246 Cal. App. 4th 1291
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Neighbors in a gated community (Stephens, Ekmekdjian vs. Yasser and Daria Abuemeira) engaged in a roadside physical altercation that was partly video-recorded by Stephens.
- The video was later shown to friends, law enforcement, media, and posted online; defendants alleged the incident was a "hate crime" against homosexuals.
- Prosecutor filed then dismissed criminal charges against Yasser in the interests of justice; facts in dispute about who provoked the fight and whether the video was edited.
- Abuemeiras sued alleging multiple causes of action including intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation based on the defendants’ post-incident publications and characterization.
- Defendants moved to strike the 2nd (IIED) and 4th (defamation) causes of action under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (§ 425.16) and invoked the litigation privilege (Civ. Code § 47(b)).
- Trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion; Court of Appeal affirmed, holding defendants’ publications concerned a private dispute and were not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute or the litigation privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IIED and defamation claims "arise from" protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute | Abuemeiras: publications were private defamation/harm arising from defendants’ conduct; not protected speech | Stephens: communications about an alleged hate crime to public, press, friends, and online are protected speech on an issue of public interest (§ 425.16 (e)(3),(e)(4)) | Court: Defendants failed to show communications were in furtherance of free speech on a public issue; anti-SLAPP threshold not met; motion denied |
| Whether false allegations of criminal conduct are subject to anti-SLAPP protection | Abuemeiras: false criminal allegations are not protected and can support claims | Stephens: argued matter had public interest because he framed it as a hate crime | Court: Causes of action based on false allegations of criminal conduct are not subject to anti-SLAPP protection; private dispute predominates |
| Whether the litigation privilege (Civ. Code § 47(b)) bars defamation claims based on post-complaint communications | Abuemeiras: post-filing republications to media/public are not privileged; recipients not connected to litigation | Stephens: communications after initial complaint serve litigation-related purposes and thus are privileged | Court: Litigation privilege inapplicable because communications were republications to nonparticipants and did not further legitimate court-ordered remedies or objectives |
| Whether showing wide distribution converts private information into an issue of public interest | Abuemeiras: wide distribution does not convert private dispute into public interest | Stephens: wide dissemination and petition to Attorney General show public concern | Court: A speaker cannot turn private information into public interest merely by wide distribution; focus was private controversy, not public interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Fahlen v. Sutter Central Valley Hospitals, 58 Cal.4th 655 (explains anti-SLAPP two-step and procedural posture)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (focus on defendant activity as the anti-SLAPP target)
- Talega Maintenance Corp. v. Standard Pacific Corp., 225 Cal.App.4th 722 (describes two-step anti-SLAPP framework and gravamen analysis)
- Weinberg v. Feisel, 110 Cal.App.4th 1122 (false criminal allegations and private disputes are not protected by anti-SLAPP)
- GetFugu, Inc. v. Patton Boggs LLP, 220 Cal.App.4th 141 (litigation privilege does not protect republication to nonparticipants or press)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (standard of independent review on anti-SLAPP rulings)
- Rothman v. Jackson, 49 Cal.App.4th 1134 (public mudslinging not protected by litigation privilege)