Vogel

Vogel v. Felice

Good Law
127 Cal. App. 4th 1006·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 402·2005 Daily Journal DAR 3489·26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 350·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2561
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 24, 2005H024448California7,593 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rushing, J.

In this action, two candidates for public office and their wives seek damages for libel and other torts based on statements posted on a public Web site. Defendant, who hosted the Web site and apparently authored the offending statements, brought a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16 or the Act). The trial court denied the motion, apparently finding that the challenged statements could be shown to have exceeded whatever privileges might be afforded under California law and the federal Constitution. We have concluded that this was error. Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely within the Act, which therefore required plaintiffs to show that they could prevail on the merits. They failed to carry this burden. We will therefore reverse with instructions to grant the special motion to strike.

Background

In September 2001 plaintiffs John Vogel and Paul Grannis filed a complaint charging defendant Joseph Felice with libel, false light invasion of privacy, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent damage to reputation.…

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.