Grewal v. Jammu
191 Cal. App. 4th 977
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Grewal, a 73-year-old temple member and Alameda County interpreter, alleged Punjab Times published defamatory statements in 2005 and 2006 leading to a defamation suit against multiple defendants.
- Jammu defendants moved to strike under CCP 425.16 (anti-SLAPP) long after the complaint—nearly three years—and after an earlier anti-SLAPP denial against other defendants.
- Trial court held the first three causes did not involve public interest, but the sixth/last libel claim did involve public interest, and Grewal showed a likelihood of prevailing on the libel claims present in the SAC.
- Judge Lee denied the motion to strike after distinguishing the protectable First Amendment conduct from private temple governance disputes; the Jammu defendants appealed.
- The appellate court reviews de novo, infers that the anti-SLAPP second-step burden was met, and affirms the trial court’s denial while condemning abuse of anti-SLAPP motions and urging legislative reconsideration of appeal rights for losing defendants.
- The opinion discusses temple governance history, Singh v. Singh (2004) as contextual backdrop, and analyzes whether the publications were libelous, whether the source was reliable, and whether the statements constituted lack of reasonable care in publication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the anti-SLAPP motion threshold applies to this action | Grewal contends the publications involved an issue of public interest | Jammu contends the statements concerned public interest and public figure dynamics | Not essential to decide; reviewing court proceeds to step two; review affirms denial |
| Whether Grewal was a public figure for purposes of the anti-SLAPP analysis | Grewal was not a public figure in the 2005–2008 publications | Punjab Times and temple politics impinge on public discourse, supporting public figure status | Grewal was not established as a public figure for the 2005–2008 publications; decision still supports step-two burden |
| Whether Grewal met the step-two burden by showing a probability of prevailing on the libel claims | Statements were false, damaged him, and were published with fault | Statements were protected by First Amendment/public-interest considerations and lack malice | Yes; Grewal met the minimal meritorious showing on the libel claims, supporting denial of the motion |
| Whether malice or fault standards apply given the anti-SLAPP posture | Malice or at least lack of reasonable care shown by defendants | Malice required if public figure or public interest; not necessary here | Malice not required to defeat the anti-SLAPP motion in this context; even if required, evidence supported malice by reliance on a biased source |
| Whether anti-SLAPP procedures have been misused, and the impact on appeal | Anti-SLAPP used to delay merits and unjustly prolong litigation | Anti-SLAPP protects rights in public discourse; proper tool in some cases | Court condemns abuse and suggests legislative change; affirms trial court but invites reform of appeal rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (Cal. 2005) (two-step anti-SLAPP analysis governs whether defamation suit should be struck)
- Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc., 151 Cal.App.4th 688 (Cal. App. 2007) (second-step burden treated as akin to summary judgment standard)
- Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 23 Cal.4th 429 (Cal. 2000) (minimal merit standard for anti-SLAPP threshold)
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, 19 Cal.4th 1106 (Cal. 1999) (construction of broad anti-SLAPP provisions; not limited to public-interest issues)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (concerns about abuses and practical implications of anti-SLAPP)
- World Financial Group, Inc. v. HBW Ins. & Financial Services, Inc., 172 Cal.App.4th 1561 (Cal. App. 2009) (public interest standard related to broad anti-SLAPP application)
- Episcopal Church Cases, 45 Cal.4th 467 (Cal. 2009) (limits of anti-SLAPP scope in church-related disputes)
- Olsen v. Harbison, 134 Cal.App.4th 278 (Cal. App. 2005) (treatment of anti-SLAPP appeals and expediency considerations)