Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
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:
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.
“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 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 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:
Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 90, 106.
“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.
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”).
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.
IMAN AFROOZ, M,D, VS VINCE DOWNEY
SC126850
Apr 06, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
In so doing, plaintiffs appear to be alleging a separate cause of action for defamation on a theory of libel against defendant.
KELLI ASKEW VS. CLOVIS COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER
20CECG00682
Sep 29, 2021
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.
GODINEZ VS RIVAS
37-2019-00050309-CU-DF-CTL
Feb 20, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
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.
MYONG HUI KIM VS JOSEPH AHN
BC672252
Oct 16, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
L23-00001
Sep 18, 2023
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.
KARAS VS PALM
CVSW2103007
Sep 30, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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.
GONZALEZ VS GOMEZ
RIC1603942
Oct 25, 2018
Riverside County, CA
Conclusion CDC Defendants’ demurrer to slander (4th) and libel (5th) causes of action in Plaintiff’s complaint is sustained with leave to amend.
RODOLFO QUIROZ VS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
19STCV00308
May 07, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
JEFFREY QIUHONG YANG VS GLOBAL WIN CAPITAL CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV45192
Apr 21, 2022
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.
SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS KEVIN RYAN BEHRENDT, ET AL.
19STCV11008
Jan 06, 2022
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.
AMANDA CASTILLANES VS. FARZINE DANESHNIA
56-2016-00490272-CL-CR-VTA
May 30, 2017
Ventura County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
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.)
MATAR VS TWAL
RIC2003635
Aug 23, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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.
OLIPHANT V. CVS, INC. ET AL.
16CECG04025
Mar 12, 2018
Jeff Hamilton
Fresno County, CA
Employment
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.)
HAMMLER, ALLEN VS LINKUS, C
16K14541
Aug 08, 2017
Elaine Lu or Georgina Torres Rizk
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.
ORANGE COUNTY LIPOSUCTION CENTERS, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS DIANA LEE
22STCV27317
Apr 17, 2023
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.)
ROSEVIANNEY C OGUMSI VS RICHARD DALE GENTILE, D.D.S., ET AL.
22STCV13792
Feb 06, 2023
day s
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.
STACEY GUTIERREZ VS MOUNT SAN ANTONIO COLLEGE
KC069174
Jun 20, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
BRIAN RASCHIATORE VS DANNY COPUS ET AL
1381191
Aug 30, 2011
Santa Barbara County, CA
Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action for libel per se. Slander in Violation of Cal.
SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL VS. JORDAN BRADSHAW
MSC15-00906
Jul 24, 2017
Ed Weil
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.
MARY JOHNSTON V. REGINA ARTIAGA
18CECG00708
Oct 22, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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
HARRY LOVELAND, ET AL. VS. SOL DEL CIELO, LLC, ET AL.
TC029123
Nov 06, 2018
Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna
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.
BARBATA VS VENTURA COUNTY
56-2017-00496531-CU-OE-VTA
Nov 14, 2017
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
NIRMAL S. SEHMBEY, ET AL. VS AMARJIT SINGH MARWAH
20STCV07262
Jan 08, 2024
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.)
BRETT STRADER VS LAFAYETTE ORINDA
MSC20-00238
Jun 25, 2020
Steve K. Austin
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.
AASIR AZZARMI VS WENDY CHAU, ET AL.
19TRCV00759
Jan 02, 2020
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
SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS SEVEN SATELLITE PTY LTD, ET AL.
19STCV13245
Jun 26, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
MIKAIL KHASHAN VS JOHN SUDUL ET AL
BC641485
Apr 03, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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
LIN WANG ET AL VS. ZHICHENG XUE ET AL
CGC14540872
Apr 03, 2015
San Francisco County, CA
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.
GARCIA VS. LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
30-2018-00969189-CU-CR-CJC
Oct 02, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.)
EXCLUSIVELY AT COMMERCE VS TO, WILSON
16K11923
Feb 23, 2017
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
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.)
SMITH VS LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
37-2019-00065019-CU-DF-CTL
Oct 01, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
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.
LAYCOOK V. PRICE
17CECG01472
Oct 23, 2017
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
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]].)
DEBTOR IN POSSESSION DDC GROUP INC VS LUIS ANTHONY RIOS ET A
BC717004
Nov 20, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.
RODOLFO QUIROZ VS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
19STCV00308
May 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
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.
DANIEL M GEETING AS TRUSTEE OF THE GEETING FAMILY TRUST DATED OCTOBER 19 1998 VS. MICHAEL G VOIGHT
56-2016-00482273-CU-OR-VTA
Apr 19, 2017
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
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.
STEWART LUCAS MURREY VS JENNEY LEE
19SMCV01861
May 03, 2022
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.
ELEBYAY VS GRAJEK
37-2018-00034871-CU-NP-CTL
Jan 30, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
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.
AASIR AZZARMI VS WENDY CHAU, ET AL.
19TRCV00759
Jul 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
LESLIE GOULD, ET AL VS. JOEL D. KETTLER, ET AL
LC101909
Nov 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
CLUBHOUSE MEDIA GROUP, INC VS. KETTERING
30-2021-01188063
May 17, 2021
Orange County, CA
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.
AKOIDU V. HOVANNISIAN
16CECG02643
Aug 28, 2017
Fresno County, CA
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)).
MUIR DDS VS NATHAN J HORNSBY DDS INC
37-2023-00003658-CU-BC-CTL
Jun 23, 2023
San Diego County, CA
First and Second Causes of Action – Slander, Libel, Defamation “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.)
KARYS DALSOOK MA VS JOONG KUN AHN ET AL
BC625692
Jan 18, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
NADEEM MICHAEL AQLEH VS DOUG BATCHELOR
34-2011-00101407-CU-DF-GDS
Oct 20, 2011
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
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.
SANDRA E. VIERA VILLELA VS WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV44389
Jul 26, 2023
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.
EDWARD H. LIVINGSTON, MD VS AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
22STCV09441
Aug 16, 2022
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.
DANIEL M GEETING AS TRUSTEE OF THE GEETING FAMILY TRUST DATED OCTOBER 19 1998 VS. MICHAEL G VOIGHT
56-2016-00482273-CU-OR-VTA
Apr 25, 2017
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
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.)
GARY LEFKOWITZ VS KHALED A. TAWNSEY, ET AL.
19BBCV00276
Jan 03, 2020
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.
CYNTHIA LOPEZ VS. KENNETH LOPEZ
BC669038
Jul 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Defamation—Slander/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.
JIANHUA JIN VS YIYANG LIU
KC070601
Dec 03, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
TRI NGUYEN HUYNH BAO AKA JOHN TRI NGUYEN VS HOANG KIEU ET AL
22STCV16883
Aug 10, 2022
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.)
LIPPMAN VS HAFTER
37-2016-00035332-CL-DF-CTL
Jan 18, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
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.)
LIPPMAN VS HOPE
37-2016-00035326-CL-DF-CTL
Jan 18, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
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.
GAMA VS OXNARD UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
56-2013-00442427-CU-WT-VTA
Feb 18, 2014
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
LYLE HOWRY VS REGINALD MYLABATHULA BENJAMIN, ET AL.
20VECV00727
Jan 12, 2021
Los Angeles 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.)
VALBUENA VS OVERTON
CVPS2200698
May 29, 2022
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.)
VALBUENA VS OVERTON
CVPS2200698
May 31, 2022
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.)
VALBUENA VS OVERTON
CVPS2200698
May 28, 2022
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.)
VALBUENA VS OVERTON
CVPS2200698
May 30, 2022
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.
WOSOUGHKIA VS. RAHGOSHAY
30-2018-01010874-CU-PO-CJC
Feb 28, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
AMANDA VS DANESHINA
56-2016-00482677-CU-OR-VTA
May 31, 2017
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
Defamation—Libel; 2. Defamation—Libel Per Se; 3. Defamation—Slander 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.
ELDER CHINCHILLA, ET AL. VS BRYAN SORIANO, ET AL.
20STCV27732
Aug 02, 2021
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. ...
GARCIA VS ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS
MSC20-00710
Oct 30, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
SUMMIT MEDIA LLC VS VIVI STAFFORD ET AL
BC621345
Mar 20, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
WOODHILL VENTURES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A BIG SUGAR BAKESHOP VS BEN YANG
19BBCV00929
Jul 29, 2022
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.
RODOLFO QUIROZ VS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
19STCV00308
May 28, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
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.)
MORGAN CAIN VS BRIDGET L. JONES
23STCV24677
Jan 31, 2024
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.
MICHAEL B SCHWAB VS LEONARD STEINER ET AL
BC573709
Oct 16, 2017
Los Angeles 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.
AASIR AZZARMI VS WENDY CHAU, ET AL.
19TRCV00759
Jul 22, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ROSHELL VS GREER STEPHAN
37-2023-00012782-CU-DF-CTL
Aug 25, 2023
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.
SANTA MONICA KOREAN CHURCH OF CHRIST ET AL VS JAE SUNG KWAK
BC653209
Jan 25, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
STEPHEN DEUXIER VS. INFORMATICA LLC, ET AL
CGC20587254
Feb 17, 2021
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.
GERARDO ENRIQUE GONZALEZ QUINTERO VS L A UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST
BC617320
Aug 17, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
SDPB HOLDINGS LLC VS. ROBERT EMERICK
37-2017-00016019-CU-BT-CTL
Apr 12, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.
SDPB HOLDINGS LLC VS. ROBERT EMERICK
37-2017-00016019-CU-BT-CTL
Oct 26, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.
HAMAKER VS. DIGNITY HEALTH, MERCY MEDICAL
SCRDCVCV19-0192046-000
Jul 29, 2019
Shasta County, CA
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.
BAILLIE BARNETT VS EXTREME AIR, LLC ET AL
20CV01889
Feb 02, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.)
RODOLFO QUIROZ VS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
19STCV00308
Nov 18, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
JOCELYN ALMEIDA VS MELANAT RAFIEI
18STLC14522
Jul 01, 2021
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.
SEAN DAVIS VS SAQUENTA WILLIAMS
18STLC14325
Feb 20, 2019
James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang
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.
MASON V. LINDSETH-OLSON, ET AL.
30-2021-01184194
Aug 27, 2021
Orange County, CA
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)
MALINKA MOYE VS. RED OAK REALTY
CGC05445998
Mar 05, 2008
San Francisco County, CA
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).
K. GHIASSI, ET AL VS M. BAGHERI
2015-1-CV-278059
Aug 05, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
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.
SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS KEVIN RYAN BEHRENDT, ET AL.
19STCV11008
Oct 30, 2023
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
AMY HELLER VS SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT INC ET AL
BC602284
Feb 27, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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
TAJ JACKSON ET AL VS RADAR ONLINE LLC
BC628510
Jan 05, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.).)
ALEJANDRA MORENO VS MARIA ARROYO
21VECV01072
Sep 19, 2022
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.)
JINGMING CAI, ET AL. V. FUZU LI
21CV377636
Sep 02, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
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.
RAYMOND R. HUFF VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL
CGC08483188
Sep 10, 2009
San Francisco County, CA
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (DEFAMATION—SLANDER 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.
SARA MITCHELL VS POMONA COLLEGE
KC069037
May 18, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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).
CHRISTOPHER A THOMAS ET AL VS COMMUNITY LIFEPORT SYSTEMS ET
BC624457
Aug 23, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
"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.)
DANA NEIBERT VS. CHRISTIAN LAROE
37-2018-00023474-CU-DF-CTL
Sep 04, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Defamation
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.
JLS DEVELOPMENT GROUP VS SWAUGER HEARING RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COMPLAINT OF JLS DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC BY CATHLEEN MARMON, MICHAEL MARMON
PSC1800925
Oct 27, 2020
Riverside County, CA
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
SANTA MONICA KOREAN CHURCH OF CHRIST ET AL VS JAE SUNG KWAK
BC653209
Jul 27, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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
SANTA MONICA KOREAN CHURCH OF CHRIST ET AL VS JAE SUNG KWAK
BC653209
Mar 22, 2018
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) 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
AMY HELLER VS SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT INC ET AL
BC602284
Feb 26, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
YONG WU VS JULIAN FONG, ET AL.
22AHCV00376
Oct 10, 2022
day s
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.
KUNKEL VS. NASH-KUNKEL
30-2017-00904056-CU-MC-CJC
Aug 21, 2017
Orange County, CA
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.)
FRED FONTANA VS FIRST AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
BC658141
Mar 06, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
JOHN DOE V. MARCELLA FOSSELLA, ET AL.
18CV334161
Apr 25, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.