Charney v. Standard General, L.P.
10 Cal. App. 5th 149
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Dov Charney, founder and former CEO of American Apparel, was suspended and later terminated after an internal investigation overseen by the board.
- Standard General (a controlling investor) issued a press release stating it supported an independent third‑party investigation and respected the board’s decision to terminate Charney based on that investigation.
- Charney sued for defamation, false light, intentional interference (actual and prospective economic relations), and unfair business practices, alleging the press release falsely implied he was terminated for cause for financial malfeasance and illegal sexual harassment/discrimination.
- Standard General filed an anti‑SLAPP (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16) special motion to strike; the trial court granted it and Charney appealed.
- The appellate court accepted that the press release was protected activity (threshold prong) and reviewed de novo whether Charney met his burden to show a probability of prevailing (second prong).
- The court held Charney failed to show even minimal merit because the press release did not contain provably false factual assertions about Charney’s conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Charney met the anti‑SLAPP second prong (probability of prevailing) | Charney argued the press release was defamatory and supported his interference and UCL claims because it falsely portrayed him as terminated for cause after an "independent third‑party" investigation | Standard General argued the press release was protected speech and, on the merits, did not make provably false factual assertions about Charney | Held: Charney failed to show minimal merit; anti‑SLAPP granted affirmed |
| Whether stating the investigation was by an "independent third party" is actionable defamation | Charney claimed the investigation was not independent (overseen by company counsel) so the statement was false | Standard General argued characterization of the investigator as independent is not a provable false statement about Charney and is opinion/subjective judgment | Held: Not actionable — allegation about investigator independence is opinion/interpretation, not a provable false fact about Charney |
| Whether saying termination resulted from the investigation equates to stating he was terminated "for cause" (defamatory) | Charney contended the release implied he was terminated for specific wrongful conduct (financial malfeasance, sexual harassment) | Standard General contended the release referenced allegations and an investigation but did not state specific factual findings; thus no provably false assertion of criminal or wrongful acts about Charney | Held: Not actionable — the release did not state specific factual findings and cannot be proven false as to wrongful conduct; dispute over fitness/justification is opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Kenne v. Stennis, 230 Cal.App.4th 953 (definition of SLAPP)
- Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (anti‑SLAPP two‑step analysis)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (both prongs required to find a SLAPP)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (de novo review of anti‑SLAPP rulings)
- Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc., 151 Cal.App.4th 688 (plaintiff must show more than mere allegation; only minimal merit required but must present admissible evidence)
- Grenier v. Taylor, 234 Cal.App.4th 471 (defamation requires provably false factual assertion)
- Rohde v. Wolf, 154 Cal.App.4th 28 (burdens on anti‑SLAPP motion)
- Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp., 97 Cal.App.4th 798 (anti‑SLAPP statute purpose — early disposal of meritless suits)
- Ferlauto v. Hamsher, 74 Cal.App.4th 1394 (statements not reasonably interpreted as facts about plaintiff cannot support defamation)
- Morningstar, Inc. v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App.4th 676 (opinion and subjective judgments not actionable in defamation)
- Standing Committee v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430 (opinion vs. actionable factual assertions)
- Khawar v. Globe International, 19 Cal.4th 254 (actual malice standard for public figures)
- Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (actual malice doctrine for defamation of public figures)