Bently Reserve LP v. Papaliolios
218 Cal. App. 4th 418
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Bently Reserve, L.P. owns the Jones Building; Papaliolios rented there and later moved out amid disputes.
- Papaliolios posted a Yelp review about the building under the name Sal R.; the review contained strong epithets and factual assertions about ownership, evictions, and tenant deaths.
- Plaintiffs sued Papaliolios for libel based on the Yelp posting; Papaliolios moved to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing the statements were opinions or substantially true.
- The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, finding the libel claim had minimal merit and was based on statements that could be read as false factual assertions.
- The Court of Appeal conducted a de novo, summary-judgment-like review focusing on the merits, including whether the statements could imply provable false facts.
- The court held portions of the review could be reasonably read to imply false statements of fact and affirmed denial of the anti-SLAPP motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the review contains provable false statements | Bently argues the review asserts false facts about evictions and deaths. | Papaliolios contends the review is opinion or substantially true. | Yes; some statements are reasonably susceptible to a false factual interpretation. |
| Whether anonymous Internet postings negate defamation risk | Anonymous posting should still be actionable where factual implications are present. | Anonymous posts are less likely to convey facts and more like opinions. | Anonymous posting does not categorically immunize the statements; context matters and some can be actionable. |
| Whether plaintiffs showed a probability of prevailing under the anti-SLAPP second prong | Gist and several specific assertions were provably false; triable issues exist. | Substantial truth defeats libel claim; only minor inaccuracies needed to be addressed. | Plaintiffs carried the minimal showing on at least some grounds; triable issues remain on substantial truth. |
| Whether substantial truth defeats the libel claim | Even with some inaccuracies, the gist is true and thus not defamatory. | Gist and key factual assertions are not substantially true and are defamatory. | Triable issues exist; the record does not establish substantial truth as a matter of law. |
| Whether malice/public-figure status was properly preserved and considered | Plaintiffs are not necessarily public figures; malice not proven or preserved. | Advertising Yelp presence could render them public figures; malice should be considered. | Issue forfeited on appeal; malice not timely raised and insufficient record to decide. |
Key Cases Cited
- Summit Bank v. Rogers, 206 Cal.App.4th 669 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (defamation; test for falsehood and context with facts and opinions)
- Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc., 151 Cal.App.4th 688 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (contextual/totality-of-the-circumstances test for statements of fact vs. opinion)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1990) (expressions of opinion may imply provable facts; not blanket protection)
- Krinsky v. Doe 6, 159 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (anonymous Internet speech context; tone and credibility matter)
- Chaker v. Mateo, 209 Cal.App.4th 1138 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (Internet postings; lack of specificity may render statements nonactionable)
- Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal.App.4th 1354 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (unmasked or identified online review; substantial truth and falsity in Yelp context)
- Ruiz v. Harbor View Community Assn., 134 Cal.App.4th 1456 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (opinion vs. fact; disclosures matter to defamation analysis)
- ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, 93 Cal.App.4th 993 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (contextual determination of factual vs. opinion content)
- Kahn v. Bower, 232 Cal.App.3d 1599 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (defamatory meaning; court determines whether interpretation conveys false assertion)