Janice Brandom v. Coupled Products, LLC
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 476
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Brandom, an employee of Coupled Products, LLC, was involved in union negotiations over a relocation and concessions.
- Coupled sued Brandom for defamation based on statements to a newspaper about the move, tax abatement, and concessions.”
- Brandom moved to dismiss under Indiana's anti-SLAPP statute, Ind.Code § 34-7-7-5, arguing communications protected as free speech on public issues.
- Trial court denied the motion; order was appealed on interlocutory basis.
- Court analyzed whether Brandom’s statements addressed a public issue and were made in good faith without malice under the anti-SLAPP framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brandom’s statements involve a matter of public interest | Brandom’s statements concern the community impact of the move and economic development | Statements were part of private negotiations not sufficiently public | Yes, public-interest issue shown (links to economic community impact) |
| Whether Brandom spoke in good faith and without malice | Coupled contends bad faith/malice shown by mismatches and alleged deception | Brandom’s statements could be in good faith with a reasonable basis | Genuine issue of material fact on good faith/malice exists |
| Whether the anti-SLAPP motion is the proper vehicle and standard (summary judgment) | Anti-SLAPP provides relief if protected activity is shown | Motion should be treated as summary judgment with factual disputes | Summary-judgment standard applied; genuine issues remaining as to good faith/malice |
| Whether the statements concerned a public issue due to community and employment impact | Statements relate to community economic development and union-concession dynamics | Spectrum of public concern not clearly satisfied by employer-employee dispute | Public-issue characterization satisfied under Cross framework (categories 2 and 3) |
| Whether evidence supports malice or actual malice standard | Evidence suggests deliberate misstatement about concessions | Evidence could show good faith despite inaccuracies | Genuine issue of fact on malice/actual malice; cannot affirmatively grant dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Love v. Rehfus, 946 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2011) (public-interest speech; not employment grievance; broad public concern)
- Cross v. Cooper, 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 912; 197 Cal.App.4th 357 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (framework for public-interest categories in anti-SLAPP)
- Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, 159 Cal.App.4th 1027 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (broad construction of public-interest, including private conduct affecting many)
- Rivero v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 81; 105 Cal.App.4th 913 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (three-category framework for anti-SLAPP protection)
- Nexus Group, Inc. v. Heritage Appraisal Serv., 942 N.E.2d 119 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (good faith defined; self-interest not per se bad faith)
- Shepard v. Schurz Communications, Inc., 847 N.E.2d 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (massive malice standard and their relation to anti-SLAPP)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (1991) (actual malice standard; subjective belief of truth)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (two-step analysis for public employee speech; First Amendment threshold)