California Defamation Law Blog : Los Angeles Defamation & Anti-SLAPP Lawyer & Attorney : Adrianos Facchetti Law Firm

California Defamation law is not as simple as many lawyers and other people may have you believe. There are several elements necessary to prove a cause of action for defamation, and one of the most overlooked elements is publication.

Publication is a term of art. This means that it has a specific legal meaning. A statement is deemed "published" if the statement has been communicated to a third party, whether orally or in writing. For example, if John Doe comes up to you and says that you're a crook and that you've been convicted of murder and no one else hears it, the publication element is not met. But this is the easy scenario.

What happens if someone merely passes along the alleged defamatory statement? Are they liable to the same extent as the original person who published the statement? The answer is yes.

The law calls this "republishing" and will hold the republisher just as liable as the original publisher. So let's take the example from above: suppose someone overhears John Doe and then relays the statement to Joe Shmoe's employer, Bill Breaker. In this case, the person who relayed the information to Bill Breaker would be liable to you in the same way that John Doe would be liable to you.

Publication can become more complicated and I'll discuss another uncommon wrinkle in the next post.

As always, please feel free to subscribe to receive free updates via email and RSS.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Adrianos M. Facchetti and I'm an Internet Defamation Lawyer in Los Angeles. Check this video out for more details. . .  

I hope you enjoyed this video.  As you can tell, I'm not your average defamation lawyer. While I take my clients and my work very seriously, I don't take myself too seriously.

If you liked this video, please feel free to share it with your friends. Thank you for taking the time to read my blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If defamation law had a radio station, the following 5 cases would be on heavy rotation. And not just because some of these cases involved large jury verdicts, but because each of them has greatly impacted the way we think and feel about defamation law. This is by no means a comprehensive list.  It's simply a list of some of my favorites.

1. Scheff v. Bock - Be careful who and what you blog about. Carey Bock made the mistake of making negative statements about Sue Scheff online, including, that she was a "fraud," a "crook," and a "con artist." Scheff obtained a jury verdict in the WHOPPING amount of 11.3 million dollars. This case is noteworthy because it represents the largest (that I know of) verdict in the U.S. regarding relating to defamatory comments about an individual on the Internet. It's also remarkable because Scheff knew prior to the verdict that it was unlikely she would ever collect any money from Bock. Scheff was determined to make a statement: to reclaim her reputation. I greatly admire Scheff's determination and adherence to principle.
2. Orix Capital Markets, LLC - A jury in Texas recently handed a 12.5 Million dollar verdict in favor of Orix in an internet defamation case. I like this case because it's the biggest internet defamation verdict that I know of! Plus, it demonstrates that defamation cases are important and potentially very valuable.

3. Brandon v. Wizeman - South Carolina court awarded 1.8 million libel judgment against blogger.  What is interesting about this case is that apparently, the plaintiff won on summary judgment, which I must admit, is very difficult to do in a defamation case. The take-away from this case is that blogging can be a contact sport, so, it's a good idea to beef up on the basics of internet defamation law.

4. Noonan v. Staples - The Fifth Circuit held that an employee could sue a company based on alleged defamatory statements even if the statements are true, provided the statements were made with "actual malevolent intent or ill will." Expectedly, this decision created an uproar in the free speech expansionist community. For a second, I thought the sky was going to fall. The fact of the matter is that that the Noonan case is a freakish anomaly and none of its sister courts are likely to follow.  Everyone should just come down.

5. Twitter Defamation - I was the FIRST to observe that the recent lawsuit filed against Courtney Love was the first defamation lawsuit involving tweets. And while I'm not bitter about it (can't you tell?), I can certainly tell you there was a lot of interest about the subject on my blog.  I think this is so for at least three reasons:  First, Twitter has become mainstream and people are using it, or are thinking about using it. Second, everyone "loves" (get it?) a train wreck.  And third, Twitter gives one a false sense of safety for a number reasons, primarily because it is generally used for informal means. I think a lawsuit over tweets calls into question a common belief that tweets are insignificant.

Did I miss any key internet defamation cases? Which cases would you have added to the list? Feel free to leave a comment on the blog.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to receive free updates via email or RSS.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

You would think that every anti-SLAPP motion gets granted by the way some "free speech" writers talk. Every victory is a a big deal to them and they make every effort to make sure you know about it.

So this is where I come in.

I'm here to let you know that a goodly sum of anti-SLAPP motions get denied for many reasons, most importantly (in my experience) because the alleged defamatory statements are simply outrageous.

Here's a perfect example:  Howard K. Stern sued Larry Birkhead's former bodyguard (Mark Speer) in Los Angeles for defamation late last year.  Speer filed an anti-SLAPP motion and the court denied the motion.

Speer allegedly said that Stern had stolen money from Anna and that he was putting the money in offshore accounts and making back room deals with Birkhead, among other things.

For more details on this story check out the article here.

Don't think for a minute that just because you file an anti-SLAPP motion you'll have it made.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The California Court of Appeal reversed a jury decision awarding plaintiff a whopping $750,000 in damages based on slander per se. Regalia, the plaintiff, was a former employee of an automobile museum. He claimed that he was wrongfully terminated and that the defendants were liable for slander per se based on two allegedly defamatory statements made by Mr. Nethercutt.  The alleged statements were:

"Michael Regalia demanded a commission or finder's fee of about $230,000 to which he was not entitled"

"The Nethercutt Collection fired Michael Regalia because other employees would not work for him, and that other employees would leave if Michael Regalia remained employed"

Regalia claimed that the above statements were slander per se and the jury agreed but found that he suffered no actual damages as a result of the statements.

The court of appeal went into a lengthy (useful) analysis of slander per se vs. slander per quod.

Statements are slanderous per se if they fall within the four categories of Civil Code section 46. Statements that do not fall within those four categories are slander per quod and require proof of special damages.

"It is a question of law, for the court to determine, whether a communication is libelous or slanderous per se. But it remains within the province of the jury to determine whether the reader understood the article, in light of relevant extrinsic facts, if any to be defamatory."

In other words, it is for the court to make the threshold determination of whether the communication is indeed slanderous per se. Then it is for the jury or trier of fact to determine whether the statements is indeed defamatory.

Here, the appellate court determined that the trial court erred in deciding that the above two statements were slander per se. The firs statement was not slanderous per se because making a demand for money that is rejected does not necessarily reflect negatively on the person making the demand. This does not "directly injure him in his profession, trade or business."

The second statement was not slanderous per se because the fact that one or more employees did not want to work for another employees did not necessarily reflect adversely on the person.

Since Regalia was unable to show special damages at trial and he only claimed slander per se, the appellate court determined that he was not entitled to a retrial. Case over.

Moral of the Story: If you think the alleged defamatory statements are arguably slander per se or slander per quod, make sure you present both to the court.  Don't gamble. You never know which way the judge or jury will go.

If you liked this post please subscribe to receive additional free updates via email.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The California Civil Code lists four subcategories of slander which are termed slander per se. This means that the alleged statement is defamatory on its face. This is important because statements which are slanderous per se do not require proof of actual damages.

What does this have to do with slander per quod?

Well, in contrast to statements that are slanderous per se, statements that are slanderous per quod require proof of actual damages.

This makes a huge difference since it can be very difficult in certain circumstances to prove actual damages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sam encounters my animated self on the street and tells me all about his Internet troubles. Apparently, some former disgruntled customers have posted some negative customer reviews about his business on a couple of websites. I give him some general advice about what to do.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I hope you don't mind a break in the action. Here is a video that reminds us that it's OK to smile no matter what kind of problems or struggles life throws our way. It has nothing to do with defamation law.

Thanks to Grant Griffiths over at BlogforProfit for posting about this video on his blog.

I hope you enjoy the video!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link