Vogel v. Felice
127 Cal.App.4th 1006, 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 350, 2005 Daily Journal DAR 3489 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California's anti-SLAPP statute, a lawsuit arising from speech made in a public forum about a public issue must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits. For public figures like political candidates, this requires showing that the defendant's statements were substantially false and made with actual malice.
Facts:
- John Vogel and Paul Grannis were candidates for local public office.
- Joseph Felice operated a website where he posted a list titled 'Top Ten Dumb Asses,' ranking Vogel as number one and Grannis as number two.
- The website contained the statement 'J. J. Vogel’s Wanted as a Dead Beat Dad.' Vogel had a documented history of child support arrearages from prior years.
- The website also featured the statement, 'Paul Grannis—Bankrupt, Drunk & Chewin’ tobaccy.' Grannis had previously filed for bankruptcy.
- Vogel's name on the website was linked to the URL 'www.satan.com,' and Grannis's name was linked to 'www.bankrupta**hole.com' and 'www.olddrunk.com'.
Procedural Posture:
- John Vogel and Paul Grannis, along with their wives, filed a complaint against Joseph Felice in a California trial court for libel, invasion of privacy, and infliction of emotional distress.
- Felice filed a special motion to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16.
- The trial court denied Felice's motion to strike.
- Felice (appellant) appealed the trial court's denial to the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California's anti-SLAPP statute require striking a libel complaint brought by political candidates where the speech involves their qualifications for office, and the candidates fail to demonstrate a probability of prevailing by proving the challenged statements were provably and substantially false and made with actual malice?
Opinions:
Majority - Rushing, P. J.
Yes, the anti-SLAPP statute requires the complaint to be stricken. The court's analysis proceeded in two steps. First, the defendant's speech falls within the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute because the statements were made in a public forum (a website) and concerned a public issue—the qualifications and character of candidates for public office. Second, the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of establishing a probability of prevailing on the merits. As public figures, they were required to show the statements were false and made with 'actual malice' under New York Times v. Sullivan. The court found they failed to do this because: (1) calling them 'Dumb Asses' is rhetorical hyperbole and name-calling, not a provably false assertion of fact; and (2) the statements about Vogel being a 'deadbeat dad' and Grannis being 'bankrupt' were substantially true based on the evidence of past court records. The plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the substantial falsity of these claims, which is a required element of their case.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the robust protection that California's anti-SLAPP statute provides for online speech, particularly political commentary directed at public figures. It reaffirms the high constitutional barrier that candidates for office must overcome in defamation suits, requiring them to prove not only falsity but substantial falsity. The case is significant for its clear distinction between actionable defamatory facts and protected, non-actionable opinions or insults, even crude ones, in the context of online political debate. It serves as a strong deterrent to lawsuits intended to silence critics of public figures.
