What is defamation?

Useful Rulings on Defamation

Recent Rulings on Defamation

DEANNE DWORETZKY VS BRENDA BUONORA, ET AL.

On February 25, 2020, Plaintiff Deanne Dworetzy (Plaintiff) filed suit against Buonora Development, Inc. and Brenda Buonora (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) age discrimination; (2) retaliation (3) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment; (4) wrongful termination; (5) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) defamation; (8) failure to pay wages; (9) failure to provide wage statements; (10) failure to provide employment records; (11) violation

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MELISSA PERSON VS KENNETH D. MATHIS, ET AL.

Defamation – "The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage." (Sanders v. Walsh (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 855, 862.) Mathis argues that he has a probability of prevailing on the defamation claim but cites only to the Cross-Complaint, which does not constitute evidence. Mathis thus fails to sufficiently meet his prima facie burden.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KIARA JONES VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Defendant also subjected Plaintiff to battery, assault, sexual harassment, sexual assault, groping, unwanted sexual propositions, unwanted sexual comments, threats of violence, slurs, defamation, an unsafe work environment, inferior terms and conditions of employment, solicitation of negative feedback, failure to engage in good faith in the interactive process and provide a reasonable accommodation based on disability/perceived disability, increased scrutiny, false/pretextual criticism, failure to investigate

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TURMEL WOODS VS CITY OF COMPTON, A MUNICIPALITY

BACKGROUND The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) arises from Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful termination, alleging causes of action for: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) tortious breach of employment contract by termination; (3) wrongful demotion; (4) adverse employment action; (5) tortious breach of good faith and fair dealing; (6) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) negligence; and (9) defamation

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EVELYN LOZADA VS OGOM CHIJINDU

On October 14, 2020, counsel for Chijindu, Jeffrey Schwartz, filed a declaration in which counsel declares that “[o]n September 15, 2020, I emailed a Meet and Confer letter to Lozada's counsel ([email protected]) stating that, based upon my research, Lozada's cause of action for Defamation should be dismissed because Chijindu's statements that Lozada was a racist bigot were not provably false assertions of fact,” and attached a copy of the email as Exhibit A. (Schwartz Decl. ¶ 3.)

  • Hearing

TONY SPEARS VS WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, ET AL.

‘A “false light” cause of action is in substance equivalent to a libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim . . . .’ Indeed, ‘[w]hen a false light claim is coupled with a defamation claim, the false light claim is essentially superfluous, and stands or falls on whether it meets the same requirements as the defamation cause of action.’" Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal. App. 5th 1240, 1264 (citations omitted).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MELBE ZEPEDA VS GUSTAVO RODRIGUEZ

.; and (7) defamation. B. Motion on Calendar On August 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file the First Amended Complaint. On October 6, 2020, Defendant filed a reply brief. On November 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ADAN JESUS RUIZ, ET AL. VS WILMINGTON ARMS HOUSING, LP

App. 3d 720, 724-26 (1990) (discussing the distinction between actionable factual assertions sufficient to support a cause of action for defamation and inactionable opinions).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

BECK V. CATANZARITE, ET AL.

Merits of Catanzarite, Woodward, and O'Keefe's Motion Here, Plaintiff brings the following causes of action against Defendants: (1) malicious prosecution; (2) unfair business practices; (3) slander of title; and, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Catanzarite, Woodward, and O'Keefe specially move to strike all four causes of action alleged in the Complaint. The first, second and fourth causes of action are alleged against all three Defendants.

  • Hearing

KRAFVE VS. KARFVE

The third cause of action for Slander alleges: 25. On or about April 23 and 24, 2019, LANA made various statements accusing JON of molesting their three-year old son, B.K.

  • Hearing

DEAN J. ZAMANI VS. JOHN DINOVI, ET AL

On January 19, 2012, Dinovi filed a cross-complaint against Zamani and Zamani Enterprises for Declaratory Relief, Breach of Contract, Common Counts, and Defamation. Zamani Enterprises was dismissed from the cross-complaint on March 16, 2012. The court granted Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint on January 23, 2014. The amended complaint added two causes of action for recission. On July 31, 2014, Plaintiff substituted in Defendant Adel, LLC for Doe 1.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE, ET AL. V. SAN LUIS OBISPO GUILD HALL

Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (FAC) alleges causes of action for (1) declaratory judgment, (2) cancellation of deed and quiet title, (3) slander of title, (4) conversion, (5) claim and delivery, and (6) ejectment. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit centers around a longstanding dispute between the National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry (the National Grange)1 and the California State Grange, on the one hand, and the California Guild, on the other hand. (FAC, ¶ 1.)

  • Hearing

YIFEI PEI VS EUROBOOST MOTOR SPORTS

On December 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-25 for: Breach of Oral Contract Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Fraud Conversion Constructive Trust Unjust Enrichment Slander of Title Specific Performance Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, Unfair Competition Claim and Delivery On January 27, 2020, Defendant’s default was entered.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ZACHARY SMITH VS VIVKA GREY, ET AL.

Similarly, in Western Broadcast Co., the court solely addressed whether the alleged libel was libelous per se to warrant special damages. (Western Broadcast Co., supra, 14 Cal.App.2d at p.122.) Here, there is no allegation of libel per se or slander per se. Accordingly, Smith’s cases are inapplicable. Accordingly, Smith’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the first cause of action is DENIED.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOHNNY BUSTOS, AN INDIVIDUAL AND FIFTY PERCENT SHAREHOLDER AT ALL PERTINENT TIMES OF B.E.B. AND ASSOCIATES, INC., CONSULTING VS ASGHAR ESMAEILI, ET AL.

On April 28, 2020, Esmaeili filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Bustos, B.E. and Does 1-50 for: Defamation Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings Negligence On July 14, 2020, Boortz filed a “Notice of Deposit with Court Clerk,” advising therein that he had deposited a check for $36,537.50 with the court.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ANDREW COCHRAN VS CP IV PARTHENIA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

The lack of a cross-complaint for defamation and/or civil harassment procedurally bars consideration of the application. Moving party presents no authority allowing the court to proceed given this defect. On this basis, the court denies the motion for preliminary injunction without prejudice. The court declines to consider the prior restraint and defamation arguments at this point unless and until a pleading and renewed application is filed with the court.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

KAMERMAN- KRETZMER D.O. VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNVER

No libel action lies even where the employer’s opinions about the employee’s performance are “objectively wrong and cannot be supported by reference to concrete, provable facts.” (Id. at 965.)

  • Hearing

LESLIE GOULD, ET AL VS. JOEL D. KETTLER, ET AL

Kettler’s First through Third Causes of Action assert claims for libel per se, slander per se, and defamation. While the initial showing on these claims requires proof that the Goulds failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity of their statements (CACI 1704), the parties appear to agree that the common interest privilege of Civil Code section 47(c) applies, so Kettler will actually be required to prove malice to succeed on his defamation claims, consistent with CACI 1723.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GARDEN GATE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CATHERINE WELLS

(Ampersand Publishing) (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1349 (libel plaintiff cannot establish good cause for special discovery under section 425.16, subdivision (g) without a prima facie showing the allegedly libelous statements are false and unprivileged). “Where a defendant relies on motive evidence in support of an anti-SLAPP motion, a plaintiff's request for discovery concerning the asserted motive may often present paradigmatic ‘good cause.’” Wilson, supra, 7 Cal.5th at 891-892.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PRIMO DEJESUS VS GER JONES, ET AL.

the caption page of his complaint: X Counts of Contract Violation(s), X Counts Gross Negligence with Reckless Disregard and Deliberate Indifference, Real Estate Fraud/Theft in excess of a 30 million dollar estate, Betrayal & Refusal to give Loyalty to their partner, Conspiracy, Green card abuse, XX counts State non-profit rules/laws violation(s) that in turn directly turned our church into a Cult, Elder Monetary abuse, age discrimination, Church board election violation(s), Monetary abuse of church funds, Slander

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOHN ROESSLER V. SYNECTIC SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.

(SSI), and Paul Webb for 1) failure to pay earned wages, 2) breach of contract, 3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, 4) unlawful retaliation, 5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, 6) unfair competition, and 7) defamation. On October 19, plaintiff filed an amendment substituting the true name of Synectics plc for Doe 1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is scheduled for hearing on December 7.

  • Hearing

FORMOSA FABRIC INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS OMID LAVI, ET AL.

(11) unjust enrichment – constructive trust against all cross defendants, (12) conspiracy to commit unfair business practice against all cross-defendants, (13) injunctive relief: temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions against all cross defendants, (14) intentional infliction of emotional distress against Andrew Liu, Matthew Liu, Bin Liu and Formosa, (15) conspiracy to cause intentional infliction of emotional distress against Andrew Liu, Matthew Liu, Bin Liu and Formosa, (16) defamation

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LYLE HOWRY VS REGINALD MYLABATHULA BENJAMIN, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s operative first amended complaint (FAC) alleges claims for: (1) defamation per se; (2) libel per se; (3) slander per se; (4) abuse of process; (5) malicious prosecution; (6) perjury; and (7) fraud and deceit. Plaintiff and Reginald had a previous business relationship whereby Plaintiff invested in Reginald’s company Toby & Pucci. (FAC, ¶ 45.) However, when Plaintiff requested access to the books and online banking as promised in the contract, Reginald refused to allow Plaintiff to review them.

  • Hearing

LAKE LINDERO HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. VS CAROLINE FERADAY

BACKGROUND On November 13, 2019, Lake Lindero Homeowners Association (the HOA) and Christopher Barone (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Caroline Feraday (Defendant) and Does 1 through 20, alleging claims for: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) defamation; (3) false light; (4) interference with quiet enjoyment; (5) tortious interference; and (6) breach of contract. The HOA has since dismissed its claims against Defendant and is no longer a party to this action.

  • Hearing

TOLARA GROSS VS EDUCATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) against defendant Education Management Systems (“Defendant”) alleging causes of action for (1) Fraudulent Inducement; (2) Negligent Misrepresentation; (3) Disability Discrimination; (4) Libel Per Se; (4) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (7) Unpaid Wage Claim. On August 6, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 175     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.