Silk v. Feldman
208 Cal. App. 4th 547
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Malibu Bay Club is a 136-unit beachfront development with a club and a separate HOA (MBOA).
- Silk and Feldman are Club owners/directors; Silk served on the board 1996–2000, Feldman since 2009.
- Knox sued in 1998 over parking spaces; 1999 trial court ruling and 1999 settlement favored Knox.
- Knox later offered spaces for sale; Silk purchased six spaces in 2003 for $114,000, with an assignment of Knox’s rights.
- In 2010 Feldman published a letter alleging misconduct by Silk and others; Silk sued for defamation; Feldman moved to strike under 425.16; trial court denied; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Feldman’s statements arise from petition/free speech under 425.16 | Silk argues statements are protected by 425.16(e). | Feldman contends statements are protected as petition/free speech. | Yes, statements may be protected; Silk showed probability of prevailing. |
| Whether Feldman’s letter fits 425.16(e)(3)/(e)(4) public-interest speech | Silk claims it bears on public-interest issues within HOA governance. | Feldman asserts it relates to public-interest derivative actions and governance. | Assuming fit, Silk showed probability of prevailing. |
| Whether Silk has shown a probability of prevailing on the defamation claim | Silk presented evidence disputing misconduct and timing; defendant offered no defeating evidence. | Feldman argues the charge is substantially true or protected. | Silk demonstrated a prima facie showing; defendant failed to defeat it as a matter of law. |
| Whether the statements are privileged under Civil Code §47(b) (litigation privilege) | Silk argues the statements were not within privilege due to lack of direct litigation purpose. | Feldman argues privilege applies to pre/post-litigation communications relating to the derivative suit. | Not privileged under §47(b) for this context. |
| Whether Silk should be sanctioned for frivolous appeal | Silk seeks defense against meritless appeal. | Feldman’s appeal lacks merit but not egregious. | No sanctions awarded; sanctions denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Metabolife Internat., Inc., 113 Cal.App.4th 181 (Cal. App. 2003) (two-step anti-SLAPP analysis; threshold and probability of prevailing)
- HMS Capital, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Co., 118 Cal.App.4th 204 (Cal. App. 2004) (no credibility weighing on motion; accept plaintiff’s evidence for purposes of ruling)
- Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club, 85 Cal.App.4th 468 (Cal. App. 2000) (HOA newsletters can be public forums; HOA communications can raise public-interest concerns)
- O’Keefe v. Kompa, 84 Cal.App.4th 130 (Cal. App. 2000) (four-part test for litigation privilege under Civil Code §47(b))
- Cabral v. Martins, 177 Cal.App.4th 471 (Cal. App. 2009) (expands litigation privilege analysis under §47(b))
- Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal.App.4th 13 (Cal. App. 2007) (discusses gist of defamation claim and per se defamation concept)