Edalat v. Cahill CA4/3
G058761
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 23, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs Paul Edalat and Olivia Karpinski sued Bruce Cahill in state court for slander, libel, and later false light based on statements Cahill allegedly made after prevailing in a federal lawsuit against them.
- The underlying federal trial (Aug. 2017) produced mixed verdicts: large awards to Cahill against Edalat and smaller awards to Edalat and Karpinski on counterclaims; facts about Karpinski’s sexual-harassment claim and who recovered what were disputed in subsequent media statements.
- The original state complaint alleged oral statements to the New Hampshire Union Leader and NH1 News and formed the basis for slander and libel counts; a codefendant previously moved to strike under the anti‑SLAPP statute and that motion was denied.
- Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint adding a false-light claim and allegations about several press releases/pitch letters and a 2016 PR draft linking Edalat to an alleged “stock scam” (Alternate Health).
- Cahill filed an anti‑SLAPP motion late (Nov. 2019); the trial court denied it as untimely as to claims that were already pled and concluded the newly alleged PR materials were not protected public communications.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: (1) the anti‑SLAPP motion was untimely as to the defamation claims that did not change in substance from the original complaint, and (2) Cahill failed to show the Alternate Health press materials were protected activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of anti‑SLAPP motion to strike slander/libel counts | Plaintiffs: original causes of action unchanged; prior denial controls | Cahill: amended complaint added details so motion was timely to attack new allegations | Court: motion untimely — amended complaint did not add new causes or materially change gravamen; prior window had passed |
| Whether Alternate Health PR materials are protected activity under §425.16(e)(4) | Plaintiffs: PR draft/behind‑the‑scenes materials are not public communications and thus not protected | Cahill: PR materials concern a matter of public interest (fraud/stock scheme) and are protected speech | Court: not protected — no evidence release was public or widely distributed; communications appear internal and behind‑the‑scenes |
| Record/evidentiary and procedural compliance (exhibits, page limits) | Plaintiffs: Cahill failed to present admissible evidence showing public distribution; motion also violated court rules | Cahill: procedural defects not outcome‑determinative | Court: sustained many evidentiary objections; counsel violated page limits; failures undermined Cahill’s burden to show protected activity |
Key Cases Cited
- Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (anti‑SLAPP protects exercise of free speech and petition rights)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (two‑step anti‑SLAPP framework)
- Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, 31 Cal.4th 728 (defendant bears burden to show claim arises from protected conduct)
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (if protected conduct shown, move to plaintiffs’ probability of prevailing)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (amended complaint timing and anti‑SLAPP filing window principles)
- Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, 4 Cal.5th 637 (when an amended complaint reopens anti‑SLAPP timing)
- Rivero v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL‑CIO, 105 Cal.App.4th 913 (defining public issue/public interest for §425.16)
- Weinberg v. Feisel, 110 Cal.App.4th 1122 (focus of speaker’s conduct must be public interest, not private controversy)
- Du Charme v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 110 Cal.App.4th 107 (internal/behind‑the‑scenes communications are not necessarily protected public communications)