![Call of duty cold war pc steam](https://cdn1.cdnme.se/5447227/9-3/26_64e61dfee087c31b15931424.png)
![f dredge up f dredge up](https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Dredge-Site_33.jpg)
After Pacific filed its notice of appeal, Curtin dismissed the underlying lawsuit and moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. Pacific appealed the ruling, contending the trial court erred because the claim was preempted by the Jones Act.
![f dredge up f dredge up](https://www.forsakengods.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Dredge-Up-The-Dead-480x673.png)
The trial court agreed with Pacific that the claim arose from protected activity, but concluded Curtin had met its burden at this early stage of litigation to show the claim had minimal merit and denied the motion. In response to the complaint, Pacific brought a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 to strike Curtin’s claim, asserting it arose from protected speech and that Curtin could not show a probability of prevailing on the merits of its claim. These allegations served as the sole basis for Curtin’s UCL claim. Its vessel was not “entirely” built in the United States, a violation of the federal Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (commonly referred to as the Jones Act), and Pacific defrauded the Coast Guard in its successful application for certification that the vessel was U.S.-built. In its complaint, Curtin alleged Pacific was ineligible for two contracts it was awarded over Curtin because The parties operated dredging vessels, and competed for contracts awarded by the U.S. (Curtin) filed suit against its competitor, Pacific Dredge and Construction, LLC (Pacific), asserting one cause of action for violation of the Unfair Competition Law.
![Call of duty cold war pc steam](https://cdn1.cdnme.se/5447227/9-3/26_64e61dfee087c31b15931424.png)