3 Key Differences Between Defamation And Trade Libel

Posted on January 5, 2010 by Adrianos Facchetti

Comparing defamation and trade libel is like comparing apples and oranges. While both are similar (apples and oranges are fruit), they are fundamentally different in other ways.

One key difference between the two is with respect to the harm each is designed to address or protect. Defamation is meant to protect the reputation of the person, whereas trade libel is designed to compensate the plaintiff for pecuniary damage. The reason this distinction is critical is because " . . . trade libel requires pleading and proof of special damages in the form of pecuniary damages." Leonardini v. Shell Oil Co. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3 547, 572. However, proof of special damages solely in the form of pecuniary damages is not required to plead and prove a cause of action for damages.

A second difference is that plaintiff is required to plead and prove that a disparaging statement is false in regard to trade libel, whereas in a cause of action the plaintiff is NOT required to plead that the statements are false in most cases. Lipman v. Brisbane Elementary School Dist. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 224, 233.

Third, plaintiff may not recover damages for mental distress upon prevailing on a cause of action for trade libel. He or she is limited to the loss of pecuniary damages caused by the libelous statement or statements.

Understanding the differences between these torts will help you plan your strategy, whether you are the plaintiff or the defendant in a case.

If you liked this post please subscribe to our newsletter to get a FREE copy of "The Ultimate Beginner's Guide To Defamation Law."

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Party Opposing Anti-SLAPP Motion Must Present Competent, Admissible Evidence

Posted on December 22, 2009 by Adrianos Facchetti

I came across a case the other day which spelled out an unsexy, but no less important concept of anti-SLAPP law. Not knowing this concept may spell doom whether you're bringing or opposing an anti-SLAPP motion.

While it is unsurprising that many in pro per parties miss the boat on this one, many attorneys also screw this one up.

What am I talking about? I'm talking about the type of evidence you need to present to the court when dealing with an anti-SLAPP motion.

Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing that plaintiff's lawsuit arises from protected activity as defined in CCP § 425.16, the burden then shifts to plaintiff to establish a probability of prevailing on the merits.

In this regard, " . . . plaintiff must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment." Premier Med. Mgmt Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guar. Ass'n (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 464, 476.

What kind of evidence does the plaintiff need to produce? It needs to be competent evidence which would be admissible at trial. Chavez v. Mendoza (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 260, 291.

Therefore, "declarations that lack foundation or personal knowledge, or that are argumentative, speculative, impermissible opinion, or conclusory are to be disregarded." Gilbert v. Sykes (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 26; (citing) Tuchscher Development Enterprises, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dis. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1238, 1240.

This is a big deal because a court can disregard evidence that is not competent or otherwise admissible.

I see declarations all the time which are argumentative, conclusory, lack foundation, and contain hearsay. I object all day long (only if the objection is proper, of course) to these kinds of allegations and my experience is the court is all too happy to sustain them.

Make sure you adduce competent, admissible evidence. And if you're on the other side, make sure you make your objections.

Want to learn how to get the most out of this blog? Click here.

Tags: , , ,