Sanders v. Walsh
219 Cal. App. 4th 855
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Cheryl Sanders sued Constance Walsh and Wiggin Out for online statements alleged to be defamatory against her.
- A bench trial found the statements false and awarded compensatory damages and punitive damages against Walsh.
- The trial court concluded several statements on Ripoffreport.com, Yelp.com, and MerchantCircle.com were made by Walsh and Wiggin Out.
- Defendants argued the statements were nonactionable opinion and that collateral estoppel barred relitigation of some small claims issues.
- The court held collateral estoppel applied only to the FedEx-letter issue; other small claims issues could be relitigated, but the court later found error in applying collateral estoppel.
- On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment but held the collateral estoppel error was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the postings actionable defamation or protected opinion? | Sanders contends statements are false, defamatory facts not mere opinion. | Walsh/Wiggin Out argue statements are opinion, not provable facts. | Statements are not mere opinions; they contain specific, false factual assertions. |
| Should collateral estoppel apply to issues from the small claims action? | Sanders asserts issues decided in small claims cannot be relitigated. | Walsh/Wiggin Out argue the small claims decision bars relitigation. | Collateral estoppel as to small claims issues was applied in error; however, the error was harmless. |
| Was the exclusion of Sanders's dismissed felony conviction proper? | Sanders contends the conviction is admissible for related purposes. | Conviction is admissible only for credibility and was dismissed; not relevant here. | Admission was properly limited; conviction itself was irrelevant beyond allowed purposes; no reversible error. |
| Was there substantial evidence of malice supporting punitive damages? | Malice shown by knowing falsity or reckless disregard. | Walsh denied posting; challenged sufficiency of malice evidence. | Substantial evidence supported malice finding; Walsh’s explicit false statements and hostile attitude provided basis. |
| Whether the challenged discovery orders in favor of West Coast were properly appealed/abandoned. | West Coast orders are tied to the underlying action and should be reviewed. | West Coast was not served with notice of appeal; the appeal should be abandoned as to West Coast. | Discovery orders concerning West Coast were deemed abandoned on appeal; the orders were affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal.App.4th 1354 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (defamation requires falsehood; distinguishes fact vs. opinion)
- McGarry v. University of San Diego, 154 Cal.App.4th 97 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (test for whether a statement implies a provable falsehood)
- Summit Bank v. Rogers, 206 Cal.App.4th 669 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (online statements may lack factual assertions; context matters)
- Krinsky v. Doe 6, 159 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (internet postings may be opinion, but specific false statements can be actionable)
- Sanderson v. Niemann, 17 Cal.2d 563 (Cal. 1941) (collateral estoppel does not apply to small claims judgments due to informality)
- Perez v. City of San Bruno, 27 Cal.3d 875 (Cal. 1980) ( Perez exception to Sanderson—superseded by statute; discusses collateral estoppel and small claims)
- Pitzen v. Superior Court, 120 Cal.App.4th 1374 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (limits Sanderson exception; small claims issue preclusion debated)
- Rosse v. DeSoto Cab Co., 34 Cal.App.4th 1047 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (reconsideration of collateral estoppel in small claims context)
- Vandenberg v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.4th 815 (Cal. 1999) (limited judicial review in arbitral contexts; applicable reasoning for collateral estoppel)
- Cook v. Superior Court, 274 Cal.App.2d 675 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969) (small claims right to appeal and impact on related issues (limited relevance to issue preclusion))