project cbd lawsuit

About Medical Marijuana, Inc.

July 28, 2015 09:00 ET | Source: Medical Marijuana Inc Medical Marijuana Inc

These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA and are not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease.

MJNA Moves Forward With Prosecuting Libel Claims Made Against the Company and Its Brands, Case Now in Discovery Phase

“Unfortunately, integrity can take a great deal of time to prove,” Titus says. “However, Medical Marijuana, Inc. is determined to see this fight through to the end and vindicate ourselves to the world.”

In filing the Anti-SLAPP motion, Project CBD had attempted to have Medical Marijuana, Inc.’s $100 million lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that it violated Project CBD’s right to free speech.

In his recent ruling, the California Superior Court judge disagreed with Project CBD’s argument and denied the Anti-SLAPP motion. In the ruling, the judge also found that Medical Marijuana, Inc. has grounds to proceed with their lawsuit against Project CBD on the grounds of Libel and False Light.

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) DISCLOSURE

Public court documents show that Project CBD had argued in their defense that Medical Marijuana, Inc. was the equivalent of a public figure and the Company was using the $100 million lawsuit to censor public discourse.

The Project CBD defendants, ProjectCBD.com, website founder Martin Lee, and article author Aaron Cantu, appealed a trial court's order denying their special motion to strike the three causes of action asserted in the second amended complaint. The Project CBD defendants contended the trial court erred in denying their motion because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on their claims. This case arose from the publication of an article regarding the safety of a cannabidiol (CBD) product, Real Scientific Hemp Oil (RSHO), sold by plaintiffs Medical Marijuana, Inc. (MMI) and HempMeds PX, LLC (HempMeds) (jointly the plaintiffs). The plaintiffs contended the article contained false information about RSHO and that the named defendants who were involved in the publication of the article, should be held liable for libel, false light, and unfair competition due to their publication of the article. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court erred in determining that the plaintiffs demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits of their claims. The Court therefore reversed the trial court's order and remanded the matter with directions to enter an order granting the Project CBD defendants' anti-SLAPP motion.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.