Young v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.
212 Cal. App. 4th 551
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- CBS aired a 2008 report alleging theft and battery by Carolyn Young in her role as court-appointed conservator for Mary Jane Mann.
- Young sued for defamation; CBS moved to strike under anti-SLAPP, asserting First Amendment protections.
- Trial court held some statements privileged or nonactionable, but allowed 17 statements to proceed; found Young not a public official for purposes of malice standard.
- Court reviewed under de novo standard of anti-SLAPP; needed only substantial evidence for actual malice to defeat Young’s claim.
- Court held Young acted as a public official and that CBS did not publish with actual malice, guiding the ruling on privilege and dismissal.
- Disposition: reversal of the trial court; grant anti-SLAPP motion in full and dismiss the amended complaint; CBS awarded costs on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Young a public official for defamation liability? | Young argues she is not a public official. | CBS contends she is a public official due to conservatorship power. | Yes; Young is a public official while serving as conservator. |
| Did CBS publish with actual malice? | Young asserts CBS acted with actual malice. | CBS argues no actual malice was present. | No substantial evidence of actual malice; the report was privileged as to Young. |
| Should the anti-SLAPP motion have been granted? | Anti-SLAPP should fail if malice proven; Young can prevail. | Anti-SLAPP should be granted if speech implicates public issue and malice not shown. | Court reverses; grant anti-SLAPP in full and dismiss complaint. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1989) (actual malice requires high degree of falsity awareness)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1968) (reckless disregard standard for falsity)
- Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1964) (falsity and reckless disregard standards in malice inquiry)
- Kahn v. Bower, 232 Cal.App.3d 1599 (Cal. App. Dist. 1991) (public scrutiny and power over lives can render official status for defamation)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (anti-SLAPP burden on plaintiff to show probability of success)
- Ampex Corp. v. Cargle, 128 Cal.App.4th 1569 (Cal. App. 2005) (requirements to show prima facie actual malice for anti-SLAPP)
- Reader's Digest Ass'n v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 244 (Cal. 1984) (evidence of motive and source reliability bearing on malice)
- Mosesian v. McClatchy Newspapers, 205 Cal.App.3d 597 (Cal. App. 1988) (public official concept and scrutiny by public)