William Joiner v. Channel 5 LLC
8:24-cv-01160
C.D. Cal.Feb 24, 2025Background
- William Joiner, plaintiff, filed a complaint against Andrew Callaghan, Channel 5 LLC, Evan Gilbert-Katz, Nicolas Mosher, and Kelly Scott Johnson, alleging twelve causes of action including federal wiretap, privacy violations, and various state law claims arising from a published video about a private dispute.
- The dispute centered on a personal conflict between Johnson (a defendant) and Joiner involving a defaulted loan and foreclosure, later featured in a public video produced and released by the C5 Defendants.
- The C5 Defendants filed a special motion to strike Joiner's state law claims under California's anti-SLAPP statute, arguing their conduct was protected as free speech on matters of public interest.
- The court was asked to decide if the defendants’ statements and conduct qualified as protected activity under anti-SLAPP, specifically whether the video's subject matter was an issue of public interest or simply a private dispute.
- The anti-SLAPP statute allows a court to strike claims arising from protected speech unless the plaintiff can show a probability of prevailing, but only if the speech is about a public issue.
- Johnson, the main subject of the video, had not appeared in the case, and the dispute underlying the video had concluded years prior to the events at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statements were made in public forums | Dispute is a private matter, not entitled to anti-SLAPP protection | Videos were published in public forums (YouTube, screenings, etc.) | Videos were in public forums but subject was private dispute |
| Whether the speech concerned a matter of public interest | Dispute only involved private individuals and a past, non-public dispute | Content related to broader topics (economics, foreclosures, judicial system) | The speech was not about public interest, anti-SLAPP doesn't apply |
| Whether newsgathering activities are protected | No First Amendment or anti-SLAPP protection for unlawful newsgathering | Newsgathering is protected as free speech | No evidence speech was criminal, but not a public issue |
| Relevance of ongoing controversy | The dispute ended years ago; no ongoing controversy | Ongoing nature is just one factor for public interest | Lack of ongoing controversy supports finding dispute is private |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan-Benel v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 859 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2017) (describes anti-SLAPP statute’s purpose and broad construction)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal. 5th 376 (Cal. 2016) (explains anti-SLAPP's summary-judgment-like procedure)
- Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 7 Cal. 5th 871 (Cal. 2019) (defines requirement for anti-SLAPP activity to be the wrongdoing itself)
- Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal. 4th 299 (Cal. 2006) (anti-SLAPP does not apply if activity is criminal as a matter of law)
- FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc., 7 Cal. 5th 133 (Cal. 2019) (focus should be on the specific nature of speech and its public interest connection)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal. 4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (sets the burden-shifting framework for anti-SLAPP motions)