Francis

Francis v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 148·3 Cal. App. 4th 535·4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 361·92 Daily Journal DAR 1973·1992 WL 19735
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 7, 1992G010067California2,214 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sills, J.

In this case we hold that plaintiffs may not maintain causes of action for defamation and related torts against a credit reporting company which publishes a report which plaintiffs concede is true. This is hardly a groundbreaking result; truth has been used as a defense to a defamation action in this country ever since John Peter Zenger’s trial in 1735. Plaintiffs seek to avoid the truth, so to speak, by claiming that the factual credit report implies they are not creditworthy. We reject this contention; truth is an absolute defense.

Facts

The facts, literally, are not in dispute. In the late 1970’s, plaintiff Raymond J. Francis started an entity called Crisp International, which manufactured potato chips. In 1982 Crisp International crumbled and was forced into bankruptcy proceedings. Sometime in mid-1982, Francis became involved with another company called California Trim Plan, a diet business. In August 1985, he resigned as president and chairman of the board of directors of California Trim Plan, and his wife Maria resigned as secretary. California Trim Plan filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy three months later.

In 1989, Dun & Bradstreet published a credit…

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.