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

It used to be that statements made before private bodies were not absolutely privileged under Civil Code section 47(b).  This meant that statements made at a judicial commission at a private medical society were not absolutely privileged, for example.

Noting a gap in the law, the California legislature made it such that statements made "in the initiation or course of any proceeding authorized by law," and reviewable by mandamus would be absolutely privileged.  Civ. Code 47(b)(4).

In order for a proceeding to be reviewable by mandamus three elements must be present:

• a hearing is required to be given;
• evidence is required to be taken; and
• discretion in the determination of facts is vested in an inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer are present.

This means that statements made during grievance proceedings pursuant to collective bargaining agreements could be absolutely privileged.

This change in the law was important because it broadened the scope of the absolute privilege to quasi-judicial proceedings, which had previously not been seen by the courts as "official."

If you liked this post please subscribe to the California Defamation Law Newsletter to receive a FREE copy of the  "The Ultimate Beginner's Guide To Defamation Law."

Related Posts:

What Are the Defenses To A Claim For Defamation?

Truth Is A Defense To A Claim Of Defamation

Defamation Defense: Discharge of Official Duty

Defamation Defense: Judicial Proceeding

Defamation Defense: Legislative Proceeding

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

Continuing on in our series on the defenses to a cause of action for defamation relates to statements made in a legislative proceeding. Like statements made in judicial proceedings, statements which are made in legislative proceedings are absolutely privileged pursuant to Civil Code section 47(b).

This defense applies to statements made by participants in state and local legislative bodies as well. But these sorts of defenses can be much broader than you think, which why it's usually best to hire a defamation lawyer (and that's NOT self-serving).  Let me explain.

In the case of Cayley v. Nunn (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 300, the plaintiff sued the defendant for slander since the defendant allegedly circulated a petition for neighborhood support for the defendant's requested height variance. Since the defendant's remarks about the height variance and the plaintiff were made in preparation of the legislative proceeding and had a logical relationship to the proceeding, the communications were held to be privileged. Now to the average lay person, you would think that this kind of statement would not be privileged because it is not made "in a legislative proceeding." Obviously, this is not the case.

If you liked this post please subscribe to the California Defamation Law Newsletter to receive a FREE copy of the "The Ultimate Beginner's Guide To Defamation Law."

Related Posts:

What Are the Defenses To A Claim For Defamation?

Truth Is A Defense To A Claim Of Defamation

Defamation Defense: Discharge of Official Duty

Defamation Defense: Judicial Proceeding

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

Continuing in our series on defamation defenses, today we're going to cover the defense of statements made in a judicial proceeding, also known as the litigation privilege.

A publication made in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding is absolutely privileged.  Civil Code § 47(b). This means that  you cannot prevail in a libel or slander case if the statements are privileged. In other words, the law allows people to make certain statements in certain settings, e.g., in a judicial proceeding.

The following requirements are necessary to meet the litigation privilege:

1. the communication must be made in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding;
2. by litigants or other participants authorized by law;
3. to achieve the objects of the litigation; and
4. the communication has some connection or logical relation to the action.

Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205, 212.

The primary purpose of the litigation privilege is to allow litigants and witnesses the freedom to use the courts without being worried that they'll be harassed by subsequent lawsuits. The litigation also promotes a more effective judicial system because it allows lawyers to vigorously advance their client's interests.

In short, the litigation privilege is one of the most powerful defamation defenses. It is also one of the more complicated defenses.

If you liked this post please subscribe to the California Defamation Law Newsletter to receive a FREE copy of the "The Ultimate Beginner's Guide To Defamation Law."

Related Posts:

What Are the Defenses To A Claim For Defamation?

Truth Is A Defense To A Claim Of Defamation

Defamation Defense: Discharge of Official Duty

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