39 Cal.App.5th 1167
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Hicks was the principal of a Catholic elementary/middle school; Richard was a parent and advisory board chair who, with other parents, sent a letter to diocesan and accrediting authorities alleging serious misconduct by Hicks (inappropriate comments, mishandling child‑safety issues, poor leadership, alleged pornographic photo shoot on campus, curricular concerns).
- The Diocese investigated and removed Hicks from his principal position; Hicks then sued Richard for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- Richard moved under the anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), arguing the letter was protected speech on matters of public interest and Hicks could not show a probability of prevailing.
- The trial court granted the anti‑SLAPP motion in part but denied it as to several statements, finding Hicks had shown minimal merit and raising a question whether the common‑interest privilege was defeated by malice evidence (emails showing Richard’s wife had employment problems).
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held the letter was protected speech concerning public issues and that Hicks failed to raise a triable issue of actual malice to defeat the common‑interest privilege; it directed the trial court to strike Hicks’s complaint and award fees to Richard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the letter was protected activity under the anti‑SLAPP statute (speech re public issue) | Hicks: Letter was not part of public debate and thus not protected | Richard: Letter addressed child safety, education, and was sent to outside authorities to prompt investigation — it furthered public discourse | Court: Letter implicated public interest and furthered the discourse; protected under § 425.16(e)(4) |
| Whether Hicks showed a probability of prevailing given the common‑interest privilege | Hicks: Privilege defeated by malice; produced emails about Richard’s wife to show motive/ill will; claims statements were false | Richard: Communications to church/school authorities are privileged absent actual malice; statements were corroborated and made in a businesslike manner | Court: Hicks failed to show actual malice; common‑interest privilege applies; Hicks did not meet anti‑SLAPP second‑step burden |
| Whether evidence of alleged ill will (wife’s employment problems) suffices to prove actual malice | Hicks: Emails about wife's problems show Richard’s hostility and motive to harm Hicks | Richard: Ill will alone is insufficient; must show link to disbelief or lack of reasonable grounds for statements | Court: Ill will without evidence linking it to disbelief or reckless falsity is insufficient to establish actual malice |
| Appropriate remedy if anti‑SLAPP motion succeeds | Hicks: Proceed with defamation/IIED claims | Richard: Strike complaint in full and award attorney fees/costs under § 425.16(c)(1) | Court: Reversed; directed trial court to grant the anti‑SLAPP motion, strike Hicks’s complaint, and determine attorney fees and costs; awarded appeal costs to Richard |
Key Cases Cited
- FilmOn.com v. DoubleVerify, Inc., 7 Cal.5th 133 (California 2019) (framework for determining when speech is in connection with a public issue under § 425.16)
- Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (California 2007) (limits on using certain evidence to show malice and standards for anti‑SLAPP appeals)
- Brewer v. Second Baptist Church, 32 Cal.2d 791 (California 1948) (common‑interest privilege for internal religious communications)
- Kachlon v. Markowitz, 168 Cal.App.4th 316 (California 2008) (actual malice required to defeat common‑interest privilege)
- Noel v. River Hills Wilsons, Inc., 113 Cal.App.4th 1363 (California 2003) (common‑interest privilege is a complete defense unless malice shown)
- Hailstone v. Martinez, 169 Cal.App.4th 728 (California 2008) (malice cannot be inferred from communications; plaintiff must prove it)
- Reader's Digest Assn. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 244 (California 1984) (ill will alone insufficient to show actual malice; need link to probable falsity)
- Christian Research Institute v. Alnor, 148 Cal.App.4th 71 (California 2007) (focus on defendant's belief about truth when assessing malice)