Tobinick v. Novella, 108 F. Supp. 3d 1299

Background

Plaintiffs (a California medical corporation Tobinick M.D. and related Florida entities) sued Dr. Steven Novella over two blog posts criticizing Plaintiff Tobinick’s off‑label use of etanercept/Enbrel for neurological conditions.
Novella filed a California anti‑SLAPP special motion to strike under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 directed at claims by the California plaintiff, Tobinick M.D.
The Court conducted a choice‑of‑law analysis and held California law applies to Tobinick M.D.’s claims because the corporation is based in California and the injury occurred there.
The Court found Novella’s blog posts were protected speech on a public forum about issues of public interest (medical treatment efficacy).
Applying the anti‑SLAPP two‑step, the Court concluded Tobinick M.D. is a limited public figure for the relevant controversy and failed to show a probability of proving actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.
The Court granted Novella’s motion, striking Tobinick M.D.’s state‑law claims for unfair competition (state UCL claim), trade libel, and libel per se; awarded Novella the right to seek attorney’s fees under the statute.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Choice of law: whether California anti‑SLAPP applies	Florida law should govern; California statute not applicable	California law applies at least to the California corporate plaintiff	California law applies under Florida’s significant‑relationship test (Restatement §145)
Scope/applicability of anti‑SLAPP to claims seeking injunctive relief and to claims of a single plaintiff	Anti‑SLAPP shouldn’t apply to remedies (injunction) or be applied to only one plaintiff when claims are pled jointly	Anti‑SLAPP applies to causes of action seeking damages even if injunctive relief is also sought; statute may be applied to Tobinick M.D. alone here	Anti‑SLAPP applies to Tobinick M.D.’s claims (injunctive relief does not exempt a damages claim; single‑plaintiff application appropriate here)
Protected activity: whether Novella’s blog posts are protected speech	Plaintiffs implied posts were commercial/uncherished and not protected	Posts are written on a public website about matters of public interest (medical treatment efficacy)	Posts are protected activity under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §425.16(e)(3)
Merits / actual malice: whether plaintiff can show probability of prevailing on defamation‑based claims	Novella published false statements (e.g., no double‑blind trials, misstatements about practice size/location) with reckless disregard for truth	Novella relied on reputable sources (LA Times, case series, medical board records) and did not act with actual malice	Tobinick M.D. is a limited public figure; failed to show probability of proving actual malice by clear and convincing evidence; claims stricken
Attorney’s fees	—	Prevailing defendant entitled to fees under anti‑SLAPP statute	Novella may seek attorney’s fees and costs by separate motion

Key Cases Cited

Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (federal forum applies state choice‑of‑law rules)
Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc., 190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 1999) (California anti‑SLAPP applies in federal court when substantive)
Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (two‑step anti‑SLAPP framework)
Blatty v. New York Times Co., 42 Cal.3d 1033 (Cal. 1986) (First Amendment limitations apply to all claims whose gravamen is injurious falsehood)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (constitutional actual‑malice standard for public figures)
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., 466 U.S. 485 (publisher’s subjective doubt standard for actual malice)
St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (reckless disregard standard; inherently improbable allegations may support malice)
Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 244 (Cal. 1984) (factors relevant to showing actual malice)
Obsidian Fin. Grp., LLC v. Cox, 740 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir. 2014) (First Amendment defamation principles apply to non‑institutional speakers)