defamation claim in California

2026Governing law The elements of a defamation claim are “‘(a) a publication that is (b) false, (c) defamatory, and (d) unprivileged, and that (e) has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage.’” (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720 .) Where, as here, the plaintiff is a public figure, the plaintiff must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, “that the libelous statement was made with ‘“actual malice”—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’” (Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 256-257 (

2022The Law of Defamation The elements of a defamation claim are “‘“(a) a publication that is (b) false, (c) defamatory, and (d) unprivileged, and that (e) has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage.”’” (Taus, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 720 ; accord, Murray v. Tran (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 10 , 37.) Additionally, “a libel plaintiff who is a public figure must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant made the libelous statement with ‘“actual malice”—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’” (Edward v. Elli

2024False Light Cause of Action For the second claim Bowman aims at, we adhere to the principle that “[w]hen a false light claim is coupled with a defamation claim, the false light claim is essentially superfluous, and stands or falls on whether it meets the same requirements as the defamation cause of action.” (Eisenberg v. Alameda Newspapers, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1385, fn. 13 ; Balla v. Hall (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 652 , 687.) For the reasons just discussed with respect to Garcia’s defamation cause of action, we conclude Garcia carried his 10 Bowman asserts in the alternative that he s

2024“If the person defamed is a public figure, he cannot recover unless he proves, by clear and convincing evidence [citation], that the libelous statement was made with “‘actual malice”—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’” (Reader’s Digest, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 256 .) Similarly, if the defamation involves an issue of public concern, proof of actual malice is 3 Henreid does not advance any argument on appeal regarding his cause of action for “right of privacy—false light.” In any event, “[w]hen a false light claim is coupled with

2025Code, § 44.) “ ‘Defamation requires the intentional publication of a false statement of fact that has a natural tendency to injure the plaintiff’s reputation or that causes special damage.’ ” (J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Phillips & Cohen LLP (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 87, 97 .) “The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and 6 (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage.” (Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1369 .) Libel is publication of defamatory matter by written or printed words.

2025(Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1063 .) “The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage.” (Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354 , 8 1369; see Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 645 [defamation “involves the intentional publication of a statement of fact that is false, unprivileged, and has a natural tendency to injure or which causes special damage”].) Here, it is evident from the face of the complaint

2025It does not contend that Hearn’s evidence fails to establish any of the recognized elements of a defamation claim: “ ‘(1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage.’ ” (Sanders v. Walsh (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 855, 862 ; see also Hawran v. Hixson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 256, 277 .) Nor does it contend that Hearn failed to prove the economic and noneconomic damages the jury assessed as resulting from Mar’s defamatory report.

2025It does not contend that Hearn’s evidence fails to establish any of the recognized elements of a defamation claim: “ ‘(1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage.’ ” (Sanders v. Walsh (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 855, 862 ; see also Hawran v. Hixson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 256, 277 .) Nor does it contend that Hearn failed to prove the economic and noneconomic damages the jury assessed as resulting from Mar’s defamatory report.

2025Specialists, Inc. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1 , 62.) F. Defamation The elements of a defamation claim are: “ ‘(1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage.’ ” (Issa v. Applegate (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 689, 702 (Issa).) Because the purportedly defamatory statement must include a provable falsehood, “courts distinguish between statements of fact and statements of opinion” (McGarry v. University of San Diego (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 97, 112 ) and hold that “mere opinions are generally not actionable [citation], [

2022Code, § 45; McGarry v. University of San Diego (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 97, 112 (McGarry).) The primary question for a defamation claim is whether the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact.

2026Governing law The elements of a defamation claim are “‘(a) a publication that is (b) false, (c) defamatory, and (d) unprivileged, and that (e) has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage.’” (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720 .) Where, as here, the plaintiff is a public figure, the plaintiff must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, “that the libelous statement was made with ‘“actual malice”—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’” (Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 256-257 (

2024“If the person defamed is a public figure, he cannot recover unless he proves, by clear and convincing evidence [citation], that the libelous statement was made with “‘actual malice”—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’” (Reader’s Digest, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 256 .) Similarly, if the defamation involves an issue of public concern, proof of actual malice is 3 Henreid does not advance any argument on appeal regarding his cause of action for “right of privacy—false light.” In any event, “[w]hen a false light claim is coupled with

2021It accepts the plaintiff’s evidence as true, and evaluates the defendant’s showing only to determine if it defeats the plaintiff’s claim as a matter of law.”’” (Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871, 891 .) “The plaintiff must demonstrate this probability of success with admissible evidence. [Citation.] ‘“The plaintiff may not rely solely on its complaint, even if verified; instead, its proof must be made upon competent admissible evidence.” [Citation.]’” (Laker v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 745, 768 (Laker).) Probability of Prevail

2021It accepts the plaintiff’s evidence as true, and evaluates the defendant’s showing only to determine if it defeats the plaintiff’s claim as a matter of law.”’” (Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871, 891 .) “The plaintiff must demonstrate this probability of success with admissible evidence. [Citation.] ‘“The plaintiff may not rely solely on its complaint, even if verified; instead, its proof must be made upon competent admissible evidence.” [Citation.]’” (Laker v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 745, 768 (Laker).) Probability of Prevail

2026(See Mitchell v. Twin Galaxies, LLC (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 207 , 218 [“‘To establish a false light claim 20 based on a defamatory publication, a plaintiff “must meet the same requirements” as for a defamation claim.’”]; De Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 845, 865 [“‘“[a] ‘false light’ cause of action is in substance equivalent to a libel claim”’”]; Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1264 [“‘[w]hen a false light claim is coupled with a defamation claim, the false light claim is essentially superfluous, and stands or falls on whether it meets the same requiremen

2025Proc., § 44 [Libel and slander are the means by which defamation may be effected.]; Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1264 [“ ‘[W]hen a false light claim is coupled with a defamation claim, the false light claim is essentially superfluous, and stands or falls on whether it meets the same requirements as the defamation cause of action.’ ”].) 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 In June 2020, plaintiff filed a civil complaint against defendant.

2019And second, "[t]o state a defamation claim that survives a First Amendment challenge, ... a plaintiff must present evidence of a statement of fact that is 'provably false.' " ( Nyg å rd , supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 1048 , 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 210 .) " 'The dispositive question ... is whether a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the published statements imply a provably false factual assertion.' " ( Ibid. ) None of the remaining statements plaintiff cites, recited in the margin, meets that standard. 8 *498 Next, plaintiff contends his LAPD complaint and related materials were exempt from

2019And second, “[t]o state a defamation claim that survives a First Amendment challenge, . . . a plaintiff must present evidence of a statement of fact that is ‘provably false.’ ” (Nygård, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 1048 .) “ ‘The dispositive question . . . is whether a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the published statements imply a provably false factual assertion.’ ” (Ibid.) None of the remaining statements plaintiff cites, recited in the margin, meets that standard.8 8 The allegedly false statements not directly related to the LAPD investigation, along with plaintiff’s assertio

2021The documents that she requests we notice are irrelevant to our analysis, so the request is denied. 7 and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage.” (Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1369 (Wong).) The plaintiff must present evidence of a statement of fact, rather than opinion, that is “provably false.” (Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 798, 809 ; see also Letter Carriers v. Austin (1974) 418 U.S. 264, 283 [“The sine qua non of recovery for defamation . . . is the existence of falsehood”].) Nevertheless, “where an expression of opinion im

2004The ultimate question is whether a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the published statements imply a provably false factual assertion. ( Seelig, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th 798, 809 .) As we found in Weller v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 991 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 644 ], the court “must determine whether the statements that form the basis of a defamation claim; (1) expressly or impliedly assert a fact that is susceptible to being proved false; and (2) whether the language and tenor is such that it cannot ‘ “reasonably [be] interpreted as stating actual facts.” ’

2026Governing law The elements of a defamation claim are “‘(a) a publication that is (b) false, (c) defamatory, and (d) unprivileged, and that (e) has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage.’” (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720 .) Where, as here, the plaintiff is a public figure, the plaintiff must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, “that the libelous statement was made with ‘“actual malice”—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’” (Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 256-257 (

2021(Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 71, 76 (Alnor).) “ ‘False light is a species of invasion of privacy, based on publicity that places a plaintiff before the public in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and where the defendant knew or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the plaintiff would be placed.’ ” (Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1264 .) “To establish a false light claim based on a defamatory publication, a plaintiff ‘must meet the same requiremen

2024(Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 747 .) “In this context, actual malice means that the defamatory statement was made ‘with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’” (Khawar v. Globe Internat., Inc. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 254, 275 , quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 280 .) If the plaintiff is deemed to be a “public figure,” malice becomes an 15. essential element of the defamation claim.

2017"As a general matter, a defamation claim does not require a plaintiff to plead or prove falsity or malice." ( Industrial Waste and Debris Box Service, Inc. v. Murphy (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1135 , 1156, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 853 ; see, e.g., Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711 , 753, fn. 37, 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 ( Brown ) [Generally " '[t]he burden of proof with respect to the issue of truth or falsity is on the defendant' "]; Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1165 , 1180, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 136 ["It is the defendant's burden to ... show the

2025(Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher Organization (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 450, 470 (Hecimovich).) A defamation claim is not actionable without a showing of falsity because truth is a complete defense to defamation.

2025(Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher Organization (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 450, 470 (Hecimovich).) A defamation claim is not actionable without a showing of falsity because truth is a complete defense to defamation.

2020(Gallagher v. Connell (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1260 , 1274–1275.) "A review of the case law since Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps [(1986) 475 U.S. 767 ] reveals no precise boundaries defining an issue of public importance." (Id. at p. 1275.) "It does appear, 20 As we have previously summarized, " ' "[t]he elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage." ' [Citations.] 'In general, . . . a written communication that is false, that is not protected by any privilege, a

2009Conclusion (6) A defamation claim fails as a matter of law if the publication "`"is not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning and cannot be reasonably understood in the defamatory sense pleaded"'" by the plaintiffs. ( Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 254, 261 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 721 P.2d 87 ].) We determine there is an insufficient basis for a fact finder to conclude that the "MANHUNT AT THE BORDER" caption, when viewed in context with the entire story, was reasonably susceptible of the false and defamatory meaning attributed to it by plaintiffs.

2025Specialists, Inc. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1 , 62.) F. Defamation The elements of a defamation claim are: “ ‘(1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage.’ ” (Issa v. Applegate (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 689, 702 (Issa).) Because the purportedly defamatory statement must include a provable falsehood, “courts distinguish between statements of fact and statements of opinion” (McGarry v. University of San Diego (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 97, 112 ) and hold that “mere opinions are generally not actionable [citation], [

2022The Law of Defamation The elements of a defamation claim are “‘“(a) a publication that is (b) false, (c) defamatory, and (d) unprivileged, and that (e) has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage.”’” (Taus, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 720 ; accord, Murray v. Tran (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 10 , 37.) Additionally, “a libel plaintiff who is a public figure must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant made the libelous statement with ‘“actual malice”—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’” (Edward v. Elli

2023However, “[a]n averment on information and belief is inadmissible at trial, and thus cannot show a probability of prevailing on the claim.” (Evans v. Unkow (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1498 .) Thus, Bell has not met her burden to show the defamation claim is “legally sufficient and factually substantiated.” (Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 396 .) Accordingly, the trial court properly granted the District’s special motion to strike the defamation claims. 4 We reject Bell’s contention that the litigation privilege here can be defeated with a showing of malice.

2022(Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc. 13 (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234, 238 ; Mitchell, at p. 218.)5 Where, as here, “a false light claim is coupled with a defamation claim, the false light claim is essentially superfluous, and stands or falls on whether it meets the same requirements as the defamation cause of action.” (Eisenberg v. Alameda Newspapers, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1385, fn. 13 ; accord, Mitchell, at p. 218.) We thus need and do examine only the elements of the defamation claim that are in dispute to determine whether Sharp met his burden to submit evidence that, if credited, would s

2013(Blatty, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 1044 ; DiGiorgio, supra, 215 Cal.App.2d at pp. 569-570 [“It is sufficient if from the evidence the jury can infer that the defamatory statement applies to the plaintiff;” concluding “the trier of fact could determine the film” shown to agricultural workers “was depicting” the corporation and its founder “[e]ven though the corporation was not named” in the film].) 5 We do not opine on the veracity of the other statements in the advertisement, i.e., whether Forest assaulted an unarmed man and whether he tried to influence Eyster, nor do we opine on whether there m

2011Code, § 46; Rest.2d Torts, § 568, subd. (2).)” (Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1242 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 576 , 80 P.3d 676 ], italics omitted.) In order to prevail on a defamation claim, a plaintiff must show “publication.” “In general, each time the defamatory statement is communicated to a third person who understands its defamatory meaning as applied to the plaintiff, the statement is said to have been ‘published,’ although a written dissemination, as suggested by the common meaning of that term, is not required.” (Shively v. Bozanich, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1242 .) Stated differen

2020(Gallagher v. Connell (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1260 , 1274–1275.) "A review of the case law since Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps [(1986) 475 U.S. 767 ] reveals no precise boundaries defining an issue of public importance." (Id. at p. 1275.) "It does appear, 20 As we have previously summarized, " ' "[t]he elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage." ' [Citations.] 'In general, . . . a written communication that is false, that is not protected by any privilege, a

2015(Gilbert, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 27 .) Thus, to state a defamation claim, the plaintiff must present evidence of a statement of fact that is provably false.

2025(Laker, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 760 .) The defamation claim based on the two communications to the larger Stanford community may proceed. 1.

2025(Laker, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 760 .) The defamation claim based on the two communications to the larger Stanford community may proceed. 1.

2017"As a general matter, a defamation claim does not require a plaintiff to plead or prove falsity or malice." ( Industrial Waste and Debris Box Service, Inc. v. Murphy (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1135 , 1156, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 853 ; see, e.g., Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711 , 753, fn. 37, 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 ( Brown ) [Generally " '[t]he burden of proof with respect to the issue of truth or falsity is on the defendant' "]; Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1165 , 1180, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 136 ["It is the defendant's burden to ... show the

2017"As a general matter, a defamation claim does not require a plaintiff to plead or prove falsity or malice." ( Industrial Waste and Debris Box Service, Inc. v. Murphy (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1135 , 1156, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 853 ; see, e.g., Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711 , 753, fn. 37, 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 ( Brown ) [Generally " '[t]he burden of proof with respect to the issue of truth or falsity is on the defendant' "]; Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1165 , 1180, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 136 ["It is the defendant's burden to ... show the

2008However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.’ (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 339-340 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 789 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 ], fn. omitted; Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 600-601 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 552 P.2d 425 ].)” (Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 254, 259-260 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 721 P.2d 87 ].) To state a defamation claim that survives a First Amendment challenge, thus, a plaintiff must present evidence of a statement of f

2008However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.’ (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 339-340 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 789 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 ], fn. omitted; Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 600-601 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 552 P.2d 425 ].)” (Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 254, 259-260 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 721 P.2d 87 ].) To state a defamation claim that survives a First Amendment challenge, thus, a plaintiff must present evidence of a statement of f

2024“If the person defamed is a public figure, he cannot recover unless he proves, by clear and convincing evidence [citation], that the libelous statement was made with “‘actual malice”—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’” (Reader’s Digest, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 256 .) Similarly, if the defamation involves an issue of public concern, proof of actual malice is 3 Henreid does not advance any argument on appeal regarding his cause of action for “right of privacy—false light.” In any event, “[w]hen a false light claim is coupled with

2015In Selleck v. Globe International, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1123 , the court explained that a false light claim must be dismissed if it claims the same harm as a defamation claim: "Plaintiff's second cause of action clearly is based on false light invasion of privacy.

2022(Live Oak Publishing Co. v. Cohagan, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d at p. 1285 ; Burdette v. Carrier Corp. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1668, 1685 [“Defamation is an injury to reputation”], citing Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1242 .) In sum, we conclude the court erred by granting judgment on the pleadings on plaintiffs’ defamation claim.

2017Defamation “ ‘The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage.’ ” (John Doe 2 v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1300, 1312 [ 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 60 ]; accord, Taus v. Loftus, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 720; Wong v. Jing, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1369 .) “In general, ... a written communication that is false, that is not protected by *1260 any privilege, and that exposes a person to contempt or ridicule or certain other reputational injuries, constitutes libel.” (Shi

2016Defamation, trade libel and the fcdr report privilege “Defamation requires the intentional publication of a false statement of fact that has a natural tendency to injure the plaintiffs reputation or that causes special damage.” (Burrill v. Nair (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 357, 383 [ 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 332 ].) The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage.

2016Defamation, trade libel and the fcdr report privilege “Defamation requires the intentional publication of a false statement of fact that has a natural tendency to injure the plaintiffs reputation or that causes special damage.” (Burrill v. Nair (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 357, 383 [ 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 332 ].) The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage.

2025It does not contend that Hearn’s evidence fails to establish any of the recognized elements of a defamation claim: “ ‘(1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage.’ ” (Sanders v. Walsh (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 855, 862 ; see also Hawran v. Hixson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 256, 277 .) Nor does it contend that Hearn failed to prove the economic and noneconomic damages the jury assessed as resulting from Mar’s defamatory report.

2025It does not contend that Hearn’s evidence fails to establish any of the recognized elements of a defamation claim: “ ‘(1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage.’ ” (Sanders v. Walsh (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 855, 862 ; see also Hawran v. Hixson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 256, 277 .) Nor does it contend that Hearn failed to prove the economic and noneconomic damages the jury assessed as resulting from Mar’s defamatory report.

2024(Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 747 .) “In this context, actual malice means that the defamatory statement was made ‘with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’” (Khawar v. Globe Internat., Inc. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 254, 275 , quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 280 .) If the plaintiff is deemed to be a “public figure,” malice becomes an 15. essential element of the defamation claim.

2024At trial on a defamation claim, a plaintiff must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, which requires her to prove that the statement was made “ ‘with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’ ” (Khawar, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 275 , quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. at p. 280 .) “ ‘There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth,’ ” and the evidence must be clear and convincing.

2021Code, § 44.) “ ‘The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage.’ ” (John Doe 2 v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1300, 1312 .) Libel is defamation based on a publication in writing or other fixed, visible representation.

2019Defamation " 'The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage.' " ( John Doe 2 v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1300 , 1312, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 60 ; accord, Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683 , 720, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 775 , 151 P.3d 1185 .) a.