42 Cal.App.5th 504
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff Cynthia Briganti is a motivational speaker for Enagic (Kangen Water) and an executive producer of the film "Slamma Jamma."
- Defendant Keith Chow posted on Facebook alleging Briganti was indicted, a convicted criminal, and stole the identities of thousands of people.
- Briganti sued for defamation and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, alleging the post damaged her reputation and caused investors to withdraw from the film.
- Chow moved to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (§ 425.16). The trial court granted the motion as to the interference claim but denied it as to defamation.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal reviewed de novo, held the Facebook post addressed a matter of public interest (thus was protected activity), and concluded Briganti made a prima facie showing sufficient to defeat the anti-SLAPP strike of the defamation claim.
- The court also admonished defense counsel for a sexist, irrelevant characterization of the trial judge in the reply brief and discussed civility obligations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statements arise from protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute | Briganti did not dispute public-interest character of mass-identity-theft allegations but argued her claim is actionable | Chow argued his Facebook post concerned a public issue and thus falls within § 425.16 protection | Held: Statements concerned alleged mass criminality and public interest; they are protected activity (first-step satisfied) |
| Whether Briganti showed a probability of prevailing on her defamation claim (second-step) | Briganti submitted the Facebook post and declarations denying convictions/indictments and attesting to reputational and economic harm | Chow argued the post was nonactionable opinion/ hyperbole and thus should be struck | Held: Briganti met the minimal prima facie showing (libel per se allegations of crime are actionable); defamation claim survives anti-SLAPP strike |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (establishes anti-SLAPP two-step framework)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (plaintiff must show minimal merit/probability of prevailing)
- Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, 7 Cal.5th 781 (de novo review of anti-SLAPP rulings)
- Matson v. Dvorak, 40 Cal.App.4th 539 (prima facie showing standard at anti-SLAPP second step)
- Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal.App.4th 1354 (elements of defamation; definition of libel)
- Barnes-Hind, Inc. v. Superior Court, 181 Cal.App.3d 377 (accusation of crime as libel per se)
- ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Does 1-7, 13 Cal.App.5th 603 (a single sentence in a publication can support a libel action)