Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter
This text of 429 P.3d 827 (Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
429 P.3d 827, 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monster-energy-co-v-schechter-cal-2018.