What is defamation?

Useful Resources for Defamation

Recent Rulings on Defamation

LUCA FOSCHINI VS SHALINI ANANDA

Background: On February 14, 2019, plaintiff Luca Foschini filed his original complaint against defendant Shalini Ananda alleging causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation. The complaint identifies Channe G. Coles of the Law Office of Channe G. Coles as counsel for plaintiff Foschini. On April 24, 2019, without any response having been filed, Foschini filed his first amended complaint (FAC) alleging the same causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

FORESITE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT IV, LP V. ESFANDYARPOUR, ET AL.

Anesthesia Services Medical Group, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 480, 505 (stating that “alleged acts of defamation or disparagement could legitimately be considered to meet, for pleadings purposes, the standards for establishing ‘independent wrongfulness’ of interference”).) Lastly, cross-defendants’ latter argument that the XC fails to allege that they caused any harm to Genapsys ignores the allegations in paragraph 46 regarding Tananbaum.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

BELCHER, ET AL. V. DAKOTA NOTE LLC, ET AL.

. §§ 1601-1665 (1968), 12 CFR part 1024 § 1026; 3) Wrongful foreclosure; 4) Slander of title; 5) Intentional misrepresentation; 6) Negligence per se 7) Unfair business practices; 8) Breach of fiduciary duty; 9) Breach of contract; and, 10) Negligence.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

CRISTINA MAGANA VS SN SERVICING CORPORATION

Bank National Association, as trustee of the Lodge Series III Trust, Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association fka Washington Mutual Bank, the Law Offices of Ghidotti/Berger LLP, and Prestige Default Services, alleging: (1) slander of title; (2) accounting; (3) quiet title; (4) cancel trustee’s deed; (5) wrongful foreclosure; and (6) California Business and Professions Code section 17200.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

TULLY VS CHOUINARD

Plaintiff Tully sued Chouinard for defamation per se and four other causes of action based on numerous tweets by Chouinard critical of Tully. Chouinard successfully defeated the lawsuit via a special motion to strike. In this motion, Chouinard seeks to recover his fees and costs pursuant to CCP 425.16. A “prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs.” CCP 425.16(c).

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

TIFFANY KAMMERMAN- KRETZMER D.O. VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

No libel action lies even where the employer’s opinions about the employee’s performance are “objectively wrong and cannot be supported by reference to concrete, provable facts.” (Id. at 965.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

HANNA V. MICHAEL, ET AL.

A false and unprivileged publication that charges a person with crime or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime constitutes slander per se and there is no need to plead or prove actual damages. (Civ. Code § 46(1); Regalia v. The Nethercutt Collection (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 361, 367.) Similarly, when the defamatory meaning of a publication appears within the language itself without the need for explanation, it is libelous on its face and there is no need to plead special damage. (Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

JOSIE HARRIS VS FLOYD MAYWEATHER JR.

This defamation action arises from an interview Defendant did with Katie Couric wherein he stated he had to restrain Plaintiff because she was on drugs. This motion, which was originally heard on 9/22/20, seeks further responses to certain Requests for Admissions and Form Interrogatories served on 9/20/18 to which Plaintiff served responses on 12/21/18. As noted in the 9/22/20 Minute Order, Plaintiff’s attorney, Daniel A. Friedlander, filed a declaration indicating that Plaintiff died on 3/10/20.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

EMAD YOUNIS VS ROBERT MELGOZA, ET AL.

Relief, Breach of Contract (second and sixth causes of action), Conversion (third and ninth causes of action), Actual Fraud and Deceit (fourth and seventh causes of action), Constructive Fraud (fifth and eighth causes of action), Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Promissory Estoppel, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Defamatory Publication—Trade Libel

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SUNNY SUNNY HWANG VS LAUREN GUASTAVINO, ET AL.

Thus, the FAC adequately alleges special damages supporting a claim for defamation. The FAC does not allege defamation per se. The alleged defamatory statements neither expressly accuse Plaintiff of a crime nor implicate his profession as an attorney. (McGarry v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

BARRY PICKELL ET AL. V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ET AL.

“As a defense to Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for Defamation, Defendant alleges as follows: …” (5) [6:470] Challenging inadequate pleading: Plaintiff may demur to an answer on the ground of insufficient pleading of defenses (CCP § 430.20, see ¶ 7:35) (but this is rarely done). Alternatively, plaintiff may object on that ground to introduction of evidence at trial. (Hata v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Med. Ctr. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1791, 1804 [disapproved on other grounds by Quigley v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

JOSEPH BENARON ET AL VS JOHN CARDILINO ET AL

Plaintiffs state that they did not bring a cause of action for defamation against Frances Cardilino to interfere with her constitutional right to protected speech, but “to further demonstrate the extent of the harassment, disparaging statements and abusive behavior that plaintiffs have been subjected to over the last several years.” If that were the case, plaintiffs would have simply alleged the facts and not included the three counts of the defamation cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

FAWAZ ELMASRI VS JUSTIN PAUL RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

(FAXC ¶¶ 9, 10, 11 [incorporating paragraphs 9 and 10 into first cause of action for Abuse of Process], 18 [second cause of action for Slander of Title], 20 [third cause of action for Fraud and Deceit], 21.) In the opposition, Rodriguez does not attempt to distinguish O’Neil-Rosales or otherwise set forth any exception to the litigation privilege. Even if Elmasri were attempting to extort Rodriguez (FAXC ¶ 10), recording an abstract of judgment is still subject to an absolute privilege.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

GARY LEFKOWITZ VS KHALED A. TAWNSEY, ET AL.

The complaint, filed April 2, 2019, alleged causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) RICO; (4) slander; and (5) libel. The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed January 3, 2020, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) RICO; (4) extortion; (5) slander; (6) libel; (7) tortious interference with contract; (8) negligent interference with contract; (9) malpractice; (10) refusal of Dr.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JANSON V. SHINALL

(a)), they are typically awarded for intentional torts such as assault and battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, nuisance intentionally maintained, fraud, trespass, conversion, civil rights violations, insurer's breach of covenant of good faith, wrongful termination and job discrimination, and products liability cases. (See cases collected in 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, Torts, §§ 1349-1365, pp. 810-833.) In Cloud v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

HAWKES V. CHANG

(a)), they are typically awarded for intentional torts such as assault and battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, nuisance intentionally maintained, fraud, trespass, conversion, civil rights violations, insurer's breach of covenant of good faith, wrongful termination and job discrimination, and products liability cases. (See cases collected in 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, Torts, §§ 1349-1365, pp. 810-833.) In Cloud v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

JORGE ROBLES, ET AL. VS MARIBEL HINOJOSA

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Defamation: Libel Per Se [Pursuant to Civil Code § 45a]; Defamation: Slander [Pursuant to Civil Code § 46]; and Violation of Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. (Unfair Competition Law). On October 16, 2020, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint as an unlawful Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”) filed and for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

BYRNE V. ST. MARGARET’S EPISCOPAL SCHOOL

(FAC at Paras. 27 and 28.)[1] Plaintiffs’ 2nd C/A for defamation [not challenged by the instant demurrer] alleges: 39. … Because of ST. MARGARET'S reputation as an elite educational institution, its false statements about HUDSON were believed. 40. The statements about HUDSON were defamatory because they tended to portray him as person of low moral character and subject him to contempt, ridicule and shame and to discourage others, most importantly other private schools, from associating with him.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

GERALD ROBERTS VS. HOSPITALITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS

The Court SUSTAINS the general demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action for defamation WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The elements of the tort of defamation are: (a) a publication; (b) falsity; (c) defamatory; (d) lack of privilege; (e) a tendency or likelihood of causing special injury; and (f) damages. (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 775, 151 P.3d 1185.) The words of the allegedly defamatory publication must be stated with specificity, if not verbatim, in the complaint. (Gilbert v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GERALD ROBERTS VS. HOSPITALITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS

The Court SUSTAINS the general demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action for defamation WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The elements of the tort of defamation are: (a) a publication; (b) falsity; (c) defamatory; (d) lack of privilege; (e) a tendency or likelihood of causing special injury; and (f) damages. (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 775, 151 P.3d 1185.) The words of the allegedly defamatory publication must be stated with specificity, if not verbatim, in the complaint. (Gilbert v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CONENZA, INC. VS ENTERPRISEJUNGLE, INC.

First and Second Causes of Action: Libel Per Se and Trade Libel/Disparagement “ ‘Defamation is an invasion of the interest in reputation. The tort involves the intentional publication of a statement of fact which is false, unprivileged, and has a natural tendency to injure or which causes special damage.’ [Citation.]” (Gilbert v. Sykes (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 27.) Defamation has two forms, libel and slander. (Civ. Code § 44.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

KHACHIK EDWIN VS HAMID POUSTI, ET AL.

Cross-Complainants’ proposed SACC is attached to the Opposition, and is alleged to add significant relevant facts, as well as two causes of action for Usury and Defamation. Cross-Defendants Khachik, E.K. Entertainment, Inc., and Richie’s Auto Tech have not filed a reply and have not objected to the opposition’s requests or attachments. Cross-Complainants Emperor Entertainment, Inc. and Pousti have not filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Cross-Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KRISTI COURTOIS, , AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS BENEFICIARY AND HEIR OF THE ESTATE OF AUSTEENE G. COOPER VS NEWREZ, LLC., ET AL.

The California Supreme Court has recognized that this language applies to “personal torts that do not result in physical injury (e.g., malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, defamation).” (Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 288, 299.) Accordingly the demurrer to the twelfth cause of action is OVERRULED

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JANE DOE VS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, ET AL.

The operative FAC alleges ten causes of action against Defendants: (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) concealment, (3) false promise, (4) false imprisonment, (5) kidnapping, (6) stalking in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.7, (7) libel in violation of California Civil Code § 45, (8) slander in violation of California Civil Code § 46, (9) constructive invasion of privacy in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.8, (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HECTOR HERNANDEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

The operative FAC alleges ten causes of action against Defendants: (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) concealment, (3) false promise, (4) false imprisonment, (5) kidnapping, (6) stalking in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.7, (7) libel in violation of California Civil Code § 45, (8) slander in violation of California Civil Code § 46, (9) constructive invasion of privacy in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.8, (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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.