What is defamation?

Useful Resources for Defamation

Recent Rulings on Defamation

201-225 of 4480 results

SUPERIOR COURT VS. MIRANDA WINES

Civil Rules of Court, Rule 3.714(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2)(C). 9"The periods prescribed for the commencement of actions other than for the recovery of real property, are as follows: . . . . .One year; (c) Libel, slander, . . . . .” the amended complaint does not sufficiently relate-back to the original complaint, so the cause of action for the added claim would accrue from October 17, 2018, when the report was published. II. Analysis.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH V. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s complaint includes four causes of action, for (1) defamationlibel, (2) defamationlibel per se, (3) false light, and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleges that he is an imam, and past visitor at the California Men’s Colony (CMC) prison facility in San Luis Obispo County. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have conspired to label him as an “ex-convict” in order to prevent his visits with various inmates at CMC.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 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

    Oct 28, 2020

NICHOLAS BUTTA VS BILLIE LEE SGROI-PROFFITT

Discussion Proposed Amendment Plaintiff seeks to add three causes of action to his complaint: defamation, public disclosure of private facts, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The proposed amendment will also include additions to his statement of facts to include additional background information regarding Plaintiff and Defendant’s relationship and history, as well as allegations related to the ongoing defamation and harassment campaign against Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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Although originally enacted with reference to defamation actions alone (see Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 1157, 1163-1164 [232 Cal.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

    Oct 28, 2020

WILL LOVETT VS THE BAY CLUBS COMPANY, LLC, ET AL.

On May 7, 2020, Plaintiff Will Lovett (Plaintiff) filed suit against the Bay Clubs Company, LLC, Jill Miller, and Tony Allegre (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) employment discrimination; (2) harassment; (3) retaliation; (4) failure to prevent/remedy discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; (5) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; (6) defamation; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) retaliation in violation of the Labor Code; and (9) failure to permit inspection or copying

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CRAIG ROSS, ET AL. VS SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, ET AL.

PARTY: Plaintiffs Craig Ross and Natalie Operstein TENTATIVE RULING The hearing is continued to _______________________ and requests the parties provide a supplemental brief from the Defendants, and a reply from the Plaintiffs addressing the following: The Court tentatively agrees the allegations that support the elements of the 5th cause of action for negligent misrepresentation and constructive fraud, the 8th cause of action for defamation, the 9th cause of action for fraud and deceit all arise solely out

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

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

BACKGROUND: This is an action 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. Plaintiffs are David G. Bertrand (“Bertrand”) and his business manager, Dorothy Churchill-Johnson (“Churchill-Johnson”). Defendant is Jessica Berry (“Berry”). Berry lived in an apartment owned by Bertrand and occasionally assisted him with his rental properties.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

DARLA WALTERS VS LEE AIR COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

violation of FEHA, (6) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) breach of express oral contract not to terminate employment without good cause, (8) breach of implied-in-fact contract not to terminate employment without good cause, (9) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, (10) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (11) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, (12) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (13) violation of the CFRA, and (14) defamation

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

AGUILERA SERVICE VS. STABEN BROTHERS INC

There is no dispute that, if untrue, the statement which defendants published to the effect that Aguilera's employees were caught trying to steal trash containers belonging to defendants constitutes slander per se. (Civ. Code, § 46(1).) Defendants' motion is premised on the argument that there is no material dispute the statement was true. The truth or falsity of a defamatory statement – here, an accusation of theft – is a factual question. (Fisher v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

ISHMAEL TEMPLE VS DELL BECKHAM JR ET AL

Puryear, Parveen Haque Sikder, David Davillier, and Does 1- 50 for: (1) negligence; (2) assault; (3) battery; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (6) negligent hiring, supervision/retention of employee; (7) tortious interference with business relations; (8) defamation; and (9) false light. On July 18, 2018, Defendants filed an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike the eighth and ninth causes of action in the FAC.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

MR BUILD HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY D.B.A. MR BUILD SOLAR ELECTRIC VS CALIN KEELEY

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BURNEY V. ERB

The 1st amended complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to establish all HOA members have standing to recover for defendant Ott’s slander of the title to plaintiff Bowmans property.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

SANDRA CORTEZ VS TRT HOLDINGS INC. A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Code, § 12900 et seq.) for retaliation, sexual harassment, sexual and racial discrimination, failure to investigate and prevent harassment and retaliation, as well as her common law claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation, are all ‘employment-related disputes’ within the meaning of the above arbitration clause, and therefore clearly are covered disputes subject to the arbitration agreement.”].)

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

STEVEN POWERS VS MARCOS VIVIAN, ET AL.

The FAC alleges causes of action as follows: (1) fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, concealment and constructive fraud against Vivian and Pacific View, (2) elder abuse against Vivian, Pacific View and Vicino, (3) breach of fiduciary duty against Vivian, Pacific View and Vicino, (4) fraudulent transfer against all defendants, (5) breach of contract against Vivian, (6) slander of title against all defendants, (7) unfair business practices against all defendants, and (8) unjust enrichment

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ESTRELLA A. AGUINALDO, ET AL. VS ERNESTO A. ABAD, ET AL.

Slander of Title; 4. Cancellation of Written Instrument. Plaintiffs move for an order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against defendants Ernesto A. Abad and Rosita C. Aba. Alternatively, Plaintiffs move for summary adjudication of issues. Issues 1 to 4 seek adjudication of the four specific causes of action. Plaintiffs’ motion is based on the ground that Defendants’ have no defense to Plaintiffs’ causes of action because Defendants violated the one form of action rule of CCP § 726.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

YULIYA GAYEVSKA VS ZINC FINANCIAL, INC.

Slander of Title For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure, and therefore has necessarily failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for slander of title. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s twelfth cause of action is sustained, with leave to amend. It is so ordered. Dated: , 2020 Hon. Jon R.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BRADFORD VS MEDIANEWS GROUP, I

Defendant argues that Plaintiff applies the general standard for “malice” defined in Civil Code § 3294 to his defamation case. The Supreme Court in Khawar v. Globe Internat. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 254, a defamation case, imposed a more stringent standard. The Court held that “actual malice” “means that the defamatory statement was made ‘with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’ [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

TURNER V. BIGGS

Plaintiff filed her complaint for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress on January 27, 2020. Defendant has not filed a cross-complaint. On August 17, 2020, defendant Maria Dwyer Biggs filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case (“Notice”). The Notice indicates that the parties entered into a settlement agreement and that a request for dismissal would be filed no later than November 15, 2020. Plaintiff argues that the Notice was wrongfully filed by defendant Biggs.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Judge

    Richard J

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

RAMADAN VS O'BRIEN

Slander of Title—Lis Pendens; 2. Slander of Title—Representations; 3. Inducing Breach of Contract; 4. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; 5. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; 6. Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; and 7. Violation of California Civil Code section 1708.7. The present motion is a demurrer brought by plaintiff/cross-defendant Ramadan to the SAXC.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

CLAUDIO ZAMPOLLI VS TRISTRAM THOMAS BUCKLEY

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant alleging causes of action for: (1) assault and battery; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) slander per se; and (4) elder abuse in violation of California Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 15600 et seq. Moving Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. Moving Defendant’s motion is made on the grounds that there are no triable issues of material fact as to any of Plaintiff’s claims.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

MICHAEL NAJARIAN VS AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on June 6, 2018, alleging five causes of action for: (1) wrongful and/or constructive termination and employment practices in violation of public policy; (2) violation of Labor Code § 6310; (3) violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (4) violation of Health and Safety Code § 1278.5; and (5) defamation. Defendant filed a demurrer to the Complaint that came to hearing on June 19, 2019, at which time, the court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

LAMPLEY V. A COMMUNITY OF FRIENDS, INC.

Fourth Cause of Action (Libel and Slander): “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.]

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

AURIC ENERGY VS. RANGEL

Based on the foregoing, the Court it appears the demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action for Trespass to Land, the Fifth Cause of Action for Slander of Title, the Sixth Cause of Action to Quiet Title, and the Thirteenth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief, which involve claims for Auric Energy, Inc. should be sustained for lack of standing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 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.