34 Cal. App. 5th 24
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- In Oct–Nov 2016 The Press Democrat published five articles reporting that Scott Flater (William Gallaher’s son‑in‑law) made unusually large independent expenditures in the Santa Rosa City Council race and raising questions whether Gallaher funded those expenditures.
- Plaintiffs (Gallaher and Flater) sued the newspaper, Sonoma Media, reporter Kevin McCallum, and academic David McCuan for defamation, libel per se, and false light, alleging the articles falsely implied Gallaher was the source of Flater’s independent spending.
- Media defendants moved to strike under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 425.16), arguing the articles concerned a public issue and plaintiffs could not show a probability of prevailing.
- The trial court found the articles were protected by the anti‑SLAPP law, denied the motion in part, and allowed limited discovery on malice; it identified only the Oct. 28/29 articles as potentially actionable and treated other claims as duplicative.
- On appeal the court held plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing that the gist (the “sting”) of the articles — that Gallaher funded Flater’s large independent expenditures — was false, and therefore the anti‑SLAPP motion should have been granted in full; remanded with instructions to grant the motion and consider fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the anti‑SLAPP statute applies to the articles | Articles are not public‑forum speech and thus not protected | Newspaper reporting on campaign spending concerns public interest and fits §425.16(e)(3)/(4) | Anti‑SLAPP applies: articles concern a public issue and are protected speech |
| Whether plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of falsity (required for public‑interest defamation) | Declarations from Flater and Gallaher deny that Gallaher provided money for 2016 political donations/expenditures | Plaintiffs’ declarations did not unambiguously deny that Gallaher funded the large independent expenditures that were the articles’ focus | Plaintiffs failed to show falsity of the core implied assertion; burden not met, so claims fail under anti‑SLAPP |
| Whether the newspaper is a "public forum" under §425.16(e)(3) | Public forum requires opportunity for public participation | Public access (readability/purchase) suffices; subdivision (e)(4) also covers speech on public issues | Newspaper is a public forum; even if not, (e)(4) covers the conduct — anti‑SLAPP protection applies |
| Viability of libel per se and false‑light claims separate from defamation | Those claims survive independently | They arise from the same protected speech and require falsity like defamation | Dismissal of those claims is proper where defamation fails for lack of falsity; they are duplicative here |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (disclosure of election spending is protected political speech)
- Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006) (websites accessible to the public qualify as public forums for anti‑SLAPP)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (anti‑SLAPP plaintiff must show probability of prevailing with competent admissible evidence)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496 (provable falsity is measured by whether the statement’s gist would have a different effect than the truth)
- Vogel v. Felice, 127 Cal.App.4th 1006 (2005) (‘‘gist, sting’’ rule and plaintiffs’ duty to refute defamatory implication)
- Jackson v. Mayweather, 10 Cal.App.5th 1240 (plaintiff’s partial concessions or ambiguous denials can defeat a prima facie showing of falsity)