Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Fontani v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLCgreen2 sentences2021Consequently, the court stated it “need not reach the correctness of that finding.” (Hawran, at p. 270.) Later, however, in a discussion of the fair reporting privilege, the court observed that the Form 8-K “was filed for the purpose of complying with the SEC’s mandatory disclosure requirements,” and “may constitute a writing before an official proceeding,” citing Fontani v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 719, 731-732 (Fontani).1 (Hawran, at p. 281.) In Fontani, the court held that the defendant’s report to the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) on a Form U- 2021Consequently, the court stated it “need not reach the correctness of that finding.” (Hawran, at p. 270.) Later, however, in a discussion of the fair reporting privilege, the court observed that the Form 8-K “was filed for the purpose of complying with the SEC’s mandatory disclosure requirements,” and “may constitute a writing before an official proceeding,” citing Fontani v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 719, 731-732 (Fontani).1 (Hawran, at p. 281.) In Fontani, the court held that the defendant’s report to the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) on a Form U- | 1 | 1 |
Ryan v. California Interscholastic Federation-San Diego Sectiongreen2 sentences2017(Citing Fuentes v. Shevin (1972) 407 U.S. 67, 80 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 556 , 92 S.Ct. 1983 ]; Ryan v. California Interscholastic Federation-San Diego Section (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1069 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 798 ].) As a threshold matter, Argentieri provides no legal authority for his proposition that the trial court, in assessing whether a plaintiff has a probability of prevailing on his claim, is prohibited from considering an applicable privilege supported by the evidence the parties presented, merely because the parties did not bring the privilege itself to the court’s attention. 2017(Citing Fuentes v. Shevin (1972) 407 U.S. 67, 80 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 556 , 92 S.Ct. 1983 ]; Ryan v. California Interscholastic Federation-San Diego Section (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1069 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 798 ].) As a threshold matter, Argentieri provides no legal authority for his proposition that the trial court, in assessing whether a plaintiff has a probability of prevailing on his claim, is prohibited from considering an applicable privilege supported by the evidence the parties presented, merely because the parties did not bring the privilege itself to the court’s attention. | 1 | 1 |
Fuentes v. Shevingreen2 sentences2017(Citing Fuentes v. Shevin (1972) 407 U.S. 67, 80 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 556 , 92 S.Ct. 1983 ]; Ryan v. California Interscholastic Federation-San Diego Section (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1069 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 798 ].) As a threshold matter, Argentieri provides no legal authority for his proposition that the trial court, in assessing whether a plaintiff has a probability of prevailing on his claim, is prohibited from considering an applicable privilege supported by the evidence the parties presented, merely because the parties did not bring the privilege itself to the court’s attention. 2017(Citing Fuentes v. Shevin (1972) 407 U.S. 67, 80 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 556 , 92 S.Ct. 1983 ]; Ryan v. California Interscholastic Federation-San Diego Section (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1069 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 798 ].) As a threshold matter, Argentieri provides no legal authority for his proposition that the trial court, in assessing whether a plaintiff has a probability of prevailing on his claim, is prohibited from considering an applicable privilege supported by the evidence the parties presented, merely because the parties did not bring the privilege itself to the court’s attention. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Balzaga v. Fox News Network, LLC
green
2 sentences2020(Balzaga v. Fox News Network, LLC (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1325, 1337 .) Valencia’s press release, which contained only information he and his colleagues obtained from the victims, therefore constituted “a fair and true report in, or a communication to, a public journal” of statements “said in the course” of a “public official proceeding.” Consequently, Valencia’s statements in his press release were absolutely privileged “and cannot support a defamation claim” of any kind. 2020(Balzaga v. Fox News Network, LLC (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1325, 1337 .) Valencia’s press release, which contained only information he and his colleagues obtained from the victims, therefore constituted “a fair and true report in, or a communication to, a public journal” of statements “said in the course” of a “public official proceeding.” Consequently, Valencia’s statements in his press release were absolutely privileged “and cannot support a defamation claim” of any kind. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Grewal v. Jammu
green
2 sentences2013(Grewal v. Jammu, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 989 .) Even if the mere filing of a citizen‟s complaint amounted to an official proceeding within the meaning of the fair reporting privilege, we cannot conclude as a matter of law the statements made in Nair‟s radio interview are a “fair and 48 true report” of the charges made in that complaint. 2013(Grewal v. Jammu, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 989 .) Even if the mere filing of a citizen’s complaint amounted to an official proceeding within the meaning of the fair reporting privilege, we cannot conclude as a matter of law the statements made in Nair’s radio interview are a “fair and true report” of the charges made in that complaint. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital District
green
1 sentence2021Consequently, the court stated it “need not reach the correctness of that finding.” (Hawran, at p. 270.) Later, however, in a discussion of the fair reporting privilege, the court observed that the Form 8-K “was filed for the purpose of complying with the SEC’s mandatory disclosure requirements,” and “may constitute a writing before an official proceeding,” citing Fontani v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 719, 731-732 (Fontani).1 (Hawran, at p. 281.) In Fontani, the court held that the defendant’s report to the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) on a Form U- | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Burrill v. Nair CA3
green
1 sentence2017Although there is, as commentators have noted, disagreement on this point among jurisdictions,10 9 The Burrill court rejected Nair’s argument for the further reason that “[e]ven if the mere filing of a citizen’s complaint amounted to an official proceeding within the meaning of the fair reporting privilege, we cannot conclude as a matter of law the statements made in Nair’s radio interview are a “ ‘fair and true report’ ” of the charges made in that complaint.” (Burrill, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 398 .) 10 The disparate judicial views on this point are collected and discussed in: 50 America | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Kurata v. Los Angeles News Publishing Co.
green
2 sentences2017Although there is, as commentators have noted, disagreement on this point among jurisdictions,10 9 The Burrill court rejected Nair’s argument for the further reason that “[e]ven if the mere filing of a citizen’s complaint amounted to an official proceeding within the meaning of the fair reporting privilege, we cannot conclude as a matter of law the statements made in Nair’s radio interview are a “ ‘fair and true report’ ” of the charges made in that complaint.” (Burrill, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 398 .) 10 The disparate judicial views on this point are collected and discussed in: 50 America 2017Although there is, as commentators have noted, disagreement on this point among jurisdictions,10 9 The Burrill court rejected Nair’s argument for the further reason that “[e]ven if the mere filing of a citizen’s complaint amounted to an official proceeding within the meaning of the fair reporting privilege, we cannot conclude as a matter of law the statements made in Nair’s radio interview are a “ ‘fair and true report’ ” of the charges made in that complaint.” (Burrill, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 398 .) 10 The disparate judicial views on this point are collected and discussed in: 50 America | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Mortensen v. Los Angeles Examiner
green
1 sentence2017Although there is, as commentators have noted, disagreement on this point among jurisdictions,10 9 The Burrill court rejected Nair’s argument for the further reason that “[e]ven if the mere filing of a citizen’s complaint amounted to an official proceeding within the meaning of the fair reporting privilege, we cannot conclude as a matter of law the statements made in Nair’s radio interview are a “ ‘fair and true report’ ” of the charges made in that complaint.” (Burrill, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 398 .) 10 The disparate judicial views on this point are collected and discussed in: 50 America | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Jennings v. Telegram-Tribune Co.
green
2 sentences2012(Id. at p. 1050.) In Jennings v. Telegram-Tribune Co. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 119 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 485 ], the court applied the fair reporting privilege to a newspaper report that a plaintiff was “ ‘convicted of tax fraud’ ” because it accurately conveyed the gist of judicial proceedings in which the plaintiff had pleaded no contest. 2012(Id. at p. 1050.) In Jennings v. Telegram-Tribune Co. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 119 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 485 ], the court applied the fair reporting privilege to a newspaper report that a plaintiff was “ ‘convicted of tax fraud’ ” because it accurately conveyed the gist of judicial proceedings in which the plaintiff had pleaded no contest. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman
green
1 sentence2012It involved a letter made in preparation for sending a complaint to the Attorney General (Dove Audio, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 783 ), and the Court of Appeal held the letter was a communication preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding (the complaint to the Attorney General), bringing it within the litigation privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Microsoft Corp. v. Yokohama Telecom Corp.
green
2 sentences2012(Id. at pp. 122, 127.) In Microsoft Corp. v. Yokohama Telecom Corp., supra, 993 F.Supp. 782 , relied upon by defendants, the federal district court held the fair reporting privilege applied to a newspaper article paid for by Microsoft stating that Microsoft’s competitor allegedly distributed counterfeit products to undercover investigators, which “capture[d] the substance of, and [did] not deviate from” a judicial proceeding, namely, the allegations in Microsoft’s complaint. 2012(Id. at pp. 122, 127.) In Microsoft Corp. v. Yokohama Telecom Corp., supra, 993 F.Supp. 782 , relied upon by defendants, the federal district court held the fair reporting privilege applied to a newspaper article paid for by Microsoft stating that Microsoft’s competitor allegedly distributed counterfeit products to undercover investigators, which “capture[d] the substance of, and [did] not deviate from” a judicial proceeding, namely, the allegations in Microsoft’s complaint. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Silberg v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2012(Silberg v. Anderson, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 219 .) Republications may be protected by other privileges, such as the fair reporting privilege under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (d)(1), which protects “a fair and true report in, or a communication to, a public journal, of (A) a judicial . . . proceeding.” But the Meyer defendants have not identified any privilege that would apply to posting the complaint on the law firm’s Web site. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.