Sonoma Media Inv., LLC v. Superior Court, No. A151968 (D1d5 Apr. 8, 2019)
A city council Candidate sued the local Newspaper for libel over some articles regarding the way his campaign was funded. The trial court granted an anti-SLAPP motion over most of the claims, but permitted discovery into the Newspaper’s malice on others. The Court of Appeal reverses the denial. Candidate failed to made a prima facie showing that the statements were false—a necessary step to show a likelihood of success that must be accomplished without the benefit of discovery.
The decision was originally unpublished. But now, for good cause, the panel decides to publish, “with the exception of Parts II and III.” Problem is, Parts II and III contain the totality of the Court’s analysis. All that’s left is a recounting of the facts and procedural posture, along with a few boilerplate paragraphs in Part I regarding the standard applicable to anti-SLAPP motions.
I am, to say the least, somewhat confused.
Reversed.
***Update. Looks like the Court just figured this out. Whole opinion ordered published.
No comments:
Post a Comment