Cabrera v. Alam
197 Cal. App. 4th 1077
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Veronica Cabrera sued defendant Mohammed Alam for defamation based on statements at a HOA annual meeting held during board election.
- Plaintiff, a past HOA president, campaigned against Alam and represented a candidate with her power of attorney at the meeting.
- Plaintiff accused Alam of mismanaging the association’s finances and missing funds; Alam accused Cabrera of stealing and defrauding the association.
- The trial court denied Alam’s anti-SLAPP motion; Alam appealed arguing the statements arose from protected activity under §425.16(e)(3).
- The appellate court held Alam met the threshold protection, Cabrera was a limited-purpose public figure, and Cabrera failed to prove malice; the anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted.
- The court remanded with directions to grant the anti-SLAPP motion and recover costs on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statements arose from protected activity under §425.16(e)(3). | Cabrera argues statements were not protected. | Alam contends statements were made in a public forum and about a public issue. | Yes; statements were protected activity. |
| Whether the statements concerned a matter of public interest. | Cabrera argues no public interest. | Alam contends statements about finances at a HOA election implicate public interest. | Yes; statements concerned a public issue. |
| Whether Cabrera was a limited-purpose public figure and acted with malice. | Cabrera maintained no malice, not a public figure. | Alam contends Cabrera actively participated in the controversy and was a limited public figure; malice required. | Cabrera was a limited-purpose public figure; she failed to show malice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club, 85 Cal.App.4th 468 (Cal. App. 4th 2000) (public forums and issues of public interest in HOA contexts)
- Country Side Villas Homeowners Assn. v. Ivie, 193 Cal.App.4th 1110 (Cal. App. 4th 2011) (public interest in HOA matters)
- Macias v. Hartwell, 55 Cal.App.4th 669 (Cal. App. 4th 1997) (speech on candidate qualifications protected when in ongoing controversy)
- Du Charme v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 110 Cal.App.4th 107 (Cal. App. 4th 2003) (distinguishes ongoing controversy context for protected speech)
- Ampex Corp. v. Cargle, 128 Cal.App.4th 1569 (Cal. App. 4th 2005) (limits malice analysis for limited-purpose public figures)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 4th 2002) (establishes categories of protected activity under §425.16(e))
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 4th 2002) (probability of prevailing standard in anti-SLAPP)
- Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club, 85 Cal.App.4th 468 (Cal. App. 4th 2000) (public forum and public interest in HOA elections)
- Kajima Engineering & Construction, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 95 Cal.App.4th 921 (Cal. App. 4th 2002) (two-step anti-SLAPP analysis guidance)