Bonhomme v. Open Text Corporation

Background

The order addresses motions filed by Open Text Corporation (OTC), Open Text Inc. (OTI), and Vedder Price. The court stated that Bonhomme had not properly served OTC, and Bonhomme conceded that point and said she had no plans to serve OTC in the near future.

Bonhomme also said she consented to dismissal of her Federal Debt Collection Practices Act claim against Vedder Price and OTI. She asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over her state-law claims after the federal claim. The court concluded that this request came too late, was raised in a sur-reply rather than through the proper procedure, and would not justify declining jurisdiction because the court wanted to resolve the case quickly.

Rulings on the Claims

The court granted OTC’s motion to dismiss for lack of service and dismissed OTC from the action with prejudice. The opinion says this result was based on Bonhomme’s failure to make any apparent effort to serve OTC properly.

The court then considered the motions by Vedder Price and OTI. It stated that all of Bonhomme’s allegations concerned protected activity and that the litigation privilege applied to all of the defendants’ actions. An anti-SLAPP motion is a motion seeking to strike claims based on protected activity. The court granted the anti-SLAPP motions and the motions under Rule 12(b)(6), which challenges whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim, and dismissed the claims against Vedder Price and OTI with prejudice.

Amendment

Bonhomme argued that granting the anti-SLAPP motions without allowing amendment would be improper. The court rejected that argument because amendment would be futile. At the hearing, the court gave Bonhomme’s counsel an opportunity to identify additional allegations that could be added, but counsel could not provide allegations that would prevent immediate dismissal. The court therefore found that it had no duty to allow amendment.

Fees and Sealing

The court stated that OTI and Vedder Price were the prevailing parties on their anti-SLAPP motions and were entitled to fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16. Vedder Price said it would not seek fees. The court directed OTI to submit its fee calculation by June 30, 2025, and directed Bonhomme to respond by July 7, 2025. Her response was limited to disputing the reasonableness of OTI’s fee request, not rearguing the anti-SLAPP motion.

The court also granted Vedder Price’s motion to strike. It ordered the FAC and VFAC sealed and directed Bonhomme to refile the VFAC within two weeks with Michelle Landry’s private information redacted and no other changes.

Classification

This is classified as a procedural order because the order included Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals, which are threshold rulings about whether claims are adequately pleaded, as well as a dismissal for lack of service. The order also decided anti-SLAPP motions, but it did not separately identify a merits ruling that changes this classification under the stated convention.