Summit Bank v. Rogers
206 Cal. App. 4th 669
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Summit Bank sued former employee Rogers for defamation based on Craigslist posts in the Rants and Raves section (May–July 2009).
- Rogers moved to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAPP statute, arguing the posts were protected speech on a public issue.
- The trial court denied Rogers’s motion to strike, finding the statements not protected and the Bank had shown a probability of prevailing on the merits.
- The appellate court held the anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted because Rogers’s statements were protected and the Bank failed to show a probability of success, and that Financial Code §1327 is unconstitutional on multiple grounds.
- The court remanded to strike the Bank’s complaint and to award Rogers his fees and costs; the decision discussed the public-interest nature of Internet postings and the broad construction of the anti-SLAPP statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rogers’s Craigslist posts fall under 425.16(protected activity). | Bank contends posts are not protected due to illegality under §1327. | Rogers contends posts are protected speech in a public-issue context. | Protected activity under §425.16(e)(3) because of public-interest discussion. |
| Whether §1327 is constitutionally defective on its face. | Bank argues §1327 criminalizes true or false statements about banks. | Rogers argues §1327 is unconstitutional as vague and overbroad. | §1327 facially unconstitutional (malice element, vagueness, overbreadth, content-based). |
| Whether the Bank proved a probability of prevailing on defamation after ruling speech is protected. | Bank asserts false statements harmed the Bank and were not mere opinions. | Rogers argues statements are nonactionable opinions or substantially true. | Bank failed to show probability of prevailing; defamation claim not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006) (speechillegality exception to anti-SLAPP applies only if illegal as a matter of law is conclusively established)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (established actual malice standard for public figures in defamation)
- Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1964) (criminal libel requires falsehood and actual malice for public officials)
- Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (U.S. 1940) (illustrates breadth of protected speech and need for narrow tailoring)
- People v. Mirmirani, 30 Cal.3d 375 (Cal. 1981) (void-for-vagueness in criminal statutes touching speech)
- Hsu v. City of Oakland, 82 Cal.App.4th 976 (Cal. App. 2000) (overbreadth and vagueness concerns in anti-SLAPP context)
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (Cal. 2011) (discusses approach to anti-SLAPP analysis)
- Walker v. Kiousis, 93 Cal.App.4th 1432 (Cal. App. 2001) (content-based scrutiny considerations for protected speech)
- Thomas v. Quintero, 126 Cal.App.4th 635 (Cal. App. 2005) (two-prong anti-SLAPP analysis)