Harris

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff Ruby Dell Harris appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants KING Broadcasting (“KING”), the Washington Firm, Ltd. (“Firm”), and the City of Seattle (“City”). She contends that she presented clear and convincing evidence that KING acted with actual malice in presenting her in a false light. She also maintains that she raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the Firm’s good faith in investigating the way she handled workplace harassment complaints. She further asserts that the evidence was sufficient to withstand the City’s summary judgment motion.

We affirm because we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing each of her claims.

I

Ms. Harris first contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her claim against KING for false light. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Suzuki Motor *567 Corp. v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc., 330 F.3d 1110, 1132 (9th Cir. 2003). Applying the same standard used by the trial court under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we must “determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable…

concurring.

I concur in the majority’s determination that the claims presented in this case are without merit. But I would further find that these claims are frivolous and abusive and that the appellant should be sanctioned. Allowing a public official to pursue frivolous claims against investigators and the media with impunity will deter valuable investigation of government officials by imposing excessive litigation costs on investigating parties. The way to avoid such a dangerous abuse is to award double costs 1 and attorney’s fees 2 for bringing such frivolous suits. I would do so in this case.

. 28 U.S.C. § 1912 ("Where a judgment is affirmed by the Supreme Court or a court of appeals, the court in its discretion may adjudge to the prevailing party just damages for his delay, and single or double costs.”).

. Federal Election Commission v. Toledano, 317 F.3d 939, 953-54 (9th Cir.2003)(granting attorney's fees even though the appellee had not requested them, "as a sanction for his bad-faith conduct and abuse of the judicial process.”).