Filed 10/30/20 BLT Communications, LLC v. LaMarche CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE BLT COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, B302527 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19GDCV00245) v. JULIANNE LAMARCHE, et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ralph C. Hofer, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Alpert, Barr & Grant, Adam D.H. Grant, Alexander S. Kasendorf, Ryan T. Koczara; Law Offices of Jeffrey A. Slott and Jeffrey A. Slott for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Offices of Collin Seals and Collin Seals for Defendants and Respondents. _______________________ Plaintiff BLT Communications, LLC (BLT) appeals the trial court’s grant of the special motion to strike under section 425.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (anti-SLAPP) filed by defendants Julianne LaMarche and Richard Sankey. We have jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure1 sections 425.16, subdivision (i), and 904.1. We affirm as modified. BACKGROUND In its first amended complaint (FAC), BLT alleges that it “is the largest entertainment marketing and media company in the world.” LaMarche and Sankey were employed by BLT from 2012 until April 5, 2018, when BLT states that it terminated them for cause.2 BLT alleges various categories of wrongdoing by LaMarche and Sankey, most of which do not concern us on this appeal. In the “Common Allegations” section of the FAC, BLT alleges: “From in or about January 2017 through April 5, 2018, [LaMarche and Sankey] absconded with dozens of documents belonging to BLT including financial records, BLT’s confidential books and records relating to its business operations, client lists, employee information and other information relating to the operation of the business of BLT, including the operation of the department in BLT known as BLT+. Such documents are the sole and exclusive property of BLT and [LaMarche and Sankey] had no authorization, consent, or right to remove them from 1 Unless otherwise specified, all statutory references herein are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 LaMarche and Sankey filed wrongful termination claims against BLT concerning their discharge in a separate action. Their action was deemed related and then consolidated with the BLT action for all purposes. 2 BLT’s premises. The removal of such documents from the premises of BLT without returning them after April 5, 2018, is a breach of Exhibit ‘1’ attached hereto.” Exhibit 1, in turn, is composed of two “Employee Confidentiality, Non-Disclosure and Computer Software Security Agreement” forms bearing the respective signatures of LaMarche and Sankey. In the alleged fourth cause of action of the FAC, BLT incorporates the above paragraph 24, then alleges in paragraph 45: “From on or about January 1, 2016 through April 5, 2018, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals