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

Are you ready to hear this?

I'm about to reveal a little known secret that can dramatically change the length of your defamation lawsuit.  And I mean BIG time. Knowing this one thing may allow you to obtain preferential treatment from the Court.

Sounds good, right? I mean, who doesn't want special treatment?

I almost hesitate to tell you this for two reasons: (1) it's so simple that you won't think it's a big deal once I tell you; and (2) I don't want my competition to know this because I don't want it done to me. But as I've said before, I won't let my fear of competition get in the way of educating YOU about defamation law.

So here it is . . .

The way to get preferential treatment from the Court is to: ASK FOR IT at the right time, and in the right way.

You see, most attorneys know that some kinds of cases are entitled to priority in trial setting. This means that some cases must be given an earlier trial date than others. Attorneys also know that other types of cases CAN be given priority.  In other words, the Court has discretion to give a case an earlier trial date other cases.

What is amazing is that most attorneys (at least the ones I know) aren't aware that you can speed up a defamation case dramatically by making an ex parte application shortly after filing a complaint pursuant to CCP § 460.5

So here's how it's done:

• File a Complaint
• Make an Ex Parte Application Shortening Time to Respond to the Complaint
• Include a declaration showing that the alleged statement has been continuously published and that there is a reasonable likelihood that the publication will continue
• Serve a copy of the application, declaration, and order along with the summons

If you do the above and the court grants your request, the court MUST give your case priority in setting a date for trial.

This will speed up your trial. Instead of years, your trial may be heard in a matter of months. And that's what you want if you've been defamed.  You want justice. And you want it now.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to receive free updates by e-mail or RSS.

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

This editorial in the New York Times discusses the inherent dangers of Libel Tourism.  

For more reading on this topic:

• New Libel Bill Introduced In the House of Representatives
• California Bill Aimed at Curbing Libel Tourism

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

I'm pleased to be part of an impressive panel including entertainment attorney Gordon Firemark; class action attorney H. Scott Leviant; Barger & Wolen Marketing Director Heather Milligan, and mediator attorney Victoria Pynchon, to discuss how lawyers can use and benefit from social media.

The Details:

Los Angeles County Bar Association's Second Annual Small Firm and Solo Practitioner Conference, June 24-25.

Social Networking For Lawyers: A Roadmap to Success
Thursday, June 25. 9:15 - 10:30 a.m.

In this interactive session we will explore the buzz surrounding social networking and social media tools and how solo and small firms practitioners can effectively employ them to communicate with current clients; control your messaging as you reach out to new clients and the media; and to meet, network and collaborate with colleagues.

Our panel of solo and small firm attorneys will discuss their experiences with blogging as a social media tool, and we will spotlight several social networking applications, including Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. By calling upon their personal experiences, our panel will highlight best practices for how you can incorporate these and other Web 2.0 applications into your business development, PR and networking activities.

You don't want to miss this event!

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

WARNING: This post contains an advanced concept that may only be of interest to California defamation lawyers and other people who deal with anti-SLAPP motions on a regular basis.

OK. With that disclaimer in mind, what in the heck is a "mixed cause of action?"

A "mixed cause of action" means that the underlying allegations of a given claim contain both protected and unprotected conduct under the so-called anti-SLAPP statute.

This is important because a mixed cause of action is subject to the anti-SLAPP statute " . . . if at least one of the underlying acts is protected conduct, unless the allegations of protected conduct are merely incidental to the unprotected activity." Salma v. Capon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1287.

Huh? That's what I said to myself when I first read the above quote, so here's how I keep it straight in my head:

1. Does the claim for defamation contain at least one allegation of conduct that is potentially protected?

2. Is the potentially protected conduct central or merely incidental to the unprotected conduct? If it is merely incidental, then the claim for defamation is not subject to section 425.16.

The reason for this rule is to prevent plaintiffs from "immunizing" a cause of action from the anti-SLAPP statute, by including extraneous allegations containing non-protected activity.

The rule seems to accomplish its purpose.

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

. . . for underestimating Trump's net worth in a book!  Apparently, a New York Times writer wrote in a book that Trump's fortune was approximately $150-200 million.

Trump claimed that his net worth was more like $5 billion.  Quite a difference, right?

Anyhow, Trump brought a lawsuit for libel, claiming that he lost some deals as a result of the statement in the book.

None of this is relevant to California Defamation Law, but we can't always be serious.  Can we?

For more on this story check out Overlawyered.  I promise you will find it entertaining.

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

Do you monitor your name or the name of your business? Well, you
should and I'm going to show you how can do so easily and for FREE.

But first I'd like to thank you for reading the California Defamation Law Blog. I am so happy to be sharing this information with you and I hope you find it useful.

Now to the good stuff.

Even though the Internet is vast and replete with brontobytes (that
is a 1 followed by 27 zeroes) of information, you can harness the
power of Google and monitor your name by adding Google Alerts.
Google will send you emails of queries that you create. For
example, I have created a Google Alert for my name, Adrianos
Facchetti. This allows me to monitor what others are saying about
me.

To sign up for Google Alerts, go to www.googlealerts.com and
sign up. The rest is pretty straight-forward. There are additional
ways to monitor your name. In fact, there are many companies that
engage in Reputation Management, exclusively.

The point is that you need to manage your name, otherwise
you won't know what people are saying about you and/or your brand.

Create a Google Alert today and let me know how it works for you.

Sign up via email or RSS to automatically receive more free information like this article in the near future.

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

I'm very excited about this post.

It's not every day that I get to mention Fox News in order to make a point here on the California Defamation Law Blog. So here we go.

Seven individuals sued Fox News, Inc. over alleged defamatory statements made on the Hannity & Colmes show. The main beef was a caption at the bottom of the screen which read "Manhunt at the Border," which was displayed throughout the segment.  That, taken in conjunction with a poster that read "wanted," depicting the plaintiffs was enough for them to file suit.

Plaintiffs interpreted the statement "Manhunt at the Border" to mean that law enforcement was engaged in a manhunt.

Fox News filed an anti-SLAPP motion and asserted numerous defenses and arguments including: (1) that it was a matter of public interest because the issues were being considered by the police; (2) the statement were not "of and concerning" plaintiffs; (3) the statements were true or substantially true; (4) the statements were privileged as a "fair and true report" under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (d); and the statement were protected hyperbole, and opinion.

The trial court determined that the statement in question was privileged as fair and true report and fair comment, opinion, and hyperbole.  Taken in context, the court decided, it was unlikely a viewer would have understood that "Manhunt at the Border" referred to a law enforcement manhunt. Instead, a viewer probably would have understood the statement as hyperbole, a vigorous epithet, or loose and figurative language.

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reviewed the case de novo. 

Given the context of the program, the court determined that no reasonable person could have concluded that the word "manhunt" could have referred to a law enforcement "manhunt."

"Instead, viewed in context, the Manhunt caption was an attention-grabbing or colorful way of referring to Monti's attempts to bring to justice the alleged perpretrators of the attack against him."

But the court didn't stop there. They emphasized that:

"an owner of a cable television news program has broad First Amendment rights to present information in the manner it chooses. The use of captions and graphics has become a popular method for television stations to enhance their news programs and thus to increase viewer audiences. In this case, plaintiffs seeks to isolate a four-word caption from the rest of the story to create a legal basis for their defamation claim. If we were to uphold this approach, it is likely the courts would be faced with a plethora of new claims from viewers dissatisfied with how a particular television caption or graphic has accurately summarized or represented the essence of the news story."

Why I appreciate the majority's clear concern to uphold the First Amendment and afford great protection to cable news providers, their analysis is deeply flawed.

Their argument that no reasonable person viewing the show could have interpreted the "Manhunt at the border" as a manhunt being conducted by law enforcement is totally unsupported. As the dissent correctly points out:

1. Fox News' own definition of "manhunt" refers to a search conducted by a group of individuals
2. California courts have routinely used the word "manhunt" to refer to a search conducted by law enforcement.
3. This interpretation of the word "manhunt" is the most common/reasonable interpretation.

The court simply got it wrong in this case.

If you liked this post, please subscribe via e-mail or RSS to receive more free updates like this one.

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

Aaron Wall over at SEOBook tipped me off to the fact that Amazon.com has now opened up its Kindle publishing platform to bloggers.

If you enjoy reading your favorite blogs on the Kindle feel free to subscribe to the California Defamation Law Blog.

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

You probably know by now that Courtney Love got sued last March for alleged defamatory Tweets. The allegations are THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS that I have ever seen.  I sure hope that they're not true for Ms. Love's sake.

Anyhow, here's an update on the case:  Opposing counsel (the attorney representing the plaintiff) has amended the complaint and filed a first amended complaint. Now, anyone who knows anything about litigation knows this is par for the course, i.e., there's nothing unique about this. However, what is interesting is that counsel dropped two claims entirely.

The plaintiff is no longer suing for breach of contract with regard to Etsy, a website for independent designers, which Love used to find out about the plaintiff. Plaintiff seemed to be saying that Love violated Etsy's Terms of Use and that plaintiff had standing to sue since she was an intended third party beneficiary under Etsy's Terms of Use -- not a fantastic argument, but not bad. Seems like it was unnecessary given the more potent libel claim and the claim for intentional interference with prospective business advantage.

The second claim which was dropped from the lawsuit was for intentional infliction of emotional distress. This really boggles my mind. If ever there was a case for an emotional distress claim, this would be the one.

I can probably venture a couple of guesses why counsel decided to drop the emotional distress claim, but that would boring. Instead, I'd like to know what you think.

Why do you think the designer's lawyer dropped the emotional distress claim from the lawsuit?

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

The California legislature is jumping on the governmental bandwagon to reduce libel tourism with Senate Bill 320. 

Related Articles:

New Libel Bill Introduced In The House Of Representatives

Proposed Federal Anti-SLAPP Legislation

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

I'm here to tell you that suing for defamation could be one of the biggest mistakes of your life. Why would I say this when I make a living as an internet defamation lawyer? That's a good question.

Because it's the TRUTH.

And you know what? You deserve to hear the truth.

There is nothing worse than making an important decision without knowing what you're getting into. Yet that's what a lot of people do when they file a suit for libel or slander, for example.

The mistake is not knowing what you want and not knowing what to expect. 

Let's focus on what you want first:

1. Your Purpose

Do you know what you hope to accomplish with the lawsuit? Sometimes I don't even know what to choose for dinner, let alone what my purpose is in a major deal like a lawsuit. So I understand if this question is a bit heavy. But you really have to think long and hard about this one.

Do you want the offending material removed from the internet? Do you simply want the material not to show up in the top 10 results in Google? Do you want to punish the publisher? Are you seeking money damages for loss of reputation and/or humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress? Are you willing to pay an attorney top dollar to achieve any one of these results?

Well the answer to the above questions will greatly influence whether you should file suit. For example, there are several other cost-effective ways to manage your online reputation that don't involve bringing a defamation action. On the other hand, if you are seeking money damages,  lawsuit may be your only avenue.

2.  Your Expectations

You need to know that prosecuting an action for defamation from start to finish could set you back between 50K and 100K depending upon the nature of the case. 

You also should be aware that in some instances filing suit can make the situation worse. In some cases filing suit will cause your opponent to become increasingly aggressive and bold in his or her attacks against your reputation online. I have seen situations where the defendant has actively recruited many others to attack a client's reputation. This is known as a "mobosphere" attack and is nearly impossible to stop once it begins.

But I believe the most under appreciated result of filing a defamation suit is the emotional toll it can take on a person. Not only can lawsuits last years, but they can be very invasive and time consuming. Defense counsel will undoubtedly attempt to discover everything about you in order to discredit you. They may hire private investigators to dig up dirt on you, even stuff that may not be related to the case.

Filing suit is like becoming a celebrity without any of the benefits.

Conclusion

Now don't get me wrong. The point of this post is not to discourage you from bringing an action for defamation. It is simply meant to make you think about what are you trying to achieve and whether litigation fits with your goals and tolerance for risk.

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

It happens just about every day.

I get a call from someone who's been defamed and they seek my advice. They share their situation with me and I listen intently waiting for them to finish. When they are done I give them my general take on the matter.

It never ceases to amaze me how different each person's experience is. I really enjoy hearing people's problems.

That is why I am asking YOU, my dear reader, to share with me your frustrations.

What is your biggest problem? Perhaps your situation will inspire me to write about a topic that will be helpful to your or many others like you.

Feel free to comment on this post or send me a private e-mail.  I'd love to hear from you.

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