Sedgwick Claims Management Ser v. Robert Delsman, No. 09-16809 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., No. 09-16809 D.C. No. 4:09-cv-01468-SBA Plaintiff - Appellant, MEMORANDUM * v. ROBERT A. DELSMAN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Saundra Brown Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2011 ** Before: FARRIS, O SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. appeals from the district court s order dismissing its action alleging, inter alia, defamation and trade libel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Price v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Stossel, 620 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Sedgwick s defamation and trade libel claims under California s anti-SLAPP statute because defendant Delsman s conduct was in furtherance of his free speech rights in connection with an issue of public interest, and Sedgwick did not meet its burden of establishing a probability of prevailing on its claims. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16; Ruiz v. Harbor View Cmty. Ass n, 37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 133, 140-46 (Ct. App. 2005) (setting forth § 425.16 analysis, and concluding that defendant s letter containing rhetorical hyperbole was free speech in connection with an issue of public interest and that plaintiff did not establish a probability of prevailing on his libel claim). Sedgwick s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 09-16809

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.