, and FDA has thus far rejected, measures that would require SSBs to bear health warnings. Plaintiffs argue that Coca-Cola's participation in this health policy debate-even in such non-commercial contexts as media interviews and scientific symposia-is unlawful under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. Code ? 28-3901 et seq. ("CPPA"). They assert that their ideology regarding SSBs and obesity reflects a "scientific consensus," and that statements contradicting this perspective should be outlawed. They thus ask this Court to enjoin Coca-Cola from making any statements, including truthful statements of fact, that either contradict or "switch the focus" from their preferred theory.

1

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download