46 Cal.App.5th 869
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Medical Marijuana, Inc. (MMI) and HempMeds sued ProjectCBD.com, its founder Martin Lee, and author Aaron Cantu over a Project CBD article (“Hemp Oil Hustlers”) reporting that a Real Scientific Hemp Oil (RSHO) sample showed preliminary lab results with high heavy‑metal levels and recounting users who said they became ill after using RSHO.
- The article reported Stewart Environmental’s preliminary test results (and also noted Stewart later issued a final report contradicting some initial findings) and quoted multiple individuals describing adverse reactions.
- Plaintiffs alleged libel, false light, and a UCL claim based on the article; earlier appeal found the first amended complaint failed to plead actionable conduct against the Project CBD defendants and remanded for amendment.
- Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint specifying two alleged defamatory assertions (that the article “claimed evidence” RSHO was contaminated without verifying Stewart’s results, and that it “alleged that multiple people became ill” due to RSHO).
- Project CBD moved under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute; the trial court denied the motion, finding plaintiffs showed a probability of prevailing.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held plaintiffs failed to identify provably false statements pleaded with the specificity required for libel, so plaintiffs did not meet the second prong of the anti‑SLAPP test; it granted defendants’ anti‑SLAPP motion and denied further amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the article’s publication is protected activity under §425.16 | Article publication is actionable; plaintiffs focused on alleged false statements | Publication on public issue is protected speech | Publication arises from protected activity (first prong satisfied) |
| Whether plaintiffs’ claims are time‑barred or relate back to earlier pleading | Second amended claims relate back to the first amended complaint’s factual allegations | Statute of limitations bars new claims | Claims relate back to first amended complaint; statute of limitations does not bar them |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded and proved falsity of the allegedly defamatory statements with required specificity | Plaintiffs say article misstated lab verification and falsely asserted multiple people became ill; other purported false statements exist in the article | Plaintiffs failed to identify specific, provably false statements in the operative pleading; many alleged falsities are not pleaded | Plaintiffs failed the second prong: they did not demonstrate falsity or sufficiently identify the alleged libelous words; libel and false‑light claims fail |
| Whether plaintiffs should be allowed to amend again after anti‑SLAPP denial | Plaintiffs seek leave to plead additional allegedly false statements | Allowing amendment would undermine anti‑SLAPP statutory purpose and create repeated motions | Amendment denied: Nguyen‑Lam exception inapplicable; permitting new claims would frustrate anti‑SLAPP objectives |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (2016) (articulates the two‑pronged anti‑SLAPP framework and burden allocation)
- Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com, 6 Cal.App.5th 602 (2016) (prior appeal finding first amended complaint failed to allege actionable conduct by Project CBD defendants)
- Kahn v. Bower, 232 Cal.App.3d 1599 (1991) (libel pleadings must identify the words constituting the alleged libel, preferably verbatim)
- Vogel v. Felice, 127 Cal.App.4th 1006 (2005) (substantial truth defeats libel; minor inaccuracies do not establish falsity)
- Nguyen‑Lam v. Cao, 171 Cal.App.4th 858 (2009) (limited exception permitting amendment where evidence shows malice and plaintiff can cure pleading deficiency)
- Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co., 92 Cal.App.4th 1068 (2001) (courts generally deny leave to amend to evade anti‑SLAPP dismissal; permitting amendment undermines statute’s purpose)
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (2011) (standard of appellate de novo review of anti‑SLAPP rulings)