31 Cal.App.5th 689
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Darrell Issa, an incumbent U.S. Representative and public figure, sued Doug Applegate, Applegate's campaign committee, and a campaign manager for libel over two 2016 campaign TV ads (Sept. 20 and Oct. 4) allegedly conveying false statements about Issa.
- The Sept. 20 ad displayed a faux newspaper layout with The New York Times masthead and bold text suggesting Issa "gamed the system to line his own pockets" and "secured millions of dollars in Congress earmarks for roadwork to the many properties he owns;" it relied on a 2011 NYT article (with three minor corrections later published).
- The Oct. 4 ad showed 9/11 imagery and attributed to Issa the summary phrase that he "said he'd done enough for something that was simply a plane crash," based on his Congressional remarks about federal funding for 9/11-related health costs (and a Daily News paraphrase).
- Respondents moved to strike under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16); the trial court granted the motion, holding the statements arose from protected political speech and Issa failed to show falsity or actual malice.
- The appellate court considered whether the challenged statements were provably false (or false by implication) and whether Issa showed a probability of prevailing; it affirmed the anti‑SLAPP dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ads are actionable defamation arising from protected political speech | Issa: ads contained provably false statements and false implications (including doctored NYT quotation and misquote about 9/11) | Respondents: ads are political speech; challenged phrases are rhetorical hyperbole, substantially true, or fair summaries of cited articles/remarks | The statements arose from protected speech; Issa failed to show falsity or probability of prevailing, so anti‑SLAPP relief affirmed |
| Whether the Sept. 20 ad falsely implied The New York Times had made specific allegations (e.g., "gamed the system") | Issa: juxtaposition of masthead and quoted text reasonably implies NYT said those words; implication is false | Respondents: gist of NYT article supports summary; any paraphrase is substantially true and protected rhetorical hyperbole | Court: implication is substantially true given NYT article’s substance; not provably false |
| Whether specific factual claims in the Sept. 20 ad (earmarks/steering millions) are false | Issa: specific factual errors in NYT article (and ad) show falsity, e.g., West Vista Way property narrative | Issa: minor NYT corrections reduce credibility; Respondents: NYT corrections were limited and do not alter article’s gist; ad’s claims are substantially true | Court: article (even with corrections) supports ad’s gist; Issa did not establish material falsity |
| Whether the Oct. 4 ad materially misquoted Issa re: 9/11 ("simply a plane crash") such that it is provably false | Issa: ad changed wording and meaning (aircraft vs. plane; nuance of federal funding question) so it falsely belittled 9/11 victims | Respondents: ad fairly summarized Issa’s floor remarks and press paraphrase; any difference is immaterial | Court: the paraphrase did not materially change meaning; summary was not provably false given context and political‑speech leeway |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (constitutional protection for political speech and campaigns)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (First Amendment limits on defamation recovery concerning public figures)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (minor quotation changes not false absent material change in meaning)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (two‑pronged anti‑SLAPP framework)
- Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (elements of defamation under California law)
- Beilenson v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.App.4th 944 (political speech and wide latitude during campaigns)
- Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi‑Kerttula, 159 Cal.App.4th 1027 (distinguishing opinion from provably false factual assertions)