California Defamation Blog

The value of San Diego real estate heightens the stakes of local real estate disputes. Successful resolution requires a balance of experience and expertise from your real estate attorney. Real property contests — a boundary dispute, performance of a commercial lease, purchase and sale problems, or hidden defects, among others, — can grow expensive for both parties, especially if the …

Defendants, those accused of libel, need to know the general legal rule that every repetition of a defamatory statement is a separate publication and creates a new cause of action. In October 2014, a California appellate court reaffirmed the rule. Sanctioning earlier law without citing its language, the court endorsed earlier case law (See Schneider v. United Airlines, Inc., 208 …

In California libel and slander cases, defendants sometimes dispute the elemental fact of “publication” of defamatory statements, asserting that the Hearsay Rule bars introduction of unauthenticated evidence to prove publication occurred. “Hearsay evidence” is that of a statement made outside court to prove the truth of what a party asserts. Such evidence cannot be cross-examined. It is so highly suspect …

When a plaintiff sues a defendant who only repeated someone else’s libel or slander, the defendant may inaptly claim there is no liability. Such a defense, however, is not available to a re-publishing defendant. Repetition of the defamation is a separate publication and hence a new and separate cause of action – even if the repeater names the source. The …

Can a defamation Plaintiff in San Diego or Los Angeles win without showing at least mere negligence by the Defendant? A Supreme Court case says yes, a defamation plaintiff in San Diego or Los Angeles can win without showing at least mere negligence by the defendant in certain circumstances. Although many lawyers consider it settled law, proof of negligence, as …

When privileges against defamation, e.g., the Privilege for Communication to Interested Persons, are in play, or where a private plaintiff seeks to win punitive damages, the plaintiff must show actual malice motivating the defendant. To do so, a libel or slander plaintiff in California must plead and prove the defendant either 1) knowingly and intentionally defamed him or her, or …

What Is the “Mutual Interest” Privilege Against Libel and Slander In San Diego and Mission Viejo, California? California law provides a conditional privilege (not absolute) protecting defendants against claims for libel and slander. It arises from communications without malice by one person to another where both have interest in the matter. If a defendant knows false information he or she …

When is a Person a Limited Public Figure in Libel and Slander Cases in San Diego and Los Angeles? The determination of public figure status in California defamation cases is complex. There are multiple differing tests guiding courts all over the country. While each court’s decision on public figure stature requires a case-by-case analysis done by the judge in each …

What is the difference between “Per Se” and “Per Quod” in a San Diego or Los Angeles defamation case? If a statement is obviously defamatory on its face, and would be widely perceived as harmful, then it qualifies as libel or slander “Per Se”. Legal examples of defamation Per Se include untrue statements about a person carrying a communicable disease, …

In May 2014, a federal court ruled in a network libel case an international sporting goods supplier is not a public figure — or a limited-purpose public figure. In Mitre Sports International Limited vs. Home Box Office, Inc., the court pronounced Mitre not a public figure for libel purposes. The ruling means the case is proceeding in a way favorable …