Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2021-00006529-CU-MC-NC, Date: 2023-11-21 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 26, 2023

10/27/2023  10:00:00 AM  N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other SLAPP / SLAPPback Motion Hearing 37-2021-00006529-CU-MC-NC LEAHY VS MOLINA-WILLIAMS [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 08/04/2023

The Special Motion to Strike (Anti-SLAPP) brought by defendant Joshua Cameron (Mr. Cameron) is DENIED.

The Request for Judicial Notice brought by Mr. Cameron is disposed as follows pursuant to Evidence Code § 451, et seq.: Request No. 1: Granted Request No. 2: Granted Request No. 3: Granted Request No. 4: Denied, because it is a point of law, not an evidentiary fact As articulated in the case of Rivero v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 913 and implemented and approved by the California Supreme Court in the case of FilmOn.Com Inc. v. DoubleVerificy Inc.. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133, whether or not speech or conduct falls within the 'public issue' or 'issue of public interest' definition set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(e) generally depends on whether it falls into any of the following three categories: (1) a person or entity in the public eye; (2) conduct that could directly affect a large number of people beyond the direct participants; or (3) a topic of widespread, public interest.' (Burke, Anti-SLAPP Litigation (The Rutter Group, 2023) § 3:122, citing Rivero, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at 924.) The complaint at issue contains 104 pages of allegations and is made up of 192 paragraphs, many of which contain significant and lengthy sub-paragraphs. In moving to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, Mr. Cameron has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate which of the 192 paragraphs (not to mention which of their sub-paragraphs) are subject to the protections of the anti-SLAPP statute. (See Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376; see also Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(e).) Assuming arguendo that Mr. Cameron had met this burden of establishing which allegations are subject to constitutional protections, he has also failed to demonstrate that communications between members of the Veteran's Caucus within the larger California Democratic Party warrant special protection against liability for defamation because the communications here about plaintiff Robert Leahy do not involve a person or entity that is 'in the public eye,' do not directly affect a large number of people beyond the direct participants, and, being largely about the actions of one man and his connection to the inner workings of the Veteran's Caucus, are not about matters of widespread, public interest. Finally, there does not appear to be a 'functional relationship' between the challenged activity (the circulating of letters about Plaintiff) and discussion of a public issue (such as veteran's rights).

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3040630 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  LEAHY VS MOLINA-WILLIAMS [IMAGED]  37-2021-00006529-CU-MC-NC Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3040630