Defamation in California

What Is Defamation?

Generally

Civil Code, sections 44-48 set forth the definitions of the two forms of defamation, libel (written) and slander (oral), and the privilege exceptions to defamation.

The elements for defamation are:

  1. a publication that is
  2. false,
  3. defamatory,
  4. unprivileged, and
  5. has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage.

Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720; see also Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 645.

“Defamation is an invasion of the interest in reputation. The tort involves the intentional publication of a statement of fact that is false, unprivileged, and has a natural tendency to injure or which causes special damage. Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 645. Publication means communication to some third person who understands the defamatory meaning of the statement and its application to the person to whom reference is made. Publication need not be to the ‘public’ at large; communication to a single individual is sufficient.” Id.

Pleading Rule

“In defamation cases California follows a… pleading rule, under which ‘the words constituting an alleged libel must be specifically identified, if not pleaded verbatim, in the complaint.’” Glassdoor, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 623, 635.

In slander cases, “[l]ess particularity is required when it appears that defendant has superior knowledge of the facts, so long as the pleading gives notice of the issues sufficient to enable preparation of a defense. Okun v. Superior Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 442, 458 citing Bradley v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 818, 825. Nor is the allegation defective for failure to state the exact words of the alleged slander... [S]lander can be charged by alleging the substance of the defamatory statement.” Id.

“Where the words or other matters which are the subject of a defamation action are of ambiguous meaning, or innocent on their face and defamatory only in the light of extrinsic circumstances, the plaintiff must plead and prove that as used, the words had a particular meaning, or ‘innuendo,’ which makes them defamatory. Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 645-646. Where the language at issue is ambiguous, the plaintiff must also allege the extrinsic circumstances which show the third person reasonably understood it in its derogatory sense (the ‘inducement’).” Id.

“A statement is not defamatory unless it can reasonably be viewed as declaring or implying a provably false factual assertion... and it is apparent from the ‘context and tenor’ of the statement ‘that the [speaker] seriously is maintaining an assertion of actual fact.’” Carver v. Bonds (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 328, 344. “‘Statements do not imply a provably false factual assertion and thus cannot form the basis of a defamation action if they cannot “‘reasonably [be] interpreted as stating actual facts’ about an individual.”... Thus, “rhetorical hyperbole,” “vigorous epithet[s],” “lusty and imaginative expression[s] of... contempt,” and language used “in a loose, figurative sense” have all been accorded constitutional protection.’” Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 798, 809 (citations omitted).

Libel

Libel is a type of defamation that requires “a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.” Civ. Code Secs. §§ 44, 45. When alleged defamatory statements are “ambiguous, the plaintiff must also allege the extrinsic circumstances which show the third person reasonably understood it in its derogatory sense the inducement.” Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 646.

Slander

Slander is a form of defamation (Civ. Code Sec. 44) consisting of a false and unprivileged oral publication (Civ. Code Sec. 46).

To establish a prima facie case for slander, a plaintiff must demonstrate:

  1. an oral publication
  2. to third persons
  3. of specified false matter
  4. that has a natural tendency to injure or
  5. that causes special damage."

Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 90, 106.

Public Figure

“If the person defamed is a public figure, he cannot recover unless he proves, by clear and convincing evidence..., that the libelous statement was made with ‘actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Super. Ct. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 256 (citation omitted); see Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 71, 84. “The rationale for such differential treatment is, first, that the public figure has greater access to the media and therefore greater opportunity to rebut defamatory statements, and second, that those who have become public figures have done so voluntarily and therefore ‘invite attention and comment.’” Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 387, 398.

Defamatory Statements vs. Opinions

Because a defamatory statement must contain a provable falsehood, courts distinguish between statements of fact and statements of opinion for purposes of defamation liability. Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1261 (citations omitted) “Though mere opinions are generally not actionable... a statement of opinion that implies a false assertion of fact is....” Hawran v. Hixson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 256, 289. Thus, the “inquiry is not merely whether the statements are fact or opinion, but ‘whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact.’” Id. at 289; see Franklin v. Dynamic Details, Inc. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 375, 385 (“the question is not strictly whether the published statement is fact or opinion, but [r]ather, the dispositive question is whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact”).

Rulings for Defamation in California

With regard to the defamation claim, the alleged emails fail to rise to the level of per se libel. The mere accusation that X-Complainants are racist is a mere opinion. Moreover, because the statements are not libel per se, X-Complainants must plead special damages, which they fail to do. In response, X-Complainants argue the emails are not slander but the 2nd c/a states a claim for defamation based on libel. As such, the fact that the claim is captioned as slander is immaterial.

  • Name

    IMAN AFROOZ, M,D, VS VINCE DOWNEY

  • Case No.

    SC126850

  • Hearing

    Apr 06, 2018

In so doing, plaintiffs appear to be alleging a separate cause of action for defamation on a theory of libel against defendant.

  • Name

    KELLI ASKEW VS. CLOVIS COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER

  • Case No.

    20CECG00682

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2021

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

The Motion (ROA # 20, 30) of Defendant John Petersen ("Defendant"), pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 425.16, for an order striking the Complaint, and each cause of action pled therein, including the causes of action for: (1) defamation - slander per se; (2) defamation - libel per se; and (3) defamation - libel per quod, of Plaintiff Robert Godinez ("Plaintiff"), will be HEARD. The Joinder (ROA # 24, 27) of Defendant Gustavo Rojo Flores ("Flores"), will be HEARD.

  • Name

    GODINEZ VS RIVAS

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00050309-CU-DF-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes Plaintiff has failed to identify whether this defamation cause of action is based on slander or libel. Given there are different requirements for slander and libel, Plaintiff must clarify whether this defamation claim is based on libel or slander. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for defamation against Defendant.

  • Name

    MYONG HUI KIM VS JOSEPH AHN

  • Case No.

    BC672252

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2017

The statute of limitations on a defamation or slander claim starts at the time of publication. California Code of Civil Procedure section 340 requires that actions, involving “libel [and/or] slander,” must be brought “within one year.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §340(c).) The demurrer is unopposed. As a result, defendant’s demurrers to both causes of action in the action are sustained without leave to amend, and the case is dismissed.

  • Case No.

    L23-00001

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2023

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

Slander/Libel/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. (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720.) The rules of pleading only require ultimate facts to be alleged; evidentiary facts supporting the allegation of ultimate fact need not be pleaded. (McKelly v.

  • Name

    KARAS VS PALM

  • Case No.

    CVSW2103007

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2021

Defamation is a false, unprivileged and defamatory statement about an individual and may consist of either libel (written) or slander (spoken). The essence of the tort is injury to reputation. (Civil Code § 44, 45, 46; Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1242.) Under Civil Code § 46, slander is “a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means” that causes the person damage.

  • Name

    GONZALEZ VS GOMEZ

  • Case No.

    RIC1603942

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2018

Conclusion CDC Defendants’ demurrer to slander (4th) and libel (5th) causes of action in Plaintiff’s complaint is sustained with leave to amend.

  • Name

    RODOLFO QUIROZ VS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV00308

  • Hearing

    May 07, 2019

Accordingly, plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for defamation, in the form of libel or slander, for the same reasons stated above as to Global Win. The demurrer to the sixth and seventh causes of action is SUSTAINED. III.

  • Name

    JEFFREY QIUHONG YANG VS GLOBAL WIN CAPITAL CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV45192

  • Hearing

    Apr 21, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Per Se ClaimsMinor Plaintiffs Defendants argue The Minor Childrens claims for defamation per se (Second and Third Causes of Action for Libel and Slander, respectively) are not per se defamatory. Civ. Code § 45a provides, A libel which is defamatory of the plaintiff without the necessity of explanatory matter, such as an inducement, innuendo or other extrinsic fact, is said to be a libel on its face.

  • Name

    SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS KEVIN RYAN BEHRENDT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV11008

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The caption page of the Complaint states that it is a "Civil Suit of $10,000 for Defamation, Slander & Libel of Character. Harrassment." It is unclear whether Plaintiff's "defamation" claim sounds in libel (i.e., based on the publication of written statements), slander (i.e., based on the publication of oral statements), or both. Although the pleading requirements for libel and slander are similar, they are not identical.

  • Name

    AMANDA CASTILLANES VS. FARZINE DANESHNIA

  • Case No.

    56-2016-00490272-CL-CR-VTA

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2017

Libel and libel per se (1st and 2nd causes of action) Defamation is a false, unprivileged and defamatory statement about an individual and may consist of either libel or slander. The essence of the tort is injury to reputation. (Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1243.)

  • Name

    MATAR VS TWAL

  • Case No.

    RIC2003635

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2021

To grant with leave to amend the fourth cause of action for defamation only. The First Amended Complaint is to be filed and served upon the Defendants via hand delivery or by electronic means (if an agreement exists to do so) within 5 calendar days. The motion for summary judgment will be continued to Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 3:30 p.m. in Dept. 402. Explanation: Defamation Defamation is a false, unprivileged and defamatory statement about an individual and may consist of either libel or slander.

  • Name

    OLIPHANT V. CVS, INC. ET AL.

  • Case No.

    16CECG04025

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2018

  • Judge

    Jeff Hamilton

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

First Cause of Action for Libel Defamation The elements of a defamation claims are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage. (See Wong v. Tai Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1369.)

  • Name

    HAMMLER, ALLEN VS LINKUS, C

  • Case No.

    16K14541

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Hashemiyoon) (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this defamation action against Diana Lee (Defendant) on August 23, 2022. Plaintiffs allege three causes of action for (1) defamation (Civ. Code, § 46), (2) libel per se, and (3) slander. Defendant moves the court for an order sustaining the demurrer to each cause of action alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint.

  • Name

    ORANGE COUNTY LIPOSUCTION CENTERS, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS DIANA LEE

  • Case No.

    22STCV27317

  • Hearing

    Apr 17, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defamation involves (a) a publication that is (b) false, (c) defamatory, and (d) unprivileged, and that (e) has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage. [Citation.] ( Price v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 962, 970.) Defamation & may occur by means of libel or slander. (Civ. Code, § 44.) ( Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1242.)

  • Name

    ROSEVIANNEY C OGUMSI VS RICHARD DALE GENTILE, D.D.S., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV13792

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2023

  • Judge

    day s

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Nevertheless, plaintiff’s sixth and seventh causes of action (i.e., for defamation per quod and defamation per se, respectively) fail as against Mt. SAC, because they have not been adequately pled against the individual defendants. “Defamation is effected by either of the following: (a) Libel. (b) Slander.” Civil Code § 44.

  • Name

    STACEY GUTIERREZ VS MOUNT SAN ANTONIO COLLEGE

  • Case No.

    KC069174

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2018

Defamation Plaintiff Raschiatore’s first cause of action is for defamation. As an initial matter, defendants assert that while the cause of action is labeled defamation, it is unclear whether Raschiatore alleges causes of action for libel, slander or both. Raschiatore argues that both are stated because the allegations are that the defamatory statements were both “authored” and “uttered” and that they were “read” and “heard.” (Opposition, at p. 5.) Libel and slander are two different forms of defamation.

  • Name

    BRIAN RASCHIATORE VS DANNY COPUS ET AL

  • Case No.

    1381191

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2011

Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action for libel per se. Slander in Violation of Cal.

  • Name

    SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL VS. JORDAN BRADSHAW

  • Case No.

    MSC15-00906

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2017

  • Judge

    Ed Weil

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

Here, in support of a cause of action for defamation, plaintiff alleges only that Artiaga “would continue to lie to keep the case open,” and that she “gave false information to continue the case and verbally torture me.” However, as stated above, defamation requires that the words constituting an alleged libel be specifically identified, or that the substance of an alleged slander be stated. Plaintiff’s allegations are therefore insufficient to meet the pleading standards for either libel or slander.

  • Name

    MARY JOHNSTON V. REGINA ARTIAGA

  • Case No.

    18CECG00708

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2018

Sol Del Cielo’s cross-complaint alleges: (1) Real property trespass; (2) Intentional interference with contractual relations; (3) Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (4) Negligent interference with prospective economic advantage; (5) Contribution pursuant to C.C.P. 841; maintenance of boundaries; (6) Abatement & enjoinment of nuisance; (7) Defamation-slander; (8) Defamation-libel; and (9) Trade libel Defendant Sandoval’s cross-complaint alleges: (1) Defamation-slander per

  • Name

    HARRY LOVELAND, ET AL. VS. SOL DEL CIELO, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    TC029123

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2018

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff has adequately alleged a cause of action for defamation against VCOE. That the cause of action may include additional unspecified acts of defamation does not make it uncertain. Plaintiff has alleged (a) a publication that is (b) false, (c) defamatory, and (d) unprivileged, and that (e) has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage. She was not required to state whether the defamation was by libel or slander.

  • Name

    BARBATA VS VENTURA COUNTY

  • Case No.

    56-2017-00496531-CU-OE-VTA

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2017

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Successor Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for libel per se or slander per se against Defendant.

  • Name

    NIRMAL S. SEHMBEY, ET AL. VS AMARJIT SINGH MARWAH

  • Case No.

    20STCV07262

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Analysis All three of plaintiff’s causes of action fall within the broad category of defamation. Defamation includes libel, which is written, and slander, which is verbal. (Civ. Code, §§ 44-46). Libel and slander both require a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is intentionally published to someone other than the plaintiff, and has a natural tendency to injure or which causes special damage. (Whelan v. Wolford (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 689, 693; Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 645.)

  • Name

    BRETT STRADER VS LAFAYETTE ORINDA

  • Case No.

    MSC20-00238

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Judge

    Steve K. Austin

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

Relihan, Clifford Schwenker, Hana Bruce, Kristina Keifer, Jazzmaine Francis, Susan Judson, Christ Catania, and Charlotte Ling for (1) defamation-libel, (2) defamation-libel per se, (3) defamation-slander, (4) defamation-slander per se, (5) defamation at common law and pursuant to Civil Code §46, (6) IIED, (7) trade libel, (8) violation of Bus. & Prof.

  • Name

    AASIR AZZARMI VS WENDY CHAU, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19TRCV00759

  • Hearing

    Jan 02, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for (1) fraud – intentional misrepresentation; (2) fraud – concealment; (3) defamation per se (libel); (4) defamation per se (slander); (5) defamation (libel); (6) defamation (slander); (7) false light; (8) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (9) forgery; (19) violation of the statutory right to publicity; (11) violation of the common law right to publicity; (12) sexual harassment; (13) negligent supervision; (14) civil conspiracy; (15) unjust enrichment

  • Name

    SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS SEVEN SATELLITE PTY LTD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV13245

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

On November 21, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) fraudulent misrepresentation, (4) fraudulent concealment, (5) breach of contract, (6) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (7) breach of fiduciary duties, (8) fraud, (9) constructive fraud, (10) libel, (11) libel per se, and (12) slander and defamation.

  • Name

    MIKAIL KHASHAN VS JOHN SUDUL ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC641485

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2018

Page 3, paragraph 10(c); page 3, paragraph 10(e); page 3, from paragraph 10(f) the following: "Wrongful Eviction; Assault; Battery; False Arrest & Imprisonment; Fraud; Negligent Misrepresentation; Intentional & Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Declaratory Relief; Injunctive relief; Conspiracy; Violation of Civil rights; Abuse of Process; Malicious Prosecution; Trespas [sic] to Property, Defamation, Libel, Slander and Conversion"; page 3, paragraph 11(g); page 3, paragraph 14(a)(2); page 8, Exemplary

  • Name

    LIN WANG ET AL VS. ZHICHENG XUE ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC14540872

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2015

There are no other facts whatsoever pled as to what Defendant Noa did, or refrained from doing that constituted “fraud, record keeping violation, UCL, intention to harm, concealing/tampering with evidence, libel, slander, defamation, perjury, and civil rights violations.” The general demurrers are each SUSTAINED with leave to amend on the same grounds. Plaintiff to file and serve an amended complaint within ten days. Moving party to give notice.

  • Name

    GARCIA VS. LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00969189-CU-CR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

Fourth Cause of Action for Slander/Libel Finally, all Defendants demur to the fourth cause of action on the grounds that the allegedly defamatory statement is not set forth. The elements of slander are: (1) a false and unprivileged publication; (2) orally uttered to third persons; and (3) naturally tending directly to injure a person, in respect to office, profession, trade or business (slander per se), or special damages. (Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 90, 106.)

  • Name

    EXCLUSIVELY AT COMMERCE VS TO, WILSON

  • Case No.

    16K11923

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

The Statute of Limitations for Libel or Slander is One Year An action for libel or slander must be brought within one year of discovery. (Code Civ. Pro., § 340 subd. (c).) The "rule of discovery," which can toll a statute of limitation, generally applies to action for libel or slander. (Manguso v. Oceanside Unified School Dist. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 725 731.)

  • Name

    SMITH VS LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00065019-CU-DF-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

The only true cause of action that plaintiff appears to allege is for defamation, based on either libel or slander. “Defamation constitutes an injury to reputation; the injury may occur by means of libel or slander. (Civ. Code, § 44.) In general, leaving aside certain qualifications that are not relevant in this case, a written communication that is false, that is not protected by any privilege, and that exposes a person to contempt or ridicule or certain other reputational injuries, constitutes libel.

  • Name

    LAYCOOK V. PRICE

  • Case No.

    17CECG01472

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2017

Dist. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 224, 235 [specific words or substance, in slander action]; Okun v. Superior Court v. Super. Ct. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 442, 458 [slander action, noting libel rule]].)

  • Name

    DEBTOR IN POSSESSION DDC GROUP INC VS LUIS ANTHONY RIOS ET A

  • Case No.

    BC717004

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2018

Plaintiff’s Defamation causes of action for Libel and Slander fail as a matter of law because undisputed material facts show that the allegedly defamatory statements were true. 2. Plaintiff’s Defamation causes of action for Libel and Slander fail as a matter of law because undisputed material facts show that the allegedly defamatory statements were conditionally privileged and not made with malice. 3.

  • Name

    RODOLFO QUIROZ VS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV00308

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

Cross-Complainant is not given leave to amend as his "fraud" theory, but is given leave to amend to attempt to state a claim for defamation (e.g., libel or slander) based on the same representation to County employees. As presently alleged, the second cause of action fails to state a claim for libel or slander due to the absence of allegations indicating that the alleged statement had any defamatory meaning, or caused any injury to Cross-Complainant's reputation. (See Shively v.

  • Name

    DANIEL M GEETING AS TRUSTEE OF THE GEETING FAMILY TRUST DATED OCTOBER 19 1998 VS. MICHAEL G VOIGHT

  • Case No.

    56-2016-00482273-CU-OR-VTA

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2017

Analysis Defamation Causes Defendant targets the Second Amended Complaints (SAC) first four causes of action for defamation slander, defamation slander per se, defamation libel, and defamation libel per-se) arguing that the causes fail because: 1) they are barred by the one-year statute of limitations; 2) the police report was privileged; 3) no exact words are pled; and 4) are duplicative with each other.

  • Name

    STEWART LUCAS MURREY VS JENNEY LEE

  • Case No.

    19SMCV01861

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The demurrer to the first (slander) and second (libel and defamation) causes of action is sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff Ahmed Elebyany (Plaintiff) failed to plead that Defendant made any false statement to a third party. (Grenier v. Taylor (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 471, 486.) Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to plead Defendant's liability for defendant Melissa Grajek's (Grajek) alleged statements.

  • Name

    ELEBYAY VS GRAJEK

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00034871-CU-NP-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

Relihan, Clifford Schwenker, Hana Bruce, Kristina Keifer, Jazzmaine Francis, Susan Judson, Christ Catania, and Charlotte Ling for (1) defamation-libel, (2) defamation-libel per se, (3) defamation-slander, (4) defamation-slander per se, (5) defamation at common law and pursuant to Civil Code §46, (6) IIED, (7) trade libel, (8) violation of Bus. & Prof.

  • Name

    AASIR AZZARMI VS WENDY CHAU, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19TRCV00759

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    LC101909

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

Second Cause of Action for Libel Slander is a form of defamation. (Civ.Code, § 44.) The basic distinction between libel and slander is that the former is written while the latter is spoken. (Id. §§ 45, 46.) The only evidence before the Court is that Lauren made these statements orally on a podcast. Plaintiff contends that the subsequent republication of the statements on YouTube was foreseeable, but Plaintiff provides no evidence to support this contention.

  • Name

    CLUBHOUSE MEDIA GROUP, INC VS. KETTERING

  • Case No.

    30-2021-01188063

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2021

Although Plaintiff herein drafted his complaint using the Judicial Council form complaint for contract complaints, none of his causes of action involve any part of the lease agreement [the contract] Plaintiff entered into with Defendants; the complaint alleges only causes of action for wrongful eviction, defamation, slander, and libel. Tort actions are not an “action on the contract” within the meaning of Civil Code section 1717 authorizing an award of attorney’s fees in an action on a contract. (Stout v.

  • Name

    AKOIDU V. HOVANNISIAN

  • Case No.

    16CECG02643

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2017

First and Third Causes of Action – Defamation (Slander) and Defamation (Trade Libel) Defendants argue the first cause of action for defamation (slander) and third cause of action for defamation (trade libel) fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants Dr. Hornsby, Lagares, and Pashko (CCP § 430.10 (e)).

  • Name

    MUIR DDS VS NATHAN J HORNSBY DDS INC

  • Case No.

    37-2023-00003658-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

First and Second Causes of Action – Slander, Libel, DefamationDefamation is an invasion of the interest in reputation. The tort involves the intentional publication of a statement of fact that is false, unprivileged, and has a natural tendency to injure or which causes special damage.” (Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 645.)

  • Name

    KARYS DALSOOK MA VS JOONG KUN AHN ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC625692

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2017

It provides: No person shall have more than one cause of action for damages for libel or slander or invasion of privacy or any other tort founded upon any single publication or exhibition or utterance, such as any one issue of a newspaper or book or magazine or any one presentation to an audience or any one broadcast over radio or television or any one exhibition of a motion picture. Recovery in any action shall include all damages for any such tort suffered by the plaintiff in all jurisdictions. (Civ.

  • Name

    NADEEM MICHAEL AQLEH VS DOUG BATCHELOR

  • Case No.

    34-2011-00101407-CU-DF-GDS

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2011

Eighth Cause of Action: Defamation The elements of a defamation claim, whether classed as slander (spoken) or libel (written), are (1) intentional (2) publication of (3) a statement of fact that (4) is false, (5) is not privileged, and (6) has a natural tendency to injure or which causes special damage. Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal.App.4 th 637, 645; see Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4 th 683, 720.

  • Name

    SANDRA E. VIERA VILLELA VS WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV44389

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Accordingly, because plaintiffs requested discovery is not necessary to oppose the special motion to strike as to the libel, slander, and wrongful termination causes of action, the requested discovery is likewise unnecessary for the other causes of action. ( Gilbert v. Sykes (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 34 [causes of action based on failed defamation claim also fail].) The motion is DENIED.

  • Name

    EDWARD H. LIVINGSTON, MD VS AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

  • Case No.

    22STCV09441

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Cross-Complainant is not given leave to amend as his "fraud" theory, but is given leave to amend to attempt to state a claim for defamation (e.g., libel or slander) based on the same representation to County employees. As presently alleged, the third cause of action fails to state a claim for libel or slander due to the absence of allegations indicating that the alleged statement had any defamatory meaning, or caused any injury to Cross-Complainant's reputation. (See Shively v.

  • Name

    DANIEL M GEETING AS TRUSTEE OF THE GEETING FAMILY TRUST DATED OCTOBER 19 1998 VS. MICHAEL G VOIGHT

  • Case No.

    56-2016-00482273-CU-OR-VTA

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2017

Slander (4th cause of action) and Libel (5th cause of action) Civil Code, §44 states that defamation is effected by either libel or slander. “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.” (Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1259.)

  • Name

    GARY LEFKOWITZ VS KHALED A. TAWNSEY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19BBCV00276

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Without any reference to evidence or record, the Court cannot conclude that the IIED claim and Libel/Slander claims were based on the same factual allegations, such that they are duplicative. E. Libel and Slander Damages Defendant argues that the award of damages for defamation for libel and slander was not supported by evidence. However, Defendants motion includes no analysis.

  • Name

    CYNTHIA LOPEZ VS. KENNETH LOPEZ

  • Case No.

    BC669038

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DefamationSlander/Libel 2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 3. Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation 4. Negligent Misrepresentation 5. Fraud—Concealment 6. Fraud—Promise Without Intent to Perform 7. Constructive Fraud 8. Breach of Contract 9. Breach of Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 10. Conversion 11. California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 12. Civil Conspiracy On 10/29/18, Liu’s and GSI’s defaults were entered.

  • Name

    JIANHUA JIN VS YIYANG LIU

  • Case No.

    KC070601

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2018

The sine qua non of recovery for defamation . . . is the existence of falsehood. Because the statement must contain a provable falsehood, courts distinguish between statements of fact and statements of opinion for purposes of defamation liability. Although statements of fact may be actionable as libel, statements of opinion are constitutionally protected. That does not mean that statements of opinion enjoy blanket protection.

  • Name

    TRI NGUYEN HUYNH BAO AKA JOHN TRI NGUYEN VS HOANG KIEU ET AL

  • Case No.

    22STCV16883

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The complaints allege both defamation and libel. "Defamation is effected by libel or slander (Civ. Code, § 44). ... "Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation." (Civ. Code, § 45.)

  • Name

    LIPPMAN VS HAFTER

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00035332-CL-DF-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2017

The complaints allege both defamation and libel. "Defamation is effected by libel or slander (Civ. Code, § 44). ... "Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation." (Civ. Code, § 45.)

  • Name

    LIPPMAN VS HOPE

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00035326-CL-DF-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2017

Analysis Second Cause of Action (Defamation): Plaintiff is required to allege with greater specificity whether he is claiming slander or libel or both and to state the words or substance of the published defamatory statement. (Lipman v. Brisbane Elementary Sch. Dist. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 224, 234; (Gilbert v. Sykes (2007) 147 Cal.

  • Name

    GAMA VS OXNARD UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    56-2013-00442427-CU-WT-VTA

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2014

Therefore, Plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to state libel. Demurrer to this claim is not well-taken. D. Slander Per Se Slander per se requires: (1) a false and unprivileged publication; (2) orally uttered to a third person; and (3) naturally tending directly to injure a person, in respect to office, profession, trade or business (slander per se), or special damages. (Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2004) 120 Cal. App. 4th 90, 106, disapproved on other grounds by Baral v.

  • Name

    LYLE HOWRY VS REGINALD MYLABATHULA BENJAMIN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20VECV00727

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

Overruled as to demurrer on 2nd COA. 1st COA (defamation) - Defamation consists of libel or slander, the former related to written defamatory statements and the latter concerning oral defamatory statements. (Civ. Code, § 45.)

  • Name

    VALBUENA VS OVERTON

  • Case No.

    CVPS2200698

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Overruled as to demurrer on 2nd COA. 1st COA (defamation) - Defamation consists of libel or slander, the former related to written defamatory statements and the latter concerning oral defamatory statements. (Civ. Code, § 45.)

  • Name

    VALBUENA VS OVERTON

  • Case No.

    CVPS2200698

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Overruled as to demurrer on 2nd COA. 1st COA (defamation) - Defamation consists of libel or slander, the former related to written defamatory statements and the latter concerning oral defamatory statements. (Civ. Code, § 45.)

  • Name

    VALBUENA VS OVERTON

  • Case No.

    CVPS2200698

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Overruled as to demurrer on 2nd COA. 1st COA (defamation) - Defamation consists of libel or slander, the former related to written defamatory statements and the latter concerning oral defamatory statements. (Civ. Code, § 45.)

  • Name

    VALBUENA VS OVERTON

  • Case No.

    CVPS2200698

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

The facts pled in the 2ndAC allege prima facie causes of action against defendant Madain for libel and slander. Defendant cites no authority for the proposition that a defamation cause of action must be pled with the level of specificity required to allege deceit. The actual defamatory words used by defendant are alleged and are adequate to place defendant on notice of the nature of the claims being asserted by plaintiff.

  • Name

    WOSOUGHKIA VS. RAHGOSHAY

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01010874-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

First Cause of Action for Slander/Defamation: Daneshnia contends that the first cause of action for slander/defamation is deficient on the grounds that (i) Plaintiff fails to allege the essential elements of this claim; (ii) the claim is barred by the 1-year statute of limitations for defamation claims; and (iii) the allegations in Plaintiff's 1st Amended Complaint are inconsistent with the allegations in her original Complaint. "Slander is a form of defamation (Civ.

  • Name

    AMANDA VS DANESHINA

  • Case No.

    56-2016-00482677-CU-OR-VTA

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2017

DefamationLibel; 2. DefamationLibel Per Se; 3. DefamationSlander Per Se. Special Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike Anti-SLAPP Motion Cross-Defendant filed a special motion to strike the Second Amended Cross-Complaint and each cause of action of Cross-Complainant’s Second Amended Cross-Complaint under CCP § 425.16, also known as the anti-SLAPP (“strategic lawsuit against public participation”) statute.

  • Name

    ELDER CHINCHILLA, ET AL. VS BRYAN SORIANO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV27732

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Witkin describes the relationship of the two torts: The Restatement describes the relationship of false light invasion of privacy to defamation as follows: "In many cases to which the rule stated here applies, the publicity given to the plaintiff is defamatory, so that he would have an action for libel or slander. ...

  • Name

    GARCIA VS ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS

  • Case No.

    MSC20-00710

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

Second Cause of Action – Slander Slander is a form of defamation (Civ.Code, § 44), consisting of a false and unprivileged oral publication (Civ.Code, § 46). To establish a prima facie case for slander, a plaintiff must demonstrate an oral publication to third persons of specified false matter that has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage.

  • Name

    SUMMIT MEDIA LLC VS VIVI STAFFORD ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC621345

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2017

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs complaint fails to make clear whether the claims are for slander and libel per se or are for slander and libel per quod. However, the complaint alleges that Defendants statements constitute liber per se and were libelous on its face as it was obviously hurtful to Big Sugars reputation and exposed Big Sugar to hatred, contempt, and ridicule. (Compl., ¶¶4, 40.)

  • Name

    WOODHILL VENTURES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A BIG SUGAR BAKESHOP VS BEN YANG

  • Case No.

    19BBCV00929

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Moving Defendants now move for summary adjudication as follows: Plaintiff’s Defamation causes of action of Libel and Slander fail as a matter of law because undisputed material facts show that the allegedly defamatory statements are qualifiedly privileged and made without malice. Plaintiff’s Defamation causes of action of Libel and Slander fail as a matter of law because undisputed material facts show that the allegedly defamatory statements were nonactionable opinions.

  • Name

    RODOLFO QUIROZ VS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV00308

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

Defamation i. Legal Standard Defamation is effected by either of the following: (a) Libel. (b) Slander. (Civ. Code, § 44.) Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation. (Civ. Code, § 45.)

  • Name

    MORGAN CAIN VS BRIDGET L. JONES

  • Case No.

    23STCV24677

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CGC-14-542435) for libel, slander, and false light arising out of statements made on a website and a Huffington Post blog. Special motions to strike pursuant to CCP § 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute) were filed by Steiner and the Steiner Firm on 12/23/14 (re-filed on 5/5/15) and Behunin on 1/2/15. On 10/30/14, Charles R. Schwab filed an action against Defendants in San Francisco Superior Court (Case No. CGC-14-542436) for libel arising out of statements made on a website.

  • Name

    MICHAEL B SCHWAB VS LEONARD STEINER ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC573709

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2017

Relihan, Clifford Schwenker, Hana Bruce, Kristina Keifer, Jazzmaine Francis, Susan Judson, Christ Catania, and Charlotte Ling for (1) defamation-libel, (2) defamation-libel per se, (3) defamation-slander, (4) defamation-slander per se, (5) defamation at common law and pursuant to Civil Code §46, (6) IIED, (7) trade libel, (8) violation of Bus. & Prof.

  • Name

    AASIR AZZARMI VS WENDY CHAU, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19TRCV00759

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

Defendant maintains causes of action for slander, libel and defamation are alleged, but the copy in the Court's record does not include these causes of action. Even if the Court assumes causes of action for slander, libel and defamation are alleged, the motion will be granted.

  • Name

    ROSHELL VS GREER STEPHAN

  • Case No.

    37-2023-00012782-CU-DF-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

Filing Date: 03/10/2017 Case Type: Defamation (Slander/Libel) 01/25/2018 Conference-Case Management NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND PROCEDURE FOR SUBMISSION WITHOUT HEARING The parties may submit to the tentative ruling without appearing for the hearing if you follow these instructions: (1) If ALL PARTIES (except if no other parties have appeared, only Plaintiff) have read the tentative ruling and ALL PARTIES agree and submit to the tentative ruling, then court appearances may be waived.

  • Name

    SANTA MONICA KOREAN CHURCH OF CHRIST ET AL VS JAE SUNG KWAK

  • Case No.

    BC653209

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2018

DEFENDANTS BEN KENNEDY, INFORMATICA LLC'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT: Defendants' demurrer to the sixth cause of action for defamation (libel and slander) in the complaint is overruled. The Court liberally construes the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 452. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made false statements of fact regarding plaintiff's job performance in its termination memorandum and subsequently in writing and orally. (Complaint, pars. 35-43, 68-77.)

  • Name

    STEPHEN DEUXIER VS. INFORMATICA LLC, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC20587254

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2021

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) wrongful termination (breach of contract), (2) wrongful termination (public policy violation), (3) defamation (libel per se), (4) defamation (slander per se), (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress. DISCUSSION In ruling on a special motion to strike pursuant to CCP § 425.16, the court engages in a two-step process.

  • Name

    GERARDO ENRIQUE GONZALEZ QUINTERO VS L A UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST

  • Case No.

    BC617320

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2016

Accordingly, plaintiffs have not established a probability of prevailing on the interference claims. 3rd and 4th Causes of Action for Slander and Libel For the reasons discussed in connection with the defamation claims, plaintiffs there is no evidence to support the essential elements of falsity and causation.

  • Name

    SDPB HOLDINGS LLC VS. ROBERT EMERICK

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00016019-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2018

Accordingly, plaintiffs have not established a probability of prevailing on the interference claims. 3rd and 4th Causes of Action for Slander and Libel Defendants argue their statements were true. Truth is a complete defense to defamation. Gilbert v. Sykes (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 28. The flyers do not say that demolition or grading is actually occurring. They serve as a warning to be on the lookout for such activities because permits have not been approved.

  • Name

    SDPB HOLDINGS LLC VS. ROBERT EMERICK

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00016019-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2017

Defamation: For his defamation cause of action, plaintiff alleges that defendants caused “to be published false and unprivileged communications tending directly to injure plaintiff and his reputation…More specifically, Defendants made untrue statements…to Redding Police Department officers…” The cause of action for defamation fails for two reasons. First, to prevail on a cause of action for defamation, plaintiff must establish libel or slander. See Civ. Code § 44.

  • Name

    HAMAKER VS. DIGNITY HEALTH, MERCY MEDICAL

  • Case No.

    SCRDCVCV19-0192046-000

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2019

Where form of cause of action for slander turning on oral statements set forth only in substance did not preclude possibility of amendment that would allege slander in furtherance of conspiracy charged against defendants, leave to amend would be granted. (Okun, supra.) The general rule is that the words constituting an alleged libel must be specifically identified, if not pleaded verbatim, in the complaint.

  • Name

    BAILLIE BARNETT VS EXTREME AIR, LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    20CV01889

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2021

Slander/Libel The tort of defamation encompasses both libel and slander. (Civ. Code § 44.) A prima facie case for defamation requires: “(a) a publication that is (b) false, (c) defamatory, and (d) unprivileged, and that has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage.” (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720.) A statement that is actionable for defamation must contain a falsehood. (Summit Bank v. Rogers (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 669, 695.)

  • Name

    RODOLFO QUIROZ VS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV00308

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2019

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) was filed on August 7, 2020 alleging libel per quod and libel per se causes of action only. On September 8, 2020, Defendant filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint with a motion to strike the punitive damages request, which was scheduled for hearing for February 2, 2021.

  • Name

    JOCELYN ALMEIDA VS MELANAT RAFIEI

  • Case No.

    18STLC14522

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defamation may consist of either libel or slander. (See Civ. Code §§ 45a, 46.) “‘‘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.’’ [Citations.]” (Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1259.) “Publication means communication to some third person who understands the defamatory meaning of the statement and its application to the person to whom reference is made.

  • Name

    SEAN DAVIS VS SAQUENTA WILLIAMS

  • Case No.

    18STLC14325

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Second Cause of Action for Defamation/Slander/Libel To state a cause of action for defamation, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the defendant published the statement; (2) the statement was about the plaintiff; (3) the statement was false; and (4) the statement was defamatory (that is, it exposed the plaintiff to contempt or ridicule); and, if the statement is not defamatory on its face, (5) the plaintiff suffered special damages. (Wong v. Tai Jing (2010) 189 Cal.

  • Name

    MASON V. LINDSETH-OLSON, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    30-2021-01184194

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2021

Libel And Slander Proof Of Servce SET FOR HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2008 LINE 4. PLAINTIFF MALINKA MOYE'S Motion Of Opposition To Tentative Ruling.;Vacate Dismissal. Judgment. D.A. To File Charges. Libel And Slander Proof Of Service IS DENIED, IMPROPER MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. =(302/PJM)

  • Name

    MALINKA MOYE VS. RED OAK REALTY

  • Case No.

    CGC05445998

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2008

Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action “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.” (Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1369; see also Dible v. Haight Ashbury Free Clinics (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 843, 853.) Defamation is either libel or slander. (See Civ. Code §44.) Written defamation is treated as libel, oral defamation is treated as slander. (See Civ. Code §§44, 45, 46).

  • Name

    K. GHIASSI, ET AL VS M. BAGHERI

  • Case No.

    2015-1-CV-278059

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2021

Defamation 4. False Light On October 30, 2019 Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (FAC), adding as defendants, inter alia, News Corporation and various individuals and entities associated with News Corporation. The FAC alleged the following 18 causes of action: 1. Fraud Intentional Misrepresentation 2. Fraud Concealment 3. Defamation per se (Libel) 4. Defamation per se (Slander) 5. Defamation (libel) 6. Defamation (slander) 7. False Light 8.

  • Name

    SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS KEVIN RYAN BEHRENDT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV11008

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Case Number: BC602284 AMY HELLER VS SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT INC ET AL Filing Date: 11/24/2015 Case Type: Defamation (Slander/Libel) (General Jurisdiction) 02/27/2017 Conference-Case Management 06/NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND PROCEDURE FOR SUBMISSION WITHOUT HEARING The parties may submit to the tentative ruling without appearing for the hearing if you follow these instructions: (1) If ALL PARTIES (except if no other parties have appeared, only Plaintiff) have read the tentative ruling and ALL PARTIES

  • Name

    AMY HELLER VS SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC602284

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2017

Case Number: BC628510 TAJ JACKSON ET AL VS RADAR ONLINE LLC Filing Date: 07/27/2016 Case Type: Defamation (Slander/Libel) (General Jurisdiction) 1/05/2017 Conference-Case Management NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND PROCEDURE FOR SUBMISSION WITHOUT HEARING The parties may submit to the tentative ruling without appearing for the hearing if you follow these instructions: (1) If ALL PARTIES (except if no other parties have appeared, only Plaintiff) have read the tentative ruling and ALL PARTIES agree and submit

  • Name

    TAJ JACKSON ET AL VS RADAR ONLINE LLC

  • Case No.

    BC628510

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2017

However, the Court notes that, to the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert defamation based on the video, this would constitute defamation based on libel. (Civ. Code, § 45 (Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.).)

  • Name

    ALEJANDRA MORENO VS MARIA ARROYO

  • Case No.

    21VECV01072

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defamation is either libel or slander. (See Civ. Code §44.) Written defamation is treated as libel, oral defamation is treated as slander. (See Civ. Code §§44, 45, 46). “Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injury him in his occupation.” (Civ. Code §45.)

  • Name

    JINGMING CAI, ET AL. V. FUZU LI

  • Case No.

    21CV377636

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2021

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings On Pltf'S First Amended Complaint For Damages (Libel And Slander); Memorandum Of P/A; Set for hearing on Thursday, September 10, 2009, line 10, DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Damages (Libel And Slander). Granted, without leave to amend. No opposition filed.

  • Name

    RAYMOND R. HUFF VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC08483188

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2009

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (DEFAMATIONSLANDER AND LIBEL): “To prevail on a claim for defamation, plaintiff must show four elements: that defendants published the statements; that the statements were about plaintiff; that they were false; and that defendants failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity. (CACI No. 1704).” Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher Organization (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 450, 470.

  • Name

    SARA MITCHELL VS POMONA COLLEGE

  • Case No.

    KC069037

  • Hearing

    May 18, 2017

Publication, which may be written (libel) or oral (slander), is defined as a “communication to some third person who understands the defamatory meaning of the statement and its application to the person to whom reference is made.” (Id.) “Publication need not be to the ‘public’ at large; communication to a single individual is sufficient.” (Id.) “Slander is a form of defamation (Civ. Code, § 44), consisting of a false and unprivileged oral publication (Civ. Code, § 46).

  • Name

    CHRISTOPHER A THOMAS ET AL VS COMMUNITY LIFEPORT SYSTEMS ET

  • Case No.

    BC624457

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2017

"Defamation is effected by libel or slander (Civ. Code, § 44). ... "Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation." (Civ. Code, § 45.)

  • Name

    DANA NEIBERT VS. CHRISTIAN LAROE

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00023474-CU-DF-CTL

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2018

The first cause of action is for trade libel. The tort of trade libel includes “all false statements concerning the quality of services or product of a business which are intended to cause that business financial harm and in fact do so.” (Leonardini v. Shell Oil Co. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 547, 572.) The tort of trade libel is a business tort, similar to libel or defamation, however it is a form of injurious falsehood more similar to slander of title. (Polvaram Records. Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.

  • Name

    JLS DEVELOPMENT GROUP VS SWAUGER HEARING RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COMPLAINT OF JLS DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC BY CATHLEEN MARMON, MICHAEL MARMON

  • Case No.

    PSC1800925

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

Case Number: BC653209 SANTA MONICA KOREAN CHURCH OF CHRIST ET AL VS JAE SUNG KWAK Filing Date: 03/10/2017 Case Type: Defamation (Slander/Libel) (General Jurisdiction) 07/27/2017 Conference-Case Management OSC Re: Filing Proof of Service or Request for Entry of Default NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND PROCEDURE FOR SUBMISSION WITHOUT HEARING The parties may submit to the tentative ruling without appearing for the hearing if you follow these instructions: (1) If ALL PARTIES (except if no other parties have appeared

  • Name

    SANTA MONICA KOREAN CHURCH OF CHRIST ET AL VS JAE SUNG KWAK

  • Case No.

    BC653209

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2017

Case Number: BC653209 SANTA MONICA KOREAN CHURCH OF CHRIST ET AL VS JAE SUNG KWAK Filing Date: 03/10/2017 Case Type: Defamation (Slander/Libel) (General Jurisdiction) Status: Pending NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND PROCEDURE FOR SUBMISSION WITHOUT HEARING The parties may submit to the tentative ruling without appearing for the hearing if you follow these instructions: (1) If ALL PARTIES (except if no other parties have appeared, only Plaintiff) have read the tentative ruling and ALL PARTIES agree and submit

  • Name

    SANTA MONICA KOREAN CHURCH OF CHRIST ET AL VS JAE SUNG KWAK

  • Case No.

    BC653209

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2018

Case Number: BC602284 AMY HELLER VS SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT INC ET AL Filing Date: 11/24/2015 Case Type: Defamation (Slander/Libel) (General Jurisdiction) Status: Pending 2/26/2018 Case Management Conference NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND PROCEDURE FOR SUBMISSION WITHOUT HEARING The parties may submit to the tentative ruling without appearing for the hearing if you follow these instructions: (1) If ALL PARTIES (except if no other parties have appeared, only Plaintiff) have read the tentative ruling and

  • Name

    AMY HELLER VS SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC602284

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2018

The complaint asserts causes of action for (1) retaliation and harassment; (2) employment discrimination on the basis of age; (3) employment discrimination on the basis of disability; (4) hostile work environment; (5) negligent hiring, training, supervision, and/or retention; (6) defamation libel and slander; and (7) unfair business practices.

  • Name

    YONG WU VS JULIAN FONG, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22AHCV00376

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2022

  • Judge

    day s

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Code § 340 (c) provides for a one year statute of limitation for libel and slander. This one year statute of limitations applies to all of the causes of action. The slander and defamation causes of action are barred by the one year statute of limitations.

  • Name

    KUNKEL VS. NASH-KUNKEL

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00904056-CU-MC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2017

Under the policy, “personal injury” means “injury arising out of one or more of the following offenses: . . . (2) libel, slander or defamation of character.” (PMF/DMF 5.) However, the policy also indicates that “personal injury insurance does not apply to: . . . injury arising out of the business pursuits of an insured.” (PMF/DMF 6-9.)

  • Name

    FRED FONTANA VS FIRST AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    BC658141

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2018

Slander is a species of the tort of defamation. (Civ. Code, § 44.) “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.” (Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1369.) If the publication is made “by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye” it is known as libel (Civ.

  • Name

    JOHN DOE V. MARCELLA FOSSELLA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18CV334161

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2019

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope