Bruce Fein v. Peter Kesterson

MEMORANDUM

Bruce Fein appeals the district court’s grant of Peter Kesterson’s motion to strike Fein’s defamation suit under California’s anti-strategic lawsuits against public participation (anti-SLAPP) law. See Cal.Civ. Proe.Code § 425.16(b)(1). We review de novo the district court’s grant of an anti-SLAPP motion. Price v. Stossel, 620 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.

The issue here is narrow. To prevail, Fein must show a probability he can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Kes-terson showed reckless disregard for the truth. Annette F. v. Sharon S., 119 Cal. App.4th 1146, 1167 , 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 100 (Cal.Ct.App.2004). Fein has not carried this burden. “Reckless disregard” requires a “high degree of awareness ... of probable falsity.” Id. (quoting Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74 , 85 S.Ct. 209 , 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964)). Kesterson did not have the necessary suspicion of likely falsity. He relied on several credible newspapers, and his conclusions were a rational interpretation of the articles he read. See Conroy v. Spitzer, 70 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1453 , 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 443 (Cal.Ct.App.1999); Time, Inc. v. Pape, 401 U.S. 279, 290 , 91 S.Ct. 633 , 28 L.Ed.2d 45…