JAMS, Inc. v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
1 Cal. App. 5th 984, 205 Cal. Rptr. 3d 307 (2016)

- Written by Kate Douglas, JD
Facts
JAMS, Inc. (defendant) provided private alternative-dispute resolution (ADR) services by promoting and arranging for the hiring of third-party neutrals. JAMS’s website described its neutrals as “trusted experts” and claimed that the company was “dedicated to neutrality, integrity, [and] honesty.” JAMS listed retired judge Sheila Prell Sonenshine (defendant) as a neutral. Sonenshine’s resume, which was available on JAMS’s website, indicated that Sonenshine had substantial business experience, including the founding and management of two business ventures. Kevin Kinsella (plaintiff) claimed to have millions of dollars in assets, including venture capital partnerships. After reviewing JAMS’s website and Sonenshine’s resume, Kinsella believed that Sonenshine had strong business acumen and consented to her serving as the neutral in his marriage dissolution. Kinsella later became concerned that Sonenshine did not have the experience he initially believed. Subsequent investigation revealed, among other things, that Sonenshine had been sued for fraud in connection with one of her business ventures, a fact that was omitted from her resume. Kinsella sued JAMS and Sonenshine, asserting that numerous representations on JAMS’s website and Sonenshine’s resume were false or misleading. JAMS and Sonenshine moved to strike pursuant to California’s Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) statute. Kinsella moved for a finding that his claims were exempt from the anti-SLAPP procedure because they arose out of JAMS’s and Sonenshine’s commercial speech. The trial court found that Kinsella’s claims were exempt from anti-SLAPP procedures. JAMS and Sonenshine petitioned the court of appeal for a writ of mandate, arguing that the commercial-speech exemption did not apply because the subject statements (1) were nonactionable opinions, not fact statements; (2) involved omissions, not affirmative misrepresentations; and (3) were not made solely for commercial purposes.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McConnell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.