Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 23SMCV01442, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV01442, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01442 Hearing Date: March 7, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative ruling

Ammari v. Martinez et al., Case No. 23SMCV01442

Hearing Date March 7, 2024

Defendants Martinez, Crespo & Enamorado’s Special Motion to Strike (Anti-SLAPP Motion) the First Amended Complaint (FAC)

Plaintiff Ammari alleges defendants falsely accused him of human trafficking, child molestation and fraud in the presence of other people and via internet videos. Defendants argue the posts were protected speech and move to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute.

Evidentiary Objections: OVERRULED.

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. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 376, 395. This is a threshold issue—if moving party fails to show the conduct is constitutionally protected, the court need not address prong two. Jarrow, supra, 31 Cal.4th at 733.

When analyzing prong one, courts look to the complaint’s allegations to determine whether the action arises from protected activity. Central Valley Hospitalists v. Dignity Health (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 203, 217. A court cannot “insert into a pleading claims for relief based on allegations of activities that plaintiffs simply have not identified . . . it is not [a court’s] role to engage in what would amount to a redrafting of the [pleading] in order to read that document as alleging conduct that supports a claim that has not in fact been specifically alleged, and then assess whether the pleading that we have essentially drafted could survive the anti-SLAPP motion directed at it.” Id. at 281, citing Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 602, 621.

During the first phase of anti-SLAPP analysis, “the court is not limited to examining the allegations of the complaint alone but rather considers the pleadings and the factual material submitted in connection with the special motion to strike.” Contreras v. Dowling (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 394, 408. When resolving the first prong, a court may properly consider extrinsic evidence to determine the nature of the acts alleged. Id.

To fulfill the first prong, the complaint must be based on “written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §425.16. Publicly accessible internet websites are “public forums” under the statute. ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1006.

Under the second prong, the burden shifts to plaintiff to show a legally sufficient claim and to prove with admissible evidence a reasonable probability of prevailing. E.g., Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88. To fulfill prong two, plaintiff must produce evidence admissible at trial and not solely rely on the complaint’s allegations. HMS Capital, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 204, 212.

The FAC alleges defamatory statements were made “outside . . . in front of numerous third persons,” and via internet videos. The FAC does not identify specific websites where videos were posted, but Crespo states they were uploaded to Youtube and TikTok. Crespo decl. ¶2. Videos on Youtube and TikTok are generally accessible to the public, making those sites public forums. See Barrett v. Rosenthal (2006) 40 Cal.4th 33, 41 n. 4.

Alleged oral statements were also made in a public forum; the FAC alleges they were made “at or near 2100 E. Florence Ave., Huntington Park, California[.]” The court takes judicial notice under Cal. Evid. Code §452 that this is a public street, which is a public forum as a matter of law.

Both the videos and oral statements were made in public forums. To fulfil the first prong, defendants must also establish that they concerned an issue of public interest.

The FAC’s allegations provide little context about whether the accusations were matters of public interest or why the alleged defamatory statements were made. The court reviews the evidence presented.

Defendant Crespo identifies himself as an advocate for street vendors and states Ammari was harassing street vendor defendant Martinez. Crespo decl. ¶¶2, 4. Videos depicting interactions between Martinez and Ammari received thousands of views. Id. ¶¶3-4. Martinez argues this means comments he made about Ammari were related to matters of public interest.

When determining whether speech was uttered in connection with an issue of public interest, the court must determine the nature of the issue and “what functional relationship exists between the speech and the public conversation about some matter of public interest.” Bernstein v. LaBeouf (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 15, 19-20. Per Bernstein,“a private dispute does not become a matter of public interest simply because it was widely communicated to the public.” Id. at 24.

Defendant Enamorado argues street vendor safety was at the crux of the dispute between Martinez and Ammari, and, based on the number of views and the subject matter, the dispute is a matter of public interest. See Enamorado decl. ¶8.

However, defendants fail to show any connection between the Martinez/Ammari dispute and accusations of child molestation and trafficking that form the gravamen of the FAC. Crespo and Enamorado’s declarations identify a dispute between a property owner and a street vendor, in the context of the larger issue of street vendor safety, as the issue of public interest. The Enamorado declaration supports this conclusion, stating street vendors “are a vulnerable population who are often targeted,” and Ammari’s alleged harassment of a street vendor was an issue of public concern. Enamorado decl. ¶9.

There is no defined connection between street vendor safety and the alleged false accusations of criminal conduct. It is not clear how accusing Ammari of being a child molester and human trafficker contributes to or is related to a public discussion of street vendors’ rights and safety.

Per Bernstein, there must be a “functional relationship between the speech and the public conversation[.]” There is no functional connection between the defamatory remarks alleged in the FAC and the public conversation regarding street vendors identified in the anti-SLAPP motion. As the first anti-SLAPP prong is not met, the motion is DENIED.