SAN DIEGO (Legal Newsline) - A dredging company turned the tables on a competitor that sued it for violating federal law, winning a ruling by a California appeals court that it can seek attorneys fees under the state’s anti-SLAPP law prohibiting retaliation against protected speech.
In this case, the protected speech was Pacific Dredge and Construction’s presentation to the U.S. Coast Guard verifying its barge complied with the Jones Act, which requires vessels engaging in coastal trade to be built in the U.S. Competitor Curtin Maritime sued under California’s unfair competition law, claiming the 1950s-era barge had been partially rebuilt in Mexico.
Pacific Dredge fired back with an anti-SLAPP action (for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), which allows parties to defeat a lawsuit if the court finds it was intended to squelch protected speech. The law has been interpreted to include everything from public protests to lawsuits and in this case California’s Fourth Appellate District said it applies to Pacific Maritime’s Coast Guard submission.
The company acknowledged it sent a number of steel plates to Mexico to be welded together before being shipped back to California to rebuilt the hull of its dredging barge. They were spot welded into the shape of the new hull but after consulting a lawyer about the Jones Act implications, Pacific Dredge shipped the plates back to the States, ground off the welds and began construction anew. The Coast Guard certified the vessel as eligible for coastal trade under the Jones Act.
Curtin ultimately dropped its lawsuit and sought to dismiss Pacific’s anti-SLAPP action as moot. But the appeals court said Pacific still could pursue legal fees because the basis of the anti-SLAPP action was valid and Pacific stood a reasonable chance of success when it challenged Curtin’s suit.
“The Coast Guard investigated the same complaint raised by Curtin in this litigation and concluded that the Sandpiper was U.S.- built and properly awarded a coastwise endorsement,” the court observed. “Curtin can point to no underlying state policy that would support an independent basis for it to challenge the Coast Guard’s determination.”