Chaker v. Mateo
209 Cal. App. 4th 1138
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Chaker and Nicole Mateo had a brief relationship; a child was conceived and Texas paternity/custody actions followed.
- Chaker filed a defamation complaint in 2010 alleging Wendy and Nicole posted derogatory statements about him online.
- Wendy moved to strike under California's Anti-SLAPP Law, arguing the statements were protected petition/free-speech acts and that Chaker was vexatious.
- The trial court granted the motion to strike as to Wendy; Chaker appealed.
- The court analyzed whether the statements were made in a public forum about a matter of public interest and whether the statements were actionable facts or protected opinions.
- The appellate court affirmed the order striking the complaint, finding the statements were made in a public forum, in a public-interest context, and were nonactionable opinions except for a true statement about criminal history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statements were protected under 425.16 as free-speech acts on a public issue | Chaker argues statements involve public interest. | Wendy contends statements are protected anti-SLAPP activity. | Yes; statements were in a public forum about a public issue. |
| Whether Mateo's statements were facts or nonactionable opinions | Chaker asserts some statements are factual. | Wendy contends most statements are nonactionable opinion. | Most statements are nonactionable opinions; only criminal-history claim is arguably factual but vindicated. |
| Whether Chaker showed a probability of prevailing on the defamation claim | Chaker claims likelihood of success on merits. | Wendy argues minimal merit at most; statements are nonactionable opinions. | Chaker failed to show probability of prevailing; court affirmed dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilbanks v. Wolk, 121 Cal.App.4th 883 (Cal. App. Ch. 2004) (internet public forum; statements of public interest)
- Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher Organization, 203 Cal.App.4th 450 (Cal. App. 2012) (public-interest standard can cover private conduct)
- Terry v. Davis Community Church, 131 Cal.App.4th 1534 (Cal. App. 2005) (public interest in protecting minors from predators)
- Summit Bank v. Rogers, 206 Cal.App.4th 669 (Cal. App. 2012) (internet forum; hyperbolic opinions)
- Krinsky v. Doe 6, 159 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Cal. App. 2008) (online statements treated as opinions)
- Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 17 Cal.3d 596 (Cal. 1976) (fact vs. opinion; contextual analysis)
- Kashian v. Harriman, 98 Cal.App.4th 892 (Cal. App. 2002) (anti-SLAPP procedural framework)