Dible

Dible v. Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc.

Good Law
170 Cal. App. 4th 843·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 84·88 Cal. Rptr. 3d 464·28 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1502·67 A.L.R. 6th 705
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 26, 2009A120493California4,294 words

Opinion

Opinion

Flinn, J.

Plaintiff Leah Dible, a former employee of defendant Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc. (herein Haight), brings this action alleging, amongst other things, defamation regarding the termination of her employment. She appeals from the granting of defendants’ motion brought pursuant to the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court found that the alleged conduct arose from defendants’ exercise of the right of free speech, passing to plaintiff the burden of establishing a likelihood of prevailing upon the merits. It then concluded that plaintiff could not establish such a likelihood and granted the motion.

We conclude that the trial court was correct as to the claim of defamation made by plaintiff’s complaint, to wit, the publication to a third party of statements regarding the termination of her employment. On appeal she urges that statements made to her were themselves defamatory. While we accept that, if republished, such statements might fall outside of the scope of section 425.16, that claim would, as described below, not pass demurrer. Since a demurrer was timely filed, and further…

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.