Filed July 19, 2017
(JA 53-54.) ’ See, e.g., Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147, 1157-58 (9th Cir. 1995) (evaluations of a lawyer’s performance are “inherently subjective” and not actionable); James v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc., 17 Cal. App. 4th 1, 7-15 (Cal.Ct.App. 1993) (calling public defender an “unethical” lawyer who used “sleazy tactics” and went to “extreme lengths” to illegally obtain evidence from an alleged molestation victim’s schoo} was not actionable); Ferlauto v. Hamsher, 74 Cal. App. 4th 1894, 1401-1406 (Cal.Ct.App. 1999) (description of an attorney as a “loser wannabe lawyer,” a “creepazoid attorney,” and a “Kmart Johnnie Cochran” who files “frivolous” lawsuits and motions is not actionable); Savage v. Pacific Gas & Elect. Co., 21 Cal. App. 4th 434, 444-45 (Cal.Ct.App. 1993) (accusing another of having a “conflict of interest” is not action- able) * See, e.g., Willing v. Mazzocone, 393 A.2d 1155, 1156-58 (Pa. 1978) (striking down injunction on attorneys’ former client who falsely - accused attorneys of stealing her money); Greenberg v. Burglass, 229 So.2d 83, 84-87 (La. 1969) (lawyer who prevailed in a defamation suit after being labeled a “crock” was not entitled to a permanent injunc- tion); Kwass v. Kersey, 81 S.E.2d 237, 242-47 (W.V. 1954) (rejecting an injunction prohibiting the defendant, who claimed to be a formerclient of plaintiff, as well as defendant’s “agents, servants, employees and representatives,” from “making public or circulating any libelous or slanderous statements of any kind . .
Filed September 13, 2016
6 apply to 20 21 5 Plaintiffs defamation claim further fails because it rests solely on inactionable 22 opinion. Ferlauto v. Hamsher, 74 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1403-1404 (1999). In fact, it is well established that criticisms of a co-worker's job performance constitute 23 Qpinion and therefore cannot be defamato~ as a matter of law.
Filed March 23, 2015
Plaintiffs who are not identified by name bear a high burden of demonstrating that the statement “referred to them personally” and was understood to refer to them by the statement’s viewers. Ferlauto v. Hamsher, 74 Cal. App. 4th 1394, 1404 (1999) (“He cannot constitutionally establish liability unless he proves that the contested statements are ‘of and concerning,’ him either by name or by ‘clear implication.’”); Noral v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 40 Cal. App. 2d 348, 352 (Cal. App. 1940) (“Certainty as to the person who is defamed” is a fundamental necessity).
Filed February 27, 2015
Even if the language might in another context “be considered as statements of fact,” the context in which the Newsweek Statement was issued made clear that it was a statement of opinion. See Ferlauto, 88 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 849-50. 2.
Filed March 22, 2011
To establish defamation, a plaintiff must submit evidence of: a) a publication by the defendant, b) that is of and concerning the plaintiff, and c) that is provably false, defamatory, and unprivileged. See Ferlauto v. Hamsher, 74 Cal. App. 4th 1394, 1401, 1404 (1999). As explained in more detail in Plaintiff’s other briefing, Plaintiff has submitted prima facie evidence for all of these elements.
Filed January 31, 2011
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S 496, 517 (1991) (a statement is not actionable ―as long as the substance, the gist, the sting, of the libelous charge can be justified.); accord Ferlauto v. Hamsher, 74 Cal. App. 4th 1394, 1404 (1999). 10 10 Plaintiff must also show that any statements actually authored by either Klim or (or the other Doe defendants who actually authored the statements) were made with ―actual malice.
Filed July 26, 2010
“Thus, rhetorical hyperbole, vigorous epithet[s], lusty and imaginative expression[s] of . . . contempt and language used in a loose figurative sense have all been accorded constitutional protection.” Ferlauto v. Hamsher, 74 Cal. App. 4th 1394, 1401 (1999) (holding “loser wannabe lawyer,” “creepazoid attorney,” “little f***er,” and “meanest, greediest, low-blowing motherf***ers” non-actionable statements) (quotations omitted). 10 Trump University also contends that Makaeff’s statements are “demonstrably false,” because “Trump University has never been cited or charged for any illegal activity.”
Filed July 25, 2016
4th 1491 (1995)...............................................................................20 Cuenca v. Safeway S.F. Employees Fed. Credit Union, 180 Cal.App.3d 985 (1986) ..........................................................................22, 23 Deaile v. General Telephone Co. of California, 40 Cal.App.3d 841 (1974) ............................................................................22, 23 Case 5:15-cv-00991-JVS-DTB Document 23-1 Filed 07/25/16 Page 5 of 34 Page ID #:296 v Case No. 15-cv-00991- JVS-DTB MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25591311_1.DOCX Dudley v. Department of Transp., 90 Cal.App.4th 255 (2001) ...................................................................................8 Faust v. California Portland Cement Co., 150 Cal.App.4th 864 (2007)...............................................................8, 11, 14, 15 Ferlauto v. Hamsher, 74 Cal.App.4th 1394 (1999).........................................................................21, 22 Flores v. Autozone West, Inc., 161 Cal. App. 4th 373 (2008).............................................................................25 Gould v. Maryland Sound Indus., Inc., 31 Cal.App.4th 1137 (1995)...............................................................................21 Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (2000)...................................................................................12, 14 Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 74 Cal.App.4th 215 (1999) .................................................................................19 Hersant v. Dep’t of Social Serv., 57 Cal.App.4th 997 (1997) ...........................................................................11, 12 Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Medical Foundation, 237 Cal.App.4th 78 (2015) .................................................................................15 Holmes v. Petrovich Dev. Co., 191 Cal.App.4th 1047 (20
Filed April 8, 2015
2 Rather, the predictable opinion doctrine applies whenever statements are published in a “setting in which the audience may anticipate efforts by the parties to persuade others to their positions.” Ferlauto v. Hamsher, 74 Cal. App. 4th 1394, 1401-02 (Ct. App. 1999); see also Phantom Touring, Inc. v. Affiliated Publ’ns, 953 F.2d 724, 729 (1st Cir. 1992) (no claim for defamation where “the context of each article” and the “sum effect of the format, tone and entire content of the articles is to make it unmistakably clear that [the speaker] was expressing a point of view only”). Here, the sum effect of the articles—which presented Plaintiffs’ accusations and then a statement by Mr. 2 A separate privilege protects statements made in the course of litigation.