Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter

California Supreme Court

Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter

429 P.3d 827, 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 662

California Supreme Court·Decided November 14, 2018·No. S251392·Published

Opinion

The petition for review is granted. The issues to be briefed and argued are limited to the following: (1) When a settlement agreement contains confidentiality provisions that are explicitly binding on the parties and their attorneys and the attorneys sign the agreement under the legend "APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT," have the attorneys consented to be bound by the confidentiality provisions? (2) When evaluating the plaintiff's probability of prevailing on its claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (b), may a court ignore extrinsic evidence that supports the plaintiff's claim, or accept the defendant's interpretation of an undisputed but ambiguous fact over that of the plaintiff?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The petition for review is granted. The issues to be briefed and argued are limited to the following: (1) When a settlement agreement contains confidentiality provisions that are explicitly binding on the parties and their attorneys and the attorneys sign the agreement under the legend "APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT," have the attorneys consented to be bound by the confidentiality provisions? (2) When evaluating the plaintiff's probability of prevailing on its claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (b), may a court ignore extrinsic evidence that supports the plaintiff's claim, or accept the defendant's interpretation of an undisputed but ambiguous fact over that of the plaintiff?

Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, 429 P.3d 827, 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 662 (Cal. 2018).

Pincite

429 P.3d 827 (Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.