Monster Energy Co. has revived a lawsuit against a plaintiffs lawyer who made public statements about a wrongful death lawsuit the company settled confidentially.

Attorney Bruce Schechter and the R. Rex Parris Law Firm had previously persuaded the Fourth District Court of Appeal last year that they couldn't be held liable under the confidentiality provisions laid out in a settlement agreement Schechter signed on behalf of the family of a 14-year-old girl who died of cardiac arrest after drinking two Monster energy drinks.

On Thursday, the California Supreme Court found that the lower court erred in finding Schechter, by signing the deal on his client's behalf, could not have intended to be bound by the terms of the agreement himself.

“We conclude that an attorney's signature on a document with a notation that it is approved as to form and content does not, as a matter of law, preclude a factual finding that the attorney intended to be bound by the document's terms,” wrote Justice Carol Corrigan in a unanimous opinion.

Monster Energy sued for breach of contract after Schechter told a reporter from LawyersandSettlements.com that the case resulted in “substantial dollars” for the family, but that the company wanted the amount to remain sealed. Riverside Superior Court Judge Daniel Ottolia initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case under the state's anti-SLAPP statute, which provides an early defense against lawsuits concerning protected speech. But Schechter and the firm successfully argued at the Court of Appeal that the lawyer's signature on the settlement did not indicate that he consented to be bound by its provisions since it was signed under the notation “APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT” indicating he was signing on behalf of his clients.

But on Thursday, Corrigan found that the Court of Appeal had erred in its ruling. “An attorney's signature on an agreement containing substantive provisions imposing duties on counsel may reflect an intent to be bound even though counsel also approves the document for his client's signature,” the judge wrote. 

The opinion also noted that plaintiffs and “their counsel of record” had agreed not to divulge any details about the settlement with a list of outlets, including “Lawyers & Settlements.” The court also found that the confidentiality provisions in the deal were ”not only extensive but repeatedly refer both to the parties and their counsel.”

Frank C. Rothrock of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, who represents Corona-based Monster Energy, said in an email that he and his client were “very pleased that the Supreme Court vindicated Monster's position that it met the merit test under the anti-SLAPP statute.”

Retired Second District Court of Appeal Justice Margaret Grignon of the Grignon Law Firm who represented Schecter and the firm at oral argument before the California Supreme Court didn't immediately respond to a message Thursday.