Milo

Milo v. Hardin CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 4, 2024C097762California10,260 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

On June 8, 2022, Milo filed a civil complaint alleging a single cause of action for defamation against Hardin, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. In August 2022, Hardin filed an anti-SLAPP motion directed at Milo’s complaint and a motion to strike punitive damages. The anti-SLAPP motion argued that Milo’s defamation claim was based on acts in furtherance of Hardin’s right to free speech, and Milo could not meet her burden to establish a probability of success on the merits. The motions were heard on November 29, 2022. The trial court issued written orders denying the motions; Hardin appeals from the order denying her anti-SLAPP motion. Milo’s Allegations and Supporting Evidence According to Milo’s sworn declaration, she was a certified horse trainer and judge, and was the owner and operator of Cavallo Stables, LLC, a horse training and exhibiting stable in Placer County.2 Her stable “has numerous Medal Final wins, Hunter Derby wins, and Year-End Championships and has enjoyed an excellent reputation in the horse training and exhibiting community throughout California and the United States for 13 years” prior to February and March 2022. From February 7…

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.