Leah Manzari v. Associated Newspapers
830 F.3d 881
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Danni Ashe (Leah Manzari), a well-known former online adult-entertainment entrepreneur, sued Daily Mail Online after it published an article about a porn-industry shutdown due to a performer testing HIV positive and placed a large photograph of Ashe under the headline and a caption referencing the positive test.
- The photograph (from the Corbis database) identified Ashe in its metadata, but the Daily Mail published it with a caption: “Moratorium: The porn industry in California was shocked on Wednesday by the announcement that a performer had tested HIV positive.”
- Ashe alleges the juxtaposition of headline, caption, and her image implied she was the HIV-positive performer; she does not have HIV and seeks damages for libel and false light under California law.
- Daily Mail moved to strike under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute, arguing the article addressed a public issue and Ashe, as a public figure, cannot prove actual malice.
- The district court denied the anti‑SLAPP motion; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding Ashe had shown a reasonable probability of prevailing on defamation-by-implication and actual malice to survive the anti‑SLAPP threshold.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ashe is a public figure | Ashe’s fame notwithstanding, she argued harm to reputation regardless | Daily Mail: Ashe is a public figure given pervasive fame in the porn industry | Held Ashe is a public figure (legal status affirmed) |
| Whether the article implied Ashe was the HIV-positive performer | Ashe: headline + photo + caption reasonably convey that implication | Daily Mail: photo was a stock illustration; article text said performer was unidentified/new, so no implication | Held reasonable reader could infer implication from the publication as a whole |
| Whether Ashe met anti‑SLAPP minimal‑merit/triability standard | Ashe: presented evidence (screenshots, metadata changes, dissemination) creating a triable claim | Daily Mail: protected speech on public issue; Ashe cannot show probability of proving actual malice | Held Ashe met the minimal‑merit threshold; anti‑SLAPP denial affirmed |
| Whether Ashe showed actual malice (knowledge or reckless disregard) | Ashe: editorial choices, removal of identifying metadata, lack of disclaimers, and rapid syndication support reckless disregard | Daily Mail: no intent to imply Ashe; photograph selection was innocent/stock use | Held factual disputes about reckless disregard exist such that a jury could find actual malice; claim survives anti‑SLAPP |
Key Cases Cited
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (distinguishes public-figure standards and actual‑malice requirement)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (1991) (actual malice is a factual question for jury; context matters for implied statements)
- Kaelin v. Globe Commc’ns Corp., 162 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1998) (headlines can create actionable implications not cured by explanatory text)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (defamation by implication requires proof of actual malice for public figures)
- Time, Inc. v. Pape, 401 U.S. 279 (1971) (reckless disregard requires proof the publisher entertained serious doubts about truth)
- DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp., 706 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2013) (anti‑SLAPP denial is appealable; explains screening under § 425.16)
- Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 715 F.3d 254 (9th Cir. 2013) (explains the anti‑SLAPP burden‑shifting framework)