Gregory Blatt v. Rosette Pambakian, 20-55084

In August 2019 Gregory Blatt sued Rosette Pambakian and Sean Rad for defamation based on their public comments to the media about allegations in an earlier civil suit (the "Valuation Complaint") that Blatt "groped and sexually harassed" Pambakian at a 2016 Tinder holiday party.
Pambakian spoke to CNN (August 16 article) describing the alleged groping/harassment; there were also December 2018 articles at issue referencing Match/IAC.
Defendants moved under California's anti‑SLAPP statute; the district court granted in part and denied in part. The court also compelled arbitration for Pambakian, which the district court held mooted her anti‑SLAPP motion.
On appeal defendants challenge primarily the district court’s ruling that the August 16 CNN statements were unprotected; they also argue Blatt lacks standing as to the December 2018 articles and that Pambakian’s anti‑SLAPP motion was improperly held moot.
The Ninth Circuit reviews anti‑SLAPP denials de novo and considered conspiracy allegations that could impute Pambakian’s statements to Rad.
Result summary: the Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of Rad’s anti‑SLAPP motion as to the August 16 CNN article (holding those statements fall within California’s fair‑and‑true‑report privilege) and affirmed the district court on the other issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether August 16 CNN statements are protected by California's fair‑and‑true‑report privilege	Blatt: statements were defamatory and not privileged	Pambakian/Rad: statements are fair and true reports of allegations in the Valuation Complaint	Reversed denial as to Rad: statements fall within the fair‑and‑true‑report privilege (protected); deviations are covered by literary license
Whether Blatt has Article III standing to challenge December 2018 articles	Blatt: articles defamed him and injury is alleged	Defendants: articles concerned Match/IAC, not Blatt, so no standing	Rejected defendants: "of and concerning" is a merits issue, not jurisdictional standing
Whether Pambakian's anti‑SLAPP motion was mooted by an order compelling arbitration	Blatt: (implicit) court should still resolve anti‑SLAPP issues	Pambakian: arbitration order moots anti‑SLAPP motion because anti‑SLAPP does not apply to arbitration	Affirmed: anti‑SLAPP motion mooted by arbitration; courts should not duplicate effort because anti‑SLAPP relief does not bind arbitration

Healthsmart Pac., Inc. v. Kabateck, 7 Cal. App. 5th 416 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (California fair‑and‑true‑report privilege protects fair and true reports of judicial proceedings, including pleadings)
Argentieri v. Zuckerberg, 8 Cal. App. 5th 768 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (gist/sting test and allowance for literary license in reporting pleadings)
McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 189 Cal. App. 3d 961 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (reporter not bound to the exact words of a testifier; deviations may be protected)
SDV/ACCI, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 522 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2008) ("of and concerning" is a merits inquiry, not an Article III standing question)
Sheppard v. Lightpost Museum Fund, 146 Cal. App. 4th 315 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (California anti‑SLAPP doctrine does not apply in the arbitral forum)
Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal. 4th 299 (Cal. 2006) (anti‑SLAPP aims to prevent meritless suits that deplete defendants’ resources and energy)
Doe v. Gangland Prods., Inc., 730 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review: denial of an anti‑SLAPP motion reviewed de novo)