Pezzuti

MEMORANDUM **

Ronald Pezzuti and Candace Pezzuti appeal from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in the Pezzutis’ diversity action alleging defamation and negligence under California law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 , 1258 (9th Cir.1993), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on appellants’ defamation claim because the statement published in the Canary Club’s newsletter declining to accept the Pezzutis as members was privileged. See Cal. Civil Code § 47 (c) (a communication is privileged if it is made, without malice, by a person who is interested, to another also interested therein, or by one who stands in such a relation to the person interested as to afford a reasonable ground for supposing the motive for the communication to be innocent). Furthermore, appellants failed to demonstrate that the motive for publication was malicious. See Lundquist v. Reusser, 7 Cal.4th 1193 , 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 776, 781 , 875 P.2d 1279 (1994) (explaining that plaintiff bears the burden of proving that a statement was made with malice once…