Conroy

Conroy v. Spitzer

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 286·70 Cal. App. 4th 1446·83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 443·99 Daily Journal DAR 3063·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2341
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 31, 1999G021750California2,826 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sills, J.

J.Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 was enacted to discourage the filing of SLAPP suits — otherwise known as strategic lawsuits against public participation. SLAPP suits are, by definition, aimed at chilling the valid exercise of political rights, particularly the right of freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances.

The present case involves what the trial court characterized as a SLAPP suit, and after reviewing the entire record we agree. Mickey Conroy filed a defamation suit against Todd Spitzer, his political rival in the 1996 elections for the Orange County Board of Supervisors. At that time Conroy was a California State Assemblyman whose former assistant had filed sexual harassment charges against him. Conroy was investigated by the Assembly and reprimanded for violating the Assembly’s sexual harassment policy. Various newspapers reported on the sexual harassment suit, Conroy’s reprimand and the cost of Conroy’s defense. During his campaign, Spitzer made numerous comments about the sexual harassment suit, which became the basis for Conroy’s defamation suit.

The trial court granted Spitzer’s motion to strike the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.