Grenier v. Taylor
234 Cal. App. 4th 471
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs Bob Grenier and Gayle Grenier sued Alex Grenier and Tim Taylor for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from internet postings about Bob’s conduct as a pastor and church leader.
- The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, ruling the statements concerned a public issue and Bob was a limited purpose public figure, and that plaintiffs showed a probability of prevailing.
- The statements were made on internet forum posts and a blog, alleging theft, drug dealing, child abuse, and other criminal conduct by Bob and related allegations about church finances.
- The court concluded the statements were made in a public forum about a public interest, but held Bob to be a limited purpose public figure for defamation purposes.
- On appeal, defendants challenge the public-interest/SLAPP ruling and Bob’s public-figure status; plaintiffs cross-appeal challenging the limited-figure finding and liability.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court, holding the statements were protected under 425.16(e)(3) but concluded Bob is not a limited purpose public figure; plaintiffs established a probability of prevailing on defamation and IIED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements were protected activity under 425.16(e)(3) | Greniers: statements were about public interest in church matters and abuse within Calvary Chapel. | Alex/Tim: statements concern private family dispute, not public interest. | Yes; statements were in a public forum about a public-interest issue. |
| Whether Bob is a limited purpose public figure | Bob is not a limited-purpose figure due to private conduct issues. | Bob volunteered into public controversy via his pastoral role and public promotions. | Bob is not a limited purpose public figure. |
| Whether plaintiffs estalished a probability of prevailing on defamation and IIED | Statements alleged as criminal conduct could be proven false and caused harm. | Anti-SLAPP burden requires malice if Bob is a limited figure; otherwise need not prove malice. | Plaintiffs demonstrated a probability of prevailing on both defamation and IIED claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002) (two-step anti-SLAPP process; threshold public-interest showing)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (probability of prevailing standard for SLAPP suits)
- Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (Cal. 2006) (minimal merit standard; admissible evidence requirement)
- Weinberg v. Feisel, 110 Cal.App.4th 1122 (Cal. App. 2003) (public interest and private conduct; breadth of 'public interest')
- Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club, 85 Cal.App.4th 468 (Cal. App. 2000) (issue of public interest within a defined community)
- Ruiz v. Harbor View Community Assn., 134 Cal.App.4th 1456 (Cal. App. 2005) (private dispute within a community deemed public interest)
- Gallagher v. Connell, 123 Cal.App.4th 1260 (Cal. App. 2004) (clergy membership not per se public figure; must thrust into controversy)
- Reader’s Digest Ass’n v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 244 (Cal. 1984) (all-purpose vs limited-purpose public figures)
- Ampex Corp. v. Cargle, 128 Cal.App.4th 1569 (Cal. App. 2005) (elements of limited public figure status; controversy linkage)
- Rivers v. AFSCME, 105 Cal.App.4th 913 (Cal. App. 2003) (public-interest characterization of broad community topics)
- Wilbanks v. Wolk, 121 Cal.App.4th 883 (Cal. App. 2004) (public interest not automatically triggered by broad informational statements)