Albanese v. Menounos
218 Cal. App. 4th 923
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Lindsay Albanese, a celebrity stylist, sued Maria Menounos for defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on statements Menounos allegedly made at a public event accusing Albanese of stealing and causing Dolce & Gabbana not to lend to Menounos.
- Albanese alleged the statements harmed her personal and professional reputation and caused economic loss; she pleaded actual malice and intent to injure.
- Menounos filed an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16, asserting the statements were protected speech made in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest (§ 425.16(e)(4)).
- Menounos supported the motion with evidence aiming to show Albanese is "in the public eye" (web presence, TV appearances, celebrity styling credits).
- The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion at the first prong, finding the statements did not involve a public issue or topic of public interest; Menounos appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the public-interest requirement was not met and denying attorney fees to Albanese.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the challenged statements arose from protected activity under § 425.16(e)(4) (i.e., made in connection with a public issue or issue of public interest) | Albanese: statements were private and not a matter of public interest; dispute affected only direct participants | Menounos: Albanese is in the public eye; any statement about a person in the public eye qualifies as speech about a public issue | Held: No. The court concluded the statements concerned a private dispute and lacked the required public-interest connection; the first prong of anti-SLAPP failed |
| Whether Albanese’s media presence made her a public figure such that any comments about her are matters of public interest | Albanese: her publicity does not make the private dispute a public issue; she is not a public figure for all contexts | Menounos: Albanese’s TV, press, and spokesperson roles place her in the public eye and make remarks about her of public interest | Held: No. Even assuming some public recognition, there was no evidence of pervasive fame or a public controversy tying the private dispute to public interest |
| Whether the court should apply a broad rule that any statement about a person in the public eye is a public issue for anti-SLAPP purposes | Albanese: rejects broad rule; public-interest requirement needs closeness to the public issue | Menounos: advocates for the broad rule that statements about public figures qualify | Held: Rejected the broad rule; court affirmed need for close connection between statement and public interest rather than mere notoriety |
| Whether attorney fees under § 425.16(c)(1) are warranted given the merits of Menounos’s anti-SLAPP motion | Albanese: fees justified because motion improperly tried to convert private dispute into public issue | Menounos: motion was legally tenable based on cases and evidence of Albanese’s public presence | Held: Denied. Court found Menounos’s arguments were not frivolous or beyond rational debate; fees denied but costs awarded to Albanese |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Time Warner, Inc., 153 Cal.App.4th 1337 (relevant private person became part of a public-issue story because of association with famous figure)
- Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, 159 Cal.App.4th 1027 (public interest found where evidence showed extensive public interest in the celebrity subject)
- Rivero v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, 105 Cal.App.4th 913 (private labor dispute was not a matter of public interest)
- Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp., 97 Cal.App.4th 798 (statements about a reality-show participant involved public interest)
- Sipple v. Foundation for Nat. Progress, 71 Cal.App.4th 226 (public-figure context linked private allegations to public interest)
- D.C. v. R.R., 182 Cal.App.4th 1190 (rejected the proposition that any statement about a public figure is necessarily a public issue)
- Weinberg v. Feisel, 110 Cal.App.4th 1122 (private dispute among collectors was not a public-issue matter)
- Jewett v. Capital One Bank, 113 Cal.App.4th 805 (discusses limits on applying public-interest protection)
- Hailstone v. Martinez, 169 Cal.App.4th 728 (protected activity applies when statements occur in the context of an ongoing controversy with wider interest)
- Century 21 Chamberlain & Associates v. Haberman, 173 Cal.App.4th 1 (example of dispute not constituting a public issue)