247 Cal. App. 4th 1336
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Bird posted multiple negative Yelp reviews about Hassell Law Group; Hassell sued Bird for defamation and obtained a default judgment after Bird failed to appear.
- The judgment awarded damages against Bird and issued an injunction ordering Bird to remove specific defamatory reviews; it also included an order directing Yelp to remove those reviews from its site.
- Yelp was not a party to the defamation suit, was served with the judgment after entry, and refused to remove the reviews; Hassell sought enforcement and threatened contempt.
- Yelp filed a motion to vacate the judgment (initially invoking Code Civ. Proc. §663 and later framing a nonstatutory challenge), arguing lack of notice, First Amendment and CDA §230 problems; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Court of Appeal held Yelp lacked standing to challenge the default judgment against Bird but had standing as an aggrieved party to appeal the removal order; the court affirmed denial of Yelp’s motion to vacate but remanded to narrow the removal order.
Issues
| Issue | Hassell's Argument | Yelp's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal | Removal order binds Yelp and thus Yelp is aggrieved | Yelp is a nonparty and cannot attack the Bird judgment; but it is affected by the removal order | Yelp is not aggrieved by the judgment against Bird but is aggrieved by the removal order and has standing to appeal that portion after filing a nonstatutory motion to vacate |
| Use and timeliness of Code Civ. Proc. §663 | Section 663 is not implicated by Yelp (Hassell contends trial court could hear motion) | Yelp invoked §663 to vacate judgment | Yelp’s §663 motion was improper/substantively inapplicable and untimely under §663a; but its nonstatutory motion to vacate was the proper vehicle to challenge an allegedly void removal order |
| Due process (notice/hearing for Yelp) | Court may order nonparty to effectuate injunction when necessary to prevent circumvention | Yelp insisted it had a First Amendment/ due process right to prior notice/hearing before being ordered to remove content | Trial court had authority to order nonparty to effectuate an injunction in appropriate circumstances; prior notice/hearing was not constitutionally required where speech already adjudicated defamatory |
| Prior restraint / First Amendment | Injunction against repeating defamatory statements is permissible post-adjudication | Yelp argued removal order was an unconstitutional prior restraint, including scope beyond adjudicated statements | Removal of specific statements adjudicated defamatory is constitutionally permissible; ordering removal of any subsequent or unspecified comments was overbroad and must be narrowed |
| CDA §230 immunity | Hassell argued injunction orders do not impose publisher liability on Yelp | Yelp argued §230 bars courts from ordering providers to remove third-party content or holding them liable for compliance | §230 does not bar a court from directing a nonparty to remove specific content adjudged defamatory where the injunction binds the originator; the removal order as applied to Yelp was not void under §230 (but scope must be limited) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.3d 899 (Cal. 1977) (injunctions may run to nonparties through whom the enjoined party may act)
- Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen, 40 Cal.4th 1141 (Cal. 2007) (post-trial injunction prohibiting repetition of statements adjudged defamatory is not a prohibited prior restraint if properly limited)
- Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (Cal. 2006) (broad construction of CDA §230 immunity against defamation liability for interactive service providers)
- Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) (§230 precludes treating interactive service providers as publishers for third-party content and bars liability for editorial functions)
- Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (U.S. 1961) (due process limits on ex parte seizures of allegedly obscene material; prior adversary safeguards required in that context)
- Planned Parenthood Golden Gate v. Garibaldi, 107 Cal.App.4th 345 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (discusses limits on injunctions and application to nonparties)