Alnor

Defendant William Alnor appeals the trial court’s denial of his special motion to strike brought under the anti-SLAPP statute. 1 (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) 2 Alnor contends plaintiffs Hank Hanegraaff and Christian Research Institute (CRI) failed to meet their burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on their defamation complaint because they failed to show by clear and convincing evidence Alnor’s statement about plaintiffs was false or that Alnor acted with malice.

We conclude the law does not require a defamation plaintiff to prove falsity by clear and convincing evidence and that plaintiffs have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Alnor’s statements were false. Plaintiffs, however, have failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing by clear and convincing evidence that Alnor made the challenged statement with “actual malice.” We'therefore reverse the trial court’s order denying Alnor’s special motion to strike, and direct the trial court to enter a new order granting the motion arid striking the complaint.

1

• Factual and Procedural Background

A. The Defamation Lawsuit

Hanegraaff is president of CRI, a nonprofit organization that disseminates…

I respectfully dissent.

I wholly agree with my colleagues’ legal analysis. But I differ with their application of the law to the facts in this case. My disagreement goes only to the issue of whether plaintiffs have “established a probability that [they] will prevail on the claim----” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(3); the entire statute will be referred to as the anti-SLAPP statute (strategic lawsuit against public participation) and all further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.)

Once it is established that the defendant’s conduct is protected under the anti-SLAPP statute, the plaintiff is charged with the burden “to make a prima facie' showing, by admissible evidence, of facts that would merit a favorable *94 judgment on those claims .... [Citations.] This burden is somewhat akin to that required to resist a nonsuit [citation], or to move for summary judgment. [Citation.]” (1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Steinberg (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 568, 584 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 789 ], fn. omitted.) “A plaintiff is not required ‘to prove the specified claim to the trial court’; rather, so as to not deprive the plaintiff of a jury trial, the appropriate inquiry is whether…

Defendant William Alnor appeals the trial court's denial of his special motion to strike brought under the anti-SLAPP statute. [1] (Code Civ. Proc, § 425.16.) [2] Alnor contends plaintiffs Hank Hanegraaff and Christian Research Institute (CRI) failed to meet their burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on their defamation complaint because they failed to show by clear and convincing evidence Alnor's statement about plaintiffs was false or that Alnor acted with malice.

We conclude the law does not require a defamation plaintiff to prove falsity by clear and convincing evidence and that plaintiffs have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Alnor's statements were false. Plaintiffs, however, have failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing by clear and convincing evidence that Alnor made the challenged statement with "actual malice." We therefore reverse the trial court's order denying Alnor's special motion to strike, and direct the trial court to enter a new order granting the motion and striking the complaint.

Hanegraaff is president of CRI, a nonprofit organization that disseminates religious information. Defendant William Alnor is a former…