Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV13705, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV13705 Hearing Date: September 27, 2022 Dept: 39
Kapish Haldia v.
Cody Mattingly
Case No.
22STCV13705
Special Motion to
Strike
NOTICE
The Court
posts this tentative on Sunday, September 25, 2022, in advance of the hearing
on Tuesday, September 27, 2022. Plaintiff
objects to the Court’s consideration of the electronic chat between Plaintiff
and Defendant because a copy of the actual chat is not attached to Defendant’s
declaration. The Court intends to
proceed with the hearing on September 27, 2022, but if this issue is
dispositive and Plaintiff does not waive the objection, the Court intends to
continue the hearing, order Defendant to lodge a copy of the electronic chat,
and afford Plaintiff an opportunity to respond.
The Court orders the parties to appear either remotely or in-person on
September 27, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff
Kapish Haldia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Cody Mattingly
(“Defendant”) asserting the following causes of action:
1. Defamation per se
2. False light
3. Negligence
4. Civil harassment
5. Intentional infliction of emotional
distress
6. Negligent infliction of emotional
distress
7. Declaratory and injunctive relief
Now, Defendant moves to strike the complaint under Code of
Civil Procedure section 425.16, commonly known as the Anti-SLAPP statute. Defendant moves for dismissal of the first,
second, third, fifth, and sixth causes of action and seeks attorney’s
fees. Plaintiff opposes the motion,
which is granted.
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff
signed up for an online dating website that required all members to be over the
age of 18 years old. (Complaint, ¶
12.) On or about February 26, 2022,
Plaintiff started communicating with an individual on the online dating
website. (Complaint, ¶ 13.) Plaintiff confirmed a date with the
individual. (Complaint, ¶ 18.) Later that same date, “an individual showed
up on the Plaintiff’s property and started flashing a light in his face and
recording him without consent. Plaintiff
had never met that individual and did not know him.” (Complaint, ¶ 19.) The video of the encounter was posted on four
websites: (1) The Instagram account: @peoplevpreds; (2) The YouTube account:
People v. Preds; and (3) The Instagram account: @netpredators; and (4) The
website: www.netpredators.com.
(Complaint, ¶ 20.) Defendant
posted Plaintiff’s photograph on a Twitter account and stated: “Venice, California;
Kapish, a vice president at Highview Capitol, invited a 15 year old boy
over.” (Complaint, ¶ 24.) Defendant also falsely referred to Plaintiff
as a “pedophile.” (Complaint, ¶
25.) Plaintiff’s personal information
was listed on the website, including his telephone number, email, and address,
and he started receiving threats.
(Complaint, ¶¶ 21-23, 29.)
Plaintiff’s relatives’ telephone numbers and personal information also
were published. (Complaint, ¶ 23.) They, too, received messages stating that
“their son is a pedophile.” (Complaint,
¶ 30.) Plaintiff’s employer received
multiple telephone calls advocating for the termination of his employment. (Complaint, ¶ 31.) Defendant also filed multiple false police
reports concerning this incident.
(Complaint, ¶ 32.)
LEGAL STANDARD
In ruling on a defendant’s special
motion to strike, or anti-SLAPP motion to strike, the trial court uses a
two-step process. First, the defendant
must show that the act or acts of which the plaintiff complains were taken in
furtherance of the defendant’s right of petition or free speech under the
United States or California Constitutions in connection with a public
issue. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd.
(b)(1).) The defendant has the burden of
making a prima facie showing that a cause of action arises from an act in
furtherance of his or her constitutional rights of petition or free speech in
connection with a public issue. (Equilon
Enterprises, LLC v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 67.) If the defendant carries that burden, the
burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on
the claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16,
subd. (b)(3).)
EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
The Court
rules as follows on Plaintiff’s objections:
Objection
#1 – Overruled.
Objection
#2 – Sustained as to Defendant’s use of the term “pedophile.” Overruled in all other respects.
Objection
#3 – The Court has no tentative ruling on this objection.
Objection
#4 – Overruled.
Objection
#5 – Overruled.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s
claims are based on videos that Defendant posted on various websites. (Complaint, ¶ 20.) Claims based on “any 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” are subject to a special motion to
strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16,
subd. (e)(3).) “The Internet is a
classic public forum . . . .” (Chaker
v. Mateo (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1146.) Defendant’s statements relate to an issue of
public interest. “[P]reventing child
sexual abuse and protecting children from sexual predators are issues of
widespread public interest.” (Cross v.
Cooper (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 357, 375; see also Mendoza v. ADP Screening
& Selection Services, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1644, 1653.) The instant case is distinguishable from Abuemeria
v. Stephens, in which the District Court of Appeal for the Second District
held that “video recording of an unseemly private [confrontation], no matter
how wide its distribution, is far removed from a citizen's constitutional right
of petition or free speech involving a public issue.” (Abuemeria v. Stephens (2016) 246
Cal.App.4th 1291, 1294.) That case
involved “an unseemly private brawl” without “any evidence to establish . . .
that this dispute was anything other than a private controversy.” (Id., p. 1298.) The instant case involved identifying a
potential sexual predator and warning the public, which is a matter of public
interest. The Court need not reach
Defendant’s argument that, in the alternative, the videos were posted “in
connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative,
executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by
law” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subds.
(e)(1)-(2).)
Defendant
has shifted the burden to Plaintiff to establish a probability of success on
the merits. Plaintiff fails to do
so. Plaintiff does not dispute that he
communicated with Defendant. (See
Declaration of Kapish Haldia, ¶¶ 8-10.)
To the contrary, Plaintiff admits as follows: (1) On or about February
26, 2022, he had an internet conversation with Defendant on an internet dating
site; (2) Defendant’s profile stated that he was over the age of 18 years old;
(3) Plaintiff communicated with him; and (4) Plaintiff arranged a meeting with
him that same date. (Id., ¶¶ 8-10,
16.) However, Plaintiff does not dispute
the contents of the chat, which is detailed in Defendant’s motion and
authenticated by Defendant’s declaration.
(See Memorandum of Points & Authorities, pp. 6-16; Declaration of
Cody Mattingly, ¶ 8.) Specifically,
Plaintiff does not deny or explain the following parts of the chat, which
started on the website and then continued via text message:
Defendant at 4:34 a.m. “Do you mind if I’m not 18 tho”
Plaintiff at 4:34 a.m. “ha are you gonna get me in trouble”
Defendant at 4:34 a.m. “LOL I don’t want no trouble”
Plaintiff at 4:35 a.m. “ha well, come hang if ya want”
Defendant at 4:35 a.m. “hahah wat we gona do”
Plaintiff at 4:36 a.m. “hang out, having a drink, maybe have
some fun if you’re down ha”
Defendant at 4:36 a.m. “I mean yeah I’m down to try new things
I’m down for whatever lol”
Plaintiff at 4:37 a.m. “Kap here btw”
Defendant at 4:37 a.m. “I’m trey”
Plaintiff at 4:37 a.m. “Come hang Trey”
. . .
Defendant at 4:39 a.m. “What kind of fun”
Plaintiff at 4:39 a.m. “haha come find out Why ruin the surprise”
Defendant at 4:40 a.m. “Yeah I don’t like surprises Being 15 sux lol”
Plaintiff at 4:40 a.m. “haha we should make an agenda”
Defendant at 4:40 a.m. “Im nalmost 16 tho Yeah it would make me more comfortable”
Plaintiff at 4:41 a.m. “ha well how about we do what you
want pick your adventure”
Defendant at 4:42 a.m. “Are
you a bottom Can you send me a pix” [Defendant sent a photograph of what looked
like a teenage boy]
Plaintiff at 4:44 a.m. [Plaintiff sent four photos, two of
which showed his genitals]
. . .
Defendant at 4:47 a.m. “Yeah
I mean I just want to be safe and kind of talk a little bit about it 1st But like I said I’m down to do whatever I think I want to top I’m 15 and curious haha”
Plaintiff at 4:48 a.m. “well
we don’t have to do anything besides just hang, and we can have whatever
adventure we want”
Defendant at 4:48 a.m. “What
do you like though”
Plaintiff at 4:48 a.m. “have
you topped before? Sounds fun ha”
Defendant at 4:48 a.m. “Um I
got scared the last time But if you’re
down like I said I’ll do anything”
Plaintiff at 4:49 a.m. “ha
you can decide in the moment but I’m pretty down to have you do that What else are you into”
Defendant at 4:50 a.m. “I
asked you what do you like Omg lol”
Plaintiff at 4:51 a.m. “ha”
Defendant at 4:51 a.m. “? I just want to be safe do you have condoms”
Plaintiff at 4:51 a.m. “lmk
if you make up your mind yup”
. . .
Defendant at 4:54 a.m. “Okay are you gonna suck me or what
Plaintiff at 4:54 a.m. “do you want me? Ha I’m
v down”
(See Memorandum of Points &
Authorities, pp. 7-12; Declaration of Cody Mattingly, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s failure to explain this evidence precludes
him from establishing a probability of success on the merits.
The Court has considered
Plaintiff’s remaining evidence, but it does not establish any probability of
success on the merits. Plaintiff relies
on the declaration of Joseph Cipollini, who states that he found no evidence of
the alleged chat between Plaintiff and Defendant. (Declaration of Joseph Cipollini, ¶¶ 14,
20.) This evidence might be dispositive
if Plaintiff was alleging a case of mistaken identity, i.e., he was not the one
who chatted with Defendant that night. But
Plaintiff admits that there was an electronic chat between him and
Defendant. (See Declaration of Kapish
Haldia, ¶¶ 8-10.) Therefore, Cipollini’s
failure to locate evidence of the chat on Plaintiff’s computer and iPhone is
not dispositive. The Court also considered
the declaration of Spencer Bashforth, who states that he was with Plaintiff
that evening, and “[t]here were no minors at our house and we weren’t expecting
any minors to be there.” (Declaration of
Spencer Bashforth, ¶ 7.) This evidence
does not contradict the contents of the chat, in which Plaintiff admits that
“[his] friends just called it a night” and “[he] can’t sleep.” (See Memorandum of Points & Authorities,
p. 7; Declaration of Cody Mattingly, ¶ 8.)
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s remaining evidence, but none
explains this chat.
In sum, Plaintiff has not denied or
explained the contents of the internet chat.
The chat establishes that Plaintiff sent photographs of his genitals to
another user after that user identified himself as being 15 years old. The chat also establishes that Plaintiff
planned a sexual encounter with another user after that user identified himself
as being 15 years old. Therefore, Plaintiff
has not demonstrated any probability of success on the merits.
Defendant is entitled to his fees
and costs, but he did not provide any related information. Therefore, the Court cannot rule on this
issue at this time.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based upon
the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:
1. The Court grants Defendant’s special
motion to dismiss under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The first, second, third, fifth, and sixth
causes of action are dismissed with prejudice.
2. Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees
is denied without prejudice.
3. Defendant’s counsel shall provide
notice and file proof of such with the Court.