California Defamation Law Blog : California Defamation Lawyer & Attorney : Adrianos Facchetti Law Firm : Los Angeles CA : Defamation Law Blog

In reviewing some of the topics that we've covered on the California Defamation Blog, I noticed that the topic of Trade Libel is conspicuously absent so I'm going to fix this over the next few posts.

Today's post is short and simple. Here are the basic elements of a cause of action for Trade Libe to get us started:

1. Defendant's false statement;
2. Publication;
3. Of matter disparaging the quality of another person's property or services;
4. which the publisher intended to cause harm to the owner, or should have recognized as being likely to cause it; and
5. Causation of pecuniary harm or loss.

Computerexpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1010.

In the next post we'll discuss the nature of the tort of Trade Libel.

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Some people have complained lately that I've been way too focused on anti-SLAPP law here. Well, there's a reason for that. 

It's because SLAPP law plays an important part in just about every defamation case involving matters of public interest. It would be like talking about the Lakers without talking about Lamar Odom or Pau Gasol. Sure Kobe is the star of the team, but the other players invariably play a key role in each game (can you tell that I'm a Lakers fan?).

But I digress.

What I'd like to talk about today is a type of evidence that is routinely introduced by one party in support or opposition to an anti-SLAPP motion, and yet, the receiving party RARELY objects to this type of evidence!

What am I talking about?

I'm talking about judicially noticed court documents and/or declarations.

“ ‘Judicial notice is the recognition and acceptance by the court, for use by the trier of fact or by the court, of the existence of a matter of law or fact that is relevant to an issue in the action without requiring formal proof of the matter.’ [Citation.] The court may in its discretion take judicial notice of any court record in the United States. (Evid.Code, § 451.) This includes any orders, findings of facts and conclusions of law, and judgments within court records." '

Kilroy v. State (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145.

Therefore, while courts make take judicial notice of any "orders, findings of facts and conclusions of law," they may not consider hearsay statements in court records "for their truth unless an independent hearsay exception exists." North Beverly Park Homeowners Assn. v. Bisno (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 762, 777.

As my Civil Procedure professor used to say, let's take an example and "flesh this out a bit." Suppose you are a plaintiff who is suing a defendant for defamation based on allegations that you had embezzled money from a publicly traded company. Defendant made the alleged defamatory comments on a forum dedicated to discussion about the publicly traded company.

Defendant files an anti-SLAPP motion and accompanying request for judicial notice of a shoplifting conviction on your record from over 30 years ago (during your misguided/misspent youth). There is a police report and several witness statements included in the court records.

Can the court consider the conviction for its truth? YES, according to the evidence code.

Can the court consider the statements in the police report and witness statements for their truth? NO because they are hearsay and require an independent hearsay exception in order to come in.

See the difference?

This is vitally important because whether you win or lose on an anti-SLAPP motion may depend on evidentiary rulings made by the judge.

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This has been an exciting year here at the California Defamation Law Blog, so I thought it'd be a good idea to highlight our top 10 favorite posts, considering page views, comments, and other forms of reader feedback. I hope you revisit and enjoy these posts. Here's to an even better 2010!

Here they are:

1. Do You Have A Case For Defamation?
2. The Three Types Of Damages In Defamation Cases
3. Small Businesses Strike Back
4. Los Angeles Superior Court Reduces Operations In Wake Of Financial Crisis
5. Twitterers Beware! Courtney Love Sues For Tweets
6. Defamation's Greatest Hits
7. The Tale Of A Model, A Blogger, And Internet Anonymity
8. Defamation Defenses Series
9. What Is The California Shield Law?
10. Perez Hilton Threatens To Sue Kirstie Alley For Twitter Defamation

If you liked this post please subscribe to the California Defamation Law Blog newsletter to receive more updates about defamation law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Once a defendant makes its threshold showing that a complaint arises under protected activity, the plaintiff must demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits. This means a plaintiff must state and substantiate a legally sufficient claim. Premier Med. Mgmt. Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guar. Ass'n (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 464. Stated another way, plaintiff "'must demonstrate the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.'" Gilbert v. Sykes (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 26, citing, Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 821.

"If the pleadings are not adequate to support a cause of action, the plaintiff has failed to carry his burden in resisting the motion. (See Vogel v. Felice (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1018-1019, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 350 (Vogel ); FN7 Drum v. Bleau, Fox & Associates (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1018-1019, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 602 [“[S]pecial motions to strike pursuant to section 425.16 ‘operate “like a demurrer or motion for summary judgment in ‘reverse.’ ” ' (Briggs, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1123, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 471, 969 P.2d 564, citing College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 718-719, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 898, 882 P.2d 894." (Emphasis added).

Just like a demurrer, if a plaintiff fails to state a cause of action it will be stricken. Therefore, it is critically important for a plaintiff to carefully draft its complaint.  Plaintiff must plead sufficient facts in its complaint in order to state each cause of action. It may not be enough for plaintiff to state certain facts for the first time in its opposition to an anti-SLAPP motion.

Plaintiff beware.

If you want to learn how to get the most out of the California Defamation Law Blog click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As I wrote in an earlier post this week, the parties to an anti-SLAPP motion must present competent, admissible evidence. Such evidence is usually presented in a declaration, which is where most people make a very common and totally avoidable mistake.

It usually looks like this:

"I am informed and believe that John Doe claims he is an accredited physical therapist and has practiced physical therapy for over ten years, which to my knowledge, could not be true."

Can you tell me what's wrong with the above hypothetical allegation? Yep. You guessed it.

The above allegation is hearsay and "declarations on a special motion to strike a SLAPP suit ((strategic lawsuit against public participation)) . . . may not include averments on information and belief."). See Evans v. Unkow (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1490.

This is such a simple rule and yet many attorneys violate it, sometimes repeatedly in a single declaration.

Don't make the same mistake.

If you want to learn how to get the most out of this blog click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Enrico Schaefer over at Traverse Legal alerted me to this podcast that a colleague of his hosted with reputation management pioneer Sue Scheff. I have discussed Sue's harrowing story and her book Google Bomb (co-written with attorney John dozier, Jr.) in a previous post.

In this podcast, Sue discusses:

• The definition of a Google Bomb
• Why defamation lawsuits are difficult to prove
• Why it is important to monitor your reputation
• Which reputation management service she uses
• And much, much more

You can check out the podcast here: 

If you liked this post please subscribe to our newsletter to receive more updates like this one about defamation law and how to protect your reputation on the internet.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This following is the text of the so-called anti-SLAPP statute:

425.16. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that there has been
a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the
valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and
petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and
declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued
participation in matters of public significance, and that this
participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial
process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly.
(b) (1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of
that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free
speech under the United States or California Constitution in
connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion
to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has
established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will
prevail on the claim.
(2) In making its determination, the court shall consider the
pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts
upon which the liability or defense is based.
(3) If the court determines that the plaintiff has established a
probability that he or she will prevail on the claim, neither that
determination nor the fact of that determination shall be admissible
in evidence at any later stage of the case, or in any subsequent
action, and no burden of proof or degree of proof otherwise
applicable shall be affected by that determination in any later stage
of the case or in any subsequent proceeding.
(c) In any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing
defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover
his or her attorney's fees and costs. If the court finds that a
special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause
unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable
attorney's fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion, pursuant to
Section 128.5.
(d) This section shall not apply to any enforcement action brought
in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney
General, district attorney, or city attorney, acting as a public
prosecutor.
(e) As used in this section, "act in furtherance of a person's
right of petition or free speech under the United States or
California Constitution in connection with a public issue" includes:
(1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a
legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official
proceeding authorized by law; (2) any written or oral statement or
writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or
review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other
official proceeding authorized by law; (3) any written or oral
statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public
forum in connection with an issue of public interest; (4) or any
other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional
right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in
connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.
(f) The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service
of the complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time
upon terms it deems proper. The motion shall be scheduled by the
clerk of the court for a hearing not more than 30 days after the
service of the motion unless the docket conditions of the court
require a later hearing.
(g) All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon
the filing of a notice of motion made pursuant to this section. The
stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the
order ruling on the motion. The court, on noticed motion and for
good cause shown, may order that specified discovery be conducted
notwithstanding this subdivision.
(h) For purposes of this section, "complaint" includes
"cross-complaint" and "petition," "plaintiff" includes
"cross-complainant" and "petitioner," and "defendant" includes
"cross-defendant" and "respondent."
(i) An order granting or denying a special motion to strike shall
be appealable under Section 904.1.
(j) (1) Any party who files a special motion to strike pursuant to
this section, and any party who files an opposition to a special
motion to strike, shall, promptly upon so filing, transmit to the
Judicial Council, by e-mail or facsimile, a copy of the endorsed,
filed caption page of the motion or opposition, a copy of any related
notice of appeal or petition for a writ, and a conformed copy of any
order issued pursuant to this section, including any order granting
or denying a special motion to strike, discovery, or fees.
(2) The Judicial Council shall maintain a public record of
information transmitted pursuant to this subdivision for at least
three years, and may store the information on microfilm or other
appropriate electronic media.

If you liked the content of this post please subscribe to the California Defamation Law Blog Newsletter to receive more great information about defamation law, how to protect your reputation online, and much, much more.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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