Rall v. Tribune 365 LLC
242 Cal. Rptr. 3d 633
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Rall, a syndicated cartoonist and occasional blogger for the Los Angeles Times, published a May 11, 2015 blog post recounting a 2001 jaywalking encounter with an LAPD officer, alleging rough treatment, handcuffing, and having his license thrown in a sewer.
- LAPD provided the Times with Rall’s original 2001 complaint, investigation logs, and a microcassette audio recording made by the officer; the Times published a July 28, 2015 "note to readers" saying these materials raised serious questions about Rall’s account and that Rall’s future work would not appear in the paper.
- In August 2015 the Times published a detailed report describing its review (including interviews and forensic analysis of the audio) and reaffirming its decision to bar Rall’s future contributions.
- Rall sued the Times, related entities, and individuals for defamation, defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, blacklisting under Labor Code §1050, breach of contract theories, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
- Defendants moved under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (§425.16). The trial court granted the special motions to strike; the court of appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the note and report are protected activity under the anti‑SLAPP statute | Rall argued the publications were not privileged and therefore not protected | Defendants argued the articles were written statements in a public forum on matters of public interest (accuracy of reporting, police conduct) | Held: Protected — articles addressed public issues and were published in a public forum |
| Whether Rall showed a probability of prevailing on defamation claims | Rall contended specific factual statements in the note/report were false and defamatory (e.g., that LAPD records existed, audio contradicted him, his accounts changed) | Defendants invoked the absolute fair‑report privilege (Civ. Code §47(d)) and argued substantial truth/lack of provably false assertions | Held: No probability — the Times’ accounts were fair and true reports of an LAPD investigation and thus absolutely privileged under §47(d) |
| Whether Rall’s employment‑related claims (wrongful termination, blacklisting, contract) are immune from anti‑SLAPP | Rall argued his termination and related claims were not protected speech-driven decisions subject to anti‑SLAPP (relying on Park) | Defendants said the claims arise from the Times’ editorial decision not to publish Rall and thus are protected First Amendment activity | Held: Protected — the decision not to publish is editorial conduct protected by free‑speech; Park does not apply because here the communicative act (not publishing) is the alleged wrong |
| Whether Rall showed a probability of prevailing on employment claims (public policy, contract, blacklisting) | Rall alleged "retaliation by proxy" and industry norms requiring fair process; claimed statutory violations (Lab. Code §§1050, 1102.5, FEHA theories were mentioned) | Defendants argued Rall failed to identify any supporting constitutional or statutory public policy, produced no contract evidence, and blacklisting claims are barred by the same privileges | Held: No probability — Rall identified no statutory/constitutional public policy violated, offered no evidence of an oral/implied contract, and blacklisting/related claims fail because underlying publications are privileged |
Key Cases Cited
- Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (court stated elements of defamation tort and standards)
- McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 189 Cal.App.3d 961 (1987) (fair‑report privilege tolerates some paraphrase; protects gist or sting)
- Green v. Cortez, 151 Cal.App.3d 1068 (1984) (police investigations qualify as public official proceedings under fair‑report privilege)
- Nygård, Inc. v. Uusi‑Kerttula, 159 Cal.App.4th 1027 (2008) (broad construction of anti‑SLAPP public interest, provably false standard)
- Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (2006) (anti‑SLAPP evidentiary standards on review)
- J‑M Mfg. Co. v. Phillips & Cohen LLP, 247 Cal.App.4th 87 (2016) (appellate application of fair‑report privilege as a matter of law)
- Sipple v. Foundation for Nat. Progress, 71 Cal.App.4th 226 (1999) (broad protection for media reporting of public proceedings)
- Hawran v. Hixson, 209 Cal.App.4th 256 (2012) (distinguishes internal investigations from reports of official proceedings)
- Park v. Bd. of Trustees of Cal. State Univ., 2 Cal.5th 1057 (2017) (anti‑SLAPP in employment context — claim not strikeable when speech is only evidence, not the complained‑of act)
- Eisenberg v. Alameda Newspapers, Inc., 74 Cal.App.4th 1359 (1999) (publisher’s editorial discretion and First Amendment protection)
- Ali v. L.A. Focus Publication, 112 Cal.App.4th 1477 (2003) (employment‑termination claim survived where termination followed protected political activity outside workplace)