What is defamation?

Useful Resources for Defamation

Recent Rulings on Defamation

151-175 of 4477 results

LOGAN VS STEADFAST HILLTOP

Next, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s defamation claim is barred because Defendants used reasonable care to ensure the accuracy of their statement. In order to prevail on a defamation claim, the plaintiff must show “that defendants failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity.” (Hecimovich, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at 470.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

INCEPTION ALTANOVA, LLC VS NORTH STAR HOLDINGS, INC.

The second cause of action is by Richard Acosta, and Eric Clarke for defamation against John D. Kaweske. The third and fourth causes of action are for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage by all Plaintiffs against all Defendants. Legal standard A special motion to strike “may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

FIRST SECURE EQUITY LLC, ET AL. VS 2304 SAWTELLE LLC, ET AL.

Although section 47, subdivision (2) is in the defamation chapter, it “applies to virtually all other causes of action, with the exception of an action for malicious prosecution.” [Citations omitted.] Many courts, including this division [citations omitted.] ), have specifically applied section 47, subdivision (2) to bar abuse of process actions. [Fn. omitted.].” (Abraham v. Lancaster Community Hospital (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 796, 824.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CONSTANCE JONES, ET AL. VS TODD STEVENSON, ET AL.

Although originally enacted with reference to defamation actions alone (see Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 1157, 1163-1164 [232 Cal. Rptr. 567, 728 P.2d 1202]), the privilege has been extended to any communication, whether or not it is a publication, and to all torts other than malicious prosecution. ( Rubin v. Green (1993) 4 Cal. 4th 1187, 1193-1194 [17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 828, 847 P.2d 1044]; Silberg v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

GLORIA WEISCHADLE VS LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT CHARBONEAU, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Fraud – Concealment and Willful Suppression of Material Evidence; Evidence Tampering; Witness Tampering; Civil Conspiracy; Conspiracy In-Concert; Aiding and Abetting; Defamation; False Representation; Intentional Infliction of Emotional, Physical, and Mental Distress; Gross Negligence; and Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

FIRST SECURE EQUITY LLC, ET AL. VS 2304 SAWTELLE LLC, ET AL.

Although section 47, subdivision (2) is in the defamation chapter, it “applies to virtually all other causes of action, with the exception of an action for malicious prosecution.” [Citations omitted.] Many courts, including this division [citations omitted.] ), have specifically applied section 47, subdivision (2) to bar abuse of process actions. [Fn. omitted.].” (Abraham v. Lancaster Community Hospital (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 796, 824.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ALEXANDRO FILIPPINI V. JEAN AVRICK

Plaintiff maintains that the statement is false and defamatory and, on December 13, 2019, filed his complaint for defamation against defendant. Motion: Defendant moves for an order compelling further responses to 14 requests for production of documents. Plaintiff opposes the motion. The dispute is not over production of documents but whether they should be produced pursuant to a protective order. (One exception is discussed below.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

DAVID G. BERTRAND, ET AL. V. JESSICA BERRY

Bertrand and Dorothy Churchill-Johnson filed their complaint against defendant Jessica Berry for 1) libel, 2) defamation per se, 3) intrusion, 4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, 5) unfair business practices, 6) elder abuse, 7) quantum meruit, and 8) unjust enrichment/restitution. The court entered Berry’s default. Later, the court granted Berry’s motion for relief from default.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

CARLOS OCHOA VS EMPLOYBRIDGE HOLDING COMPANY DBA SELECT FAMILY OF STAFFING COMPANIES, ET AL.

Such disputes may include but are not limited to claims due to, or under breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, slander, personal injury, wages, salary, wrongful termination, paid vacation, paid sick leave, overtime pay . . . (Guerra Decl. Exh. A; Alcantra Decl., Exh. at p. 3.) Based on the foregoing, Moving Defendants uphold the burden to show the existence of an agreement to arbitrate by a preponderance of the evidence. (Espejo v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A CHARTERED COUNTY AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; VS JUAN ORDORICA, ET AL.

App. 4th at 761-62, plaintiffs filed an action against Orange County asserting that the Orange County Sheriff’s Department had committed defamation, conversion, spoliation of evidence, and various civil rights violations during its investigation into the disappearance and death of the plaintiffs’ child. The plaintiffs propounded discovery on the county requesting, in effect, the sheriff’s entire investigative file relating to the murder. Id. at 762.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ERIC DUFFY VS ADAM HAVENER

Accordingly, because the Court finds that Havener has demonstrated that some portion of the defamation and IIED claims are based on protected activity, the burden now shifts to Duffy to show that both the defamation and IIED claims based on the protected activity are legally sufficient and factually substantiated.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

TRISTAR REALTY GROUP, LLC VS. KOURY ENGINEERING

Koury, Dave Menefee, and Jacques Bertrand Roy and against Plaintiffs on the causes of action for fraud, unjust enrichment, slander of title, and unlawful business practices. · For KGS and against Plaintiffs on all causes of action by Plaintiffs against KGS. · For Tristar and against KET on Tristar’s breach of contract claim in the amount of $12,512.84. · For Tristar and Ventura’s and against KET as to KET’s breach of contract claim.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DISCOVER BANK VS ABRAAM TSOLAKYAN

Plaintiff filed its initial Complaint on February 22, 2019, and thereafter filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on May 10, 2019, alleging ten causes of action for (1) Conversion, (2) Breach of Contract, (3) Property Damages, (4) Trespass to Chattel, (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (”IIED”), (6) Slander Per Se, (7) Libel, (8) Fraud, (9) ‘Tenacious’ Interference with Existing Contract, (10) Injunction – TRO. PRESENTATION: Defendant filed all three motions on October 08, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

TAYLOR JACKSON VS ANTHONY MISITANO, ET AL.

The Agreement applies, without limitation, to claims based upon or related to discrimination, harassment, retaliation, defamation (including post-employment defamation or retaliation), breach of a contract or covenant, fraud, negligence, personal injury, emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, trade secrets, unfair competition, wage or other compensation claimed to be owed, meals and rest periods, seating, termination, tort claims, equitable claims, and all statutory and common law claims unless specifically

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

TAYLOR JACKSON VS ANTHONY MISITANO, ET AL.

The Agreement applies, without limitation, to claims based upon or related to discrimination, harassment, retaliation, defamation (including post-employment defamation or retaliation), breach of a contract or covenant, fraud, negligence, personal injury, emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, trade secrets, unfair competition, wage or other compensation claimed to be owed, meals and rest periods, seating, termination, tort claims, equitable claims, and all statutory and common law claims unless specifically

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

VICENCIO V. SHIRAKI

Second cause of action for slander of title “The thrust of the tort of disparagement or slander of title is protection from injury to the salability of property.” (Truck Insurance Exchange v. Bennett (1977) 53 Cal.App.4th 75, 84.) “To state a claim for slander of title, a plaintiff must allege ‘(1) a publication, (2) which is without privilege or justification,’ (3) which is false, and (4) which ‘causes direct and immediate pecuniary loss.’ [Citation.]” (Schep v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

KEYA MORGAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, VS RICHARD SHEPP, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

On May 30, 2019, Plaintiff Key Morgan brought the instant defamation suit against Defendants Richard Shepp, Leon Youngblood, Winston Francis, Peewee Calderon, Kharmisa Valenzuela, Daphne Ramillano. The FAC alleges that Plaintiff was a long-time associate and partner of the late Stan Lee of Marvel Comics. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were security guards or caregivers hired to assist/protect Lee.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

OLIVIA VAATETE VS ZETA GRAFF

Plaintiff asserts a claim for defamation. The Complaint alleges the following: Defendant became romantically involved with an individual (“Mr. X”) who had been romantically involved with Plaintiff prior to his relationship with Defendant. (Complaint ¶ 5.) Defendant erroneously believed that Mr. X was having a sexual relationship with Plaintiff during the entire course of Defendant’s relationship with Mr. X. (Complaint ¶ 7.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MICHAEL L. WHITFIELD, SR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PASTOR OF NEW TRUE FAITH MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT C VS AUBREY MANUEL, ET AL.

Defamation (Slander) Slander is defined by California Civil Code § 46 as “a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which: [¶] 1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime: [¶] 2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease; [¶] 3.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MICHAEL BLUMENKRANTZ VS BB LAW GROUP, LLP, ET AL.

Plaintiff sues for misappropriation, invasion of privacy, defamation and conversion. Defendants move to strike under Cal. Civ. Code §425.16. Analysis Courts resolving an anti-SLAPP motion under Cal. Civ. Code §425.16 follow a two-step process. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 733. In prong one, the court determines whether the conduct underlying plaintiff’s cause of action arises from defendant’s constitutional rights of free speech or petition. Baral v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

OLIVIA VAATETE VS ZETA GRAFF

Plaintiff asserts a claim for defamation. The Complaint alleges the following: Defendant became romantically involved with an individual (“Mr. X”) who had been romantically involved with Plaintiff prior to his relationship with Defendant. (Complaint ¶ 5.) Defendant erroneously believed that Mr. X was having a sexual relationship with Plaintiff during the entire course of Defendant’s relationship with Mr. X. (Complaint ¶ 7.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SUZANNE RUELAS VS CITY OF BALDWIN PARK, ET AL.

Fourteenth Cause of Action: Defamation a. Sufficiency of Allegations The essential elements of a cause of action for defamation include: (1) the intentional publication of a statement of fact; (2) the statement is false and unprivileged; and (3) the statement has a natural tendency to injure or which causes special damage. (Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1369.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ZRP GROUP LLC VS CHRIS TENNBERG

Plaintiff, ZRP Group, LLC dba GR33N Solutions filed this action against Defendant, Chris Tennberg dba Guerrilla Productions for libel, violation of right to name or likeness, conversion, and injunctive relief. Plaintiff filed its complaint on 4/16/20. The crux of the complaint is the allegation that Plaintiff employed Tennberg as an independent contractor to design and launch websites for its business, and subsequently employed Tennberg as an employee in similar capacity.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

PAN NU VS TU AUNG, ET AL.

On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Aung, San and Does 1-10 for: Sexual Battery Assault and Battery Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Defamation On July 23, 2020, this action was transferred from Department 28 of the Personal Injury Court to this department. A Status Conference is set for November 4, 2020. 1.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MATTHEW JACQUES VS THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALITY, ET AL.

D'Alessio Investments, LLC (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 383 [“The torts of trade libel and defamation are not encompassed by [Government Code] section 818.8 because they involve reputational harm for which the Legislature did not intend to grant immunity,” citation omitted].)

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 180     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.