92 Cal.App.5th 70
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background:
- 2020 congressional race: incumbent Maxine Waters repeatedly told voters Joe E. Collins III had been dishonorably discharged from the Navy.
- Collins posted a screenshot of a DD-214 on his campaign Facebook and his campaign website showing his "Character of Service" as "UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)."
- Collins sued Waters for defamation before the election and attached the DD-214 screenshot to his complaint; he later produced additional official Navy records corroborating a non-dishonorable discharge.
- Waters investigated and relied on a federal district court opinion (which originally used the word “dishonorable”), other court filings by Collins, and a phone call to the Navy’s attorney; she did not independently verify the DD-214’s authenticity.
- The trial court granted Waters’s anti‑SLAPP special motion to strike, finding Collins failed to show actual malice by clear and convincing evidence; it also awarded Waters attorney fees.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: at the anti‑SLAPP stage Collins’s evidence must be accepted, and the combination of a facially authoritative DD-214, easy means of verification, and Waters’s continued repetition supported an inference of willful blindness/probable falsity sufficient to defeat the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Collins met anti‑SLAPP prong two (showing probability of prevailing by proving actual malice) | Collins: the DD-214 was authoritative, easily verifiable, and Waters’ failure to check while continuing accusations supports inference of willful blindness/actual malice | Waters: she sincerely (subjectively) believed Collins was dishonorably discharged based on the district court opinion, Collins’s filings, and her investigation; mere failure to investigate does not prove malice | Held: Reversed. Accepting Collins’s evidence, a jury could infer willful blindness and actual malice; anti‑SLAPP motion improperly granted |
| Whether failure to investigate alone can establish actual malice | Collins: purposeful avoidance of verification can show high awareness of probable falsity | Waters: failure to investigate, standing alone, is insufficient to establish actual malice | Held: Failure to investigate alone is insufficient, but purposeful avoidance in context (facially valid doc + easy verification + continued publication) can support a finding of actual malice |
| Whether the trial court may weigh credibility or resolve factual conflicts on anti‑SLAPP motion | Collins: anti‑SLAPP procedure requires courts to accept plaintiff’s evidence and not resolve credibility conflicts | Waters: her declarations and investigation supported her subjective belief and negated malice | Held: Anti‑SLAPP review requires accepting plaintiff’s evidence and not resolving credibility; trial court erred by granting motion based on weighing conflicting evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (established actual malice standard for public officials/figures)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1968) (reckless disregard defined as high awareness of probable falsity)
- Harte‑Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (U.S. 1989) (purposeful avoidance of the truth supports finding of actual malice)
- Khawar v. Globe Int'l, Inc., 19 Cal.4th 254 (Cal. 1998) (failure to use readily available means to verify can evidence purposeful avoidance and actual malice)
- Reader's Digest Assn. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 244 (Cal. 1984) (failure to investigate alone does not necessarily raise triable issue, but investigation failure is a pertinent factor)
- Antonovich v. Superior Court, 234 Cal.App.3d 1041 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (repetition of charge without inspecting offered proof can support inference of purposeful avoidance)
- Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, 7 Cal.5th 781 (Cal. 2019) (anti‑SLAPP review is independent; courts must accept plaintiff’s evidence and not weigh conflicts)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016) (explains anti‑SLAPP two‑step framework and early screening purpose)