La Liberte v. Reid
966 F.3d 79
2d Cir.2020Background
- Roslyn La Liberte spoke at California city council meetings opposing SB 54; a viral photograph showed her with an open mouth interacting with a 14‑year‑old immigrant supporter.
- A social‑media user (Vargas) posted the photo with a caption alleging unnamed attendees yelled racist slurs; Reid retweeted that post and then authored two posts of her own (June 29 and July 1) that attributed specific racist remarks to La Liberte.
- The teenager later stated La Liberte did not scream racial slurs; La Liberte received threats and sued Reid for defamation in the Eastern District of New York under California law.
- The district court rejected Reid’s Section 230 defense but dismissed both defamation claims under Rule 12(b)(6) — holding La Liberte a limited‑purpose public figure as to the June 29 post and treating the July 1 post as nonactionable opinion — and struck the claim under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute, awarding fees.
- On appeal the Second Circuit (1) held California’s anti‑SLAPP special‑motion procedure is inapplicable in federal court because it conflicts with FRCP 12 and 56, (2) affirmed denial of Section 230 immunity, and (3) vacated the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of California anti‑SLAPP in federal court | Anti‑SLAPP conflicts with FRCP and should not apply in federal court | Anti‑SLAPP supplements Federal Rules and protects speech; should apply | Anti‑SLAPP inapplicable in federal court because it imposes a higher pretrial burden than FRCP 12/56; fees under anti‑SLAPP not recoverable on Rule 12 dismissal |
| Section 230 immunity | Reid authored the posts; thus she is not immune | Reid claimed posts repeated third‑party content and sought Section 230 protection | Reid not immune: she was the sole author and materially contributed to the alleged defamatory content |
| Limited‑purpose public figure / actual malice (June 29 post) | La Liberte is a private figure; negligence standard applies | La Liberte voluntarily injected herself into public controversy and is a limited‑purpose public figure requiring actual malice | La Liberte is not a limited‑purpose public figure (lacked regular, continuing media access); actual malice not required; claim survives pleading stage for negligence standard |
| Opinion vs. provable fact (July 1 post) | The juxtaposition and caption could be read as accusing La Liberte of concrete racist conduct (actionable) | The July 1 post is protected opinion or requires extrinsic facts and special damages | July 1 post could be reasonably read as a provable accusation by implication and is potentially defamatory (not nonactionable opinion); claim may proceed without special‑damages pleading if libelous per se by implication |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., LLC, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (held D.C. anti‑SLAPP conflicted with Federal Rules)
- Carbone v. Cable News Network, Inc., 910 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2018) (held Georgia anti‑SLAPP conflicts with FRCP 12/56)
- Klocke v. Watson, 936 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2019) (held Texas anti‑SLAPP inapplicable in federal court)
- Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 1999) (upheld Maine/California‑style special motions in federal court)
- LeadClick Media, LLC v. FTC, 838 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2016) (material‑contribution test for Section 230 immunity)
- Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019) (applied LeadClick material‑contribution principle)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (Federal Rules displace conflicting state rules)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (public‑figure doctrine and standards for defamation)
- Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979) (regular, continuing media access as element of public‑figure status)
- Khawar v. Globe Int’l, Inc., 19 Cal. 4th 254 (Cal. 1998) (limited‑purpose public‑figure analysis under California law)
- Overhill Farms, Inc. v. Lopez, 190 Cal. App. 4th 1248 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (distinguishing abstract accusations of racism from provable accusations of concrete wrongful conduct)