Thursday, March 6th, 2008...11:16 am
It’s SLAPP Day!
SLAPP means Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. We have an anti-SLAPP law in California, which allows you to ask the judge to dismiss a lawsuit you believe is a SLAPP. (Other states have similar laws.) I have always pictured this as a metaphorical judicial smackdown, daytime-talk-show style, but I’m sure judges prefer a metaphor with more dignity.
Our first SLAPP case of the day comes from the Ninth Circuit, which looked at the free speech rights of public employees in my home city of San Diego. In Manufactured Home Communities Inc. v. County of San Diego, San Diego County Supervisor Dianne Jacob said some unkind things about a mobile home park landlord. Specifically, she issued a press release, went to meetings and made statements in the press saying or implying that MHC was forcing fixed-income tenants out of their homes with 25% rent increases, and Jacob was actively looking for ways to bring a legal case against them.
Whoa! We interrupt this case summary to note that MHC is chaired by Sam Zell, the billionaire who just bought the LA Times. Interesting.
Anyway. MHC sued the County of San Diego and then Jacob for a variety of state and federal claims, including violation of MHC’s First Amendment rights, defamation and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The district court found it was a SLAPP and dismissed it, plus awarded attorneys’ fees to the county. The Ninth agreed in part and disagreed in part. It looks like the majority (O’Scannlain, Hall) thought a reasonable person could find some of Jacob’s statements to be either fact or opinion — thus, it should go to a jury rather than die by summary judgment. Oh yeah, and everyone pays their own legal bills. Callahan, the dissenter, uses legislative intent to construe Civil Code sec. 425.16 broadly and concludes that Jacob’s statements were opinion, so they should have let it stand.
The second SLAPP-related case, which is really only a potential SLAPP so far, is in the ongoing AutoAdmit drama. You are probably aware of this if you follow American legal gossip at all. If not, follow that link. Two women who were subjected to crude and/or threatening comments, one of whom was also involuntarily entered in a beauty contest, are suing the people behind AutoAdmit. One of the people being sued is Anthony Ciolli, who lost a job offer because of his involvement in the site. Now he’s suing them for abuse of process, libel, slander, false publicity, tortious interference and more. He alleges that they wouldn’t serve him. I don’t normally like to outright state positions on this blog, but proven unlawful conduct by the other side is the only thing that could make me feel even a little sorry for Ciolli. (Hat tip: Wall Street Journal Law Blog.)
I’m closing comments on this post because I am not interested in hosting an AutoAdmit flame war. Comments on this subject to other, unrelated posts will be deleted.
4 Comments
March 6th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Did you actually read the Ciolli complaint before blogging about it? Only one of the people he sued (and who sued him) was involved in the “involuntary beauty contest,” which was at all times separate from AutoAdmit. I think what happened was horrible for all involved, but it doesn’t excuse sloppy reporting.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I should have known it would be a mistake to post about AutoAdmit.
You’re right that I made an assumption and it was sloppy, so I’ll change it. (Though I doubt that this blog could be considered reporting, strictly speaking.) The complaint doesn’t actually seem to specify whether Heller was or was not involved in T14 Talent, though it does say both of them retained Reputation Defender.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Ugh, Reputation Defender is a stupid product.
Also, Anti-SLAPP stuff is weird. I did a bunch of research into somewhat recent changes to the Anti-SLAPP rules implemented because it turned out that big companies were, contrary to the presumed intention of the statute, using it to shut down lawsuits by individuals. Neat.
March 6th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Interesting that in the Washington Post article, the dean of Penn Law says: “”We believe we don’t have grounds under the university’s code of conduct to proceed,” he said.”
So there wasn’t enough to go after Ciolli even under the Penn code of conduct, yet someone managed to convince the plaintiffs that there was enough under the law?
You’re right… you are not a lawyer… but, you don’t really need to be if you read the complaint. SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.” These are suits brought to stop others from speaking or otherwise exercising their First Amendment rights.
Ciolli’s suit is primarily an abuse of process claim and a claim for the plaintiffs’ bringing frivolous charges against him.
Read both complaints and tell me which one you believe.