40 Cal.App.5th 882
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Nahid Lahiji hired attorney Alexander Cohen and his firm in June 2017 for a homeowners insurance dispute, then fired them in November 2017; the firm later asserted a quantum meruit lien on further recovery.
- Within days of the lien, several identical negative online reviews of the firm appeared on Yelp, Avvo, Ripoff Report, Google, and Facebook; some posts used a Yelp account showing Arta Lahiji’s photo and the username “AI L.”
- Cohen and the firm sued Arta for defamation, alleging a good-faith belief she authored the posts; Nahid later declared she, not Arta, posted the reviews.
- Arta moved to dismiss under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (§ 425.16); the motion triggered an automatic discovery stay which plaintiffs unsuccessfully tried to lift to subpoena Yelp and depose witnesses.
- The trial court held the online reviews were protected activity and found Cohen and the firm failed to show minimal merit (no prima facie proof Arta authored the posts); the court dismissed the complaint and awarded Arta attorney fees.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting plaintiffs’ arguments about protected activity, the adequacy of their prima facie showing, and the denial of relief from the discovery stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the online reviews are "protected activity" under the anti‑SLAPP statute | Reviews are not protected because Arta denies posting, so the cause of action does not arise from any act of Arta | A court looks to the plaintiff's complaint to determine whether the claim arises from protected conduct; allegations alone suffice | Held: Posts are protected activity; Bel Air controls — defendant may rely on plaintiff’s allegations to show protected activity |
| Whether plaintiffs showed minimal merit (prima facie proof Arta authored the posts) | Evidence (Yelp photo/username, emails, mixed first‑person usage, interpreter request) supports that Arta authored or participated in publication | Nahid’s sworn declaration says she posted; Arta swears she did not post; plaintiffs’ evidence is speculative and key evidence was excluded or weak | Held: Plaintiffs failed to meet burden; evidence speculative and insufficient to show Arta was legally responsible; anti‑SLAPP dismissal affirmed |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying motion to lift the anti‑SLAPP discovery stay | Plaintiffs needed to depose Nahid/Arta and subpoena Yelp (IP records) to establish authorship and rebut declarations | Discovery cannot be used merely to test opponent’s declarations; requested discovery was not tailored and IP evidence would be inconclusive given shared address | Held: No abuse of discretion; denial of lift was proper under § 425.16(g) |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (2016) (clarifies anti‑SLAPP purpose and two‑step procedure)
- Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (2006) (definition of protected activity under anti‑SLAPP)
- Bel Air Internet, LLC v. Morales, 20 Cal.App.5th 924 (2018) (plaintiff’s allegations alone can define whether conduct is protected)
- Kashian v. Harriman, 98 Cal.App.4th 892 (2002) (prima facie showing standard and anti‑SLAPP evidentiary rules)
- Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, 7 Cal.5th 781 (2019) (speculative inferences cannot establish prima facie showing)
- 1‑800 Contacts, Inc. v. Steinberg, 107 Cal.App.4th 568 (2003) (standards for lifting anti‑SLAPP discovery stay)
- Shively v. Bozanich, 31 Cal.4th 1230 (2003) (liability for those who take a responsible part in publication)