Windsor Oaks Associates, LP v. The Sherwin-Williams Company

Motions and ruling

The plaintiffs moved to dismiss Sherwin-Williams’s counterclaims and separately moved to strike them under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The court denied both motions.

Counterclaims under California law

The court held that California law did not bar Sherwin-Williams’s counterclaims. The counterclaims assert that Windsor Oaks is at least partly liable for Notre Vue’s injuries, and vice versa. The court distinguished this from a claim that Windsor Oaks or Notre Vue “contributed to its own harm.”

The court’s footnote states that Sherwin-Williams appeared to be trying to reduce its potential damages by allocating responsibility for the fire among the parties. The plaintiffs acknowledged that Sherwin-Williams was entitled to do so. The court noted that Sherwin-Williams could also have relied on comparative fault as an affirmative defense, but said that the availability of that defense alone would not bar the counterclaims.

Anti-SLAPP motion

An anti-SLAPP motion is a request to strike claims arising from activity protected by California’s statute against strategic lawsuits aimed at public participation. The court ruled that the counterclaims were not covered by that statute because the alleged failure to provide adequate Occupational Safety and Health Administration training was not protected activity.

Effect of the order

The order left Sherwin-Williams’s counterclaims pending. It did not determine the parties’ ultimate liability for the fire or Notre Vue’s injuries, and it did not award or allocate damages.