What is defamation?

Useful Resources for Defamation

Recent Rulings on Defamation

176-200 of 4480 results

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

JENNIFER ADAMS VS WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., ET AL.

filed her complaint against WDPR, DWWS, TWDC, and Rona Kay (“Kay”) alleging causes of action for violations (1) employment discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) FEHA failure to accommodate, (3) FEHA failure to engage in timely and good faith interactive process, (4) FEHA harassment, (5) FEHA retaliation, (6) failure to prevent/remedy discrimination and/or retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), and (9) defamation

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

TRISTAN THOMPSON VS KIMBERLY ALEXANDER

Plaintiff Tristan Thompson filed this action against Defendant Kimberly Alexander on May 18, 2020, alleging one cause of action for libel based on representations that Defendant made that Plaintiff is the father of her five-year-old son. Plaintiff contends DNA test results revealed he is not the father. On June 28, 2020 Plaintiff served Defendant with the summons and complaint by personal service. On July 30, 2020 the clerk entered default against Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

CHAD PADILLA VS LIMITLESS TRADING CO., LLC., A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Complaint states a single cause of action for defamation. The Complaint arises out of a series of lawsuits involving Plaintiff and Defendants. The Complaint alleges that in November 2019, Defendants made meritless and false allegations against Padilla, including false allegations of the unauthorized practice of law, verbal threats against Defendants and attempting to extort money from Defendants. These false allegations were put in writing by filing an action against Padilla.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

GILBERT GARCIA VS SERJ TANKIAN, ET AL.

Third Cause of Action for 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.” (J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Phillips & Cohen LLP (2016) 247 Cal. App. 4th 87, 97). Plaintiff alleges no facts to allege any of these elements against Lions Gate.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

LILY CHOU, AN INDIVIDUAL VS. VITUS F SUEN

The original Complaint was filed on January 30, 2018, and the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed May 09, 2018, alleging causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (2) Constructive Fraud; (3) Breach of Contract; (4) Negligence; (5) Tortious Interference with Contract; (6) Defamation; and (7) Accounting. On June 15, 2018, Cross-Complainants Vitus F.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

GARRETT D. LEEVERS VS NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.

COA 9: Trade Libel The Court previously sustained the demurrer to the trade libel cause of action with leave to amend. The trade libel claim was originally the tenth and last cause of action in the cross-complaint. The Court finds that Cross-Defendants have alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action for trade libel. Therefore, the demurrer is overruled as to the ninth cause of action. Motion to Strike A.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

RITA ORTIZ VS OSCAR RUVALCABA, ET AL.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) arises from alleged wrongful actions as to real property located at 6430 Arlington Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90043 (the “Property”), and alleges: (1) actual fraud; (2) breach of oral contract; (3) specific performance; (4) interference with prospective economic advantage; (5) tortious interference with contract; (6) defamation; and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JACOB DEWITT VS DAVID JOSEPH BURTON, ET AL

App. 3d 1082, 1087 (finding easement occupiers extinguished the easement because their use of the easement area “was wholly inconsistent with the right of the [easement holders] to use it at will for entry upon their property . . . .”). 4th cause of action for slander of title The elements for slander of title are (1) publication, (2) falsity, (3) absence of privilege, and (4) disparagement of another’s land which is relied upon by a third party and which results in a pecuniary loss. Appel v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MALIK M AZHAR VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC

Demurrer is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend. 3rd CAUSE OF ACTION DEFAMATION: The tort of defamation involves (a) a publication that is (b) false, (c) defamatory, and (d) unprivileged, and that (e) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage. (CC §§ 45, 46; see Smith v. Maldonado, 72 Cal. App. 4th 637, 645 (1999); Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp., 97 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

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

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GARY R. WISNER, M.D. VS DIGNITY HEALTH ET AL.

The plaintiff’s defamation claim was based on the hospital’s report to the NPDB. (Id.) The trial court sustained the defendant’s demurrer, and the Court of Appeal affirmed in part, holding that the physician’s defamation claim could not survive because the defendant’s report to the NPDB was privileged. (Id. at 372.) Defendant also cites two other cases where reports to the Medical Board (rather than the NPDB) were held to be privileged under section 47(b). (Dorn v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

MOORE VS. MOORE

Sixth cause of action for slander of title: Under California law, a claim for slander of title has four elements: (1) “a publication;” (2) “which is without privilege or justification and thus with malice, express or implied;” (3) “is false, either knowingly so or made without regard to its truthfulness;” and (4) “causes direct and immediate pecuniary loss.” (Howard v. Schaniel (1980) 113 Cal. App. 3d 256, 263; Manhattan Loft, LLC v. Mercury Liquors, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal. App. 4th 1040, 1051.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2020

LEE VS. KIM

There was an act of libel against plaintiff by some or all of defendants and each of them by virtue of the published ads and Bulletin Board Posting; 2. There was an act of slander per se against plaintiff by some or all of defendant and each of them by virtue of utterances made by some or all of defendants herein implying that plaintiff committed a criminal act of embezzlement; 3.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2020

GARCIA VS ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS

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. ...

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

SYLVIA VERONICA SCOTT VS BURBANK UNITIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Plaintiff filed her Complaint on March 14, 2019, alleging two causes of action for (1) Wrongful Termination and (2) Defamation. Defendant filed an Answer on May 23, 2019. PRESENTATION: Defendant filed the Motion to Compel Requests for Production on July 14, 2020. No opposition or reply was received by the Court. Defendant filed the Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories on July 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition on October 16, 2020, and Defendant filed a reply on October 23, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALEXANDER RAMLIE, ET AL. VS HANNAH ASHBY, ET AL.

The Cross-Complaint asserts causes of action for: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Defamation; and Extortion (California Penal Code Sections 518, 519). On August 23, 2019, the Court sustained the demurrer to the entire Cross-Complaint without leave to amend. On October 1, 2020 Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for an Order to Show Cause on Preliminary Injunction.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ESTEBAN MONTENEGRO VS FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

The copy of the FACC attached to the motion to set aside set forth three causes of action, for Violation of California Civil Code § 2624.17, Wrongful Foreclosure, and Slander of Title. The FACC efiled with the court and served on the parties added a fourth cause of action for quiet title and fifth cause of action for declaratory relief. On July 26, 2019, the court heard demurrers to the FACC filed by cross-defendant Everyday Rich and cross-defendants Bank of America, N.A. and Recontrust Co., N.A.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

ALEXANDER RAMLIE, ET AL. VS HANNAH ASHBY, ET AL.

The Cross-Complaint asserts causes of action for: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Defamation; and Extortion (California Penal Code Sections 518, 519). On August 23, 2019, the Court sustained the demurrer to the entire Cross-Complaint without leave to amend. On October 1, 2020 Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for an Order to Show Cause on Preliminary Injunction.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LILY CHOU, AN INDIVIDUAL VS. VITUS F SUEN

The original Complaint was filed on January 30, 2018, and the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed May 09, 2018, alleging causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (2) Constructive Fraud; (3) Breach of Contract; (4) Negligence; (5) Tortious Interference with Contract; (6) Defamation; and (7) Accounting. On June 15, 2018, Cross-Complainants Vitus F.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

SUPERIOR COURT VS. BHUPINDAR BOB SINGH DHILLON

Plaintiffs filed the operative Complaint against defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) DefamationLibel [against all defendants]; (2) DefamationLibel Per Se [against all defendants]; (3) False Light [against all defendants]; (4) Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations [by plaintiff Chahal against all defendants]; and (5) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations [by Plaintiffs against all defendants].

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

BRENDAN THOMPSON VS ENFANTS RICHES DEPRIMES LLC ET AL

Code § 12940); (12) Defamation; (13) Failure to Pay Overtime (Lab. Code § 1194); (14) Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods (Lab. Code § 226.7); (15) Failure to Furnish Timely and Accurate Wage Statements (Lab. Code § 226); (16) Failure to Make Payment Within Required Time (Lab. Code § 245); (17) Failure to Provide Paid Sick Leave (Lab. Code § 245); (18) Breach of Contract. On October 16, 2019, the court consolidated BC715580 and 19STCV06149, designating BC715580 as the lead case.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

SILHAN VS SAN JOAQUIN

Triable issues of material fact exist as to Plaintiff’s causes of action for slander (UMF 26-27), intentional interference with prospective economic relations (UMF 43-44, 48 and 51) and claim for punitive damages. (UMF 27, 59-63.) Overrule Defendants’ Objection No. 2 to Plaintiff’s Declaration; Decline to rule on the remainder of Defendants’ objections as immaterial.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 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.