libel claim in California

2011(See Kapellas v. Kofman (1969) 1 Cal.3d 20, 35, fn. 16 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 360 , 459 P.2d 912 ] [False light claim “is in substance equivalent to the [plaintiff’s] libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim on all aspects.”]; Gilbert v. Sykes (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 34 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 752 ] [The collapse of the defamation claim spells the demise of all other causes of action in the same complaint which allegedly arise from the same publication.].) In short, we conclude that all of the causes of action in plaintiffs’ complaint were subject to being stricken under the a

2011(See Kapellas v. Kofman (1969) 1 Cal.3d 20, 35, fn. 16 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 360 , 459 P.2d 912 ] [False light claim “is in substance equivalent to the [plaintiff’s] libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim on all aspects.”]; Gilbert v. Sykes (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 34 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 752 ] [The collapse of the defamation claim spells the demise of all other causes of action in the same complaint which allegedly arise from the same publication.].) In short, we conclude that all of the causes of action in plaintiffs’ complaint were subject to being stricken under the a

2020G. v. Time Warner, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 623, 636 .) "A 'false light' cause of action is in substance equivalent to a libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim, including proof of malice [when required]." (Aisenson v. American Broadcasting Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 146, 161 .) The plaintiffs acknowledge that their claims for false light are "subsumed" in the analysis of their libel claims.

2017G. v. Time Warner, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 623, 636 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ].) “ ‘A “false light” cause of action is in substance equivalent to a libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim, including proof of malice [where malice is required for the libel claim].’ ” (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 602, 616 [ 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 45 ]; accord, Aisenson v. American Broadcasting Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 146, 161 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 379 ]; see generally Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 215 , 721 P.2d 97 ] [

2020G. v. Time Warner, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 623, 636 .) "A 'false light' cause of action is in substance equivalent to a libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim, including proof of malice [when required]." (Aisenson v. American Broadcasting Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 146, 161 .) The plaintiffs acknowledge that their claims for false light are "subsumed" in the analysis of their libel claims.

2017G. v. Time Warner, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 623, 636 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ].) “ ‘A “false light” cause of action is in substance equivalent to a libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim, including proof of malice [where malice is required for the libel claim].’ ” (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 602, 616 [ 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 45 ]; accord, Aisenson v. American Broadcasting Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 146, 161 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 379 ]; see generally Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 215 , 721 P.2d 97 ] [

2006(Id. at p. 49.) The Supreme Court concluded that the intentional infliction award could not stand under the First Amendment, holding that a public figure or public official “may not recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of [a satirical] publication!] . . . without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with ‘actual malice.’ ” ( 485 U.S. at p. 56 .) Here, plaintiffs were not public officials or public figures, did not sue for defamation, and, in pleading the intentional and negligent infliction claims,

1999(Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., supra, 497 U.S. at p. 20 [ 110 S.Ct. at p. 2706 ].) Statements do not imply a provably false factual assertion and thus cannot form the basis of a defamation action if they cannot “ ‘reasonably [be] interpreted as stating actual facts’ about an individual.” (Ibid., citing Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) 485 U.S. 46, 50 [ 108 S.Ct. 876, 879 , 99 L.Ed.2d 41 ].) Thus, “rhetorical hyperbole,” “vigorous epithet[s],” “lusty and imaginative expression[s] of . . . contempt,” and language used “in a loose, figurative sense” have all been accorded constitutional prot

1986The court quoted from Kapellas to observe that "a `false light' cause of action `is in substance equivalent to ... [a] libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim...." ( 4 Cal.3d at p. 543 .) It concluded that the allegations of the complaint were insufficient to support a false light claim since plaintiff had neither made a retraction request nor alleged special damages.

1985(Cf. Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., supra, 4 Cal.3d 529, 543.) While our Supreme Court has held that a false light invasion of privacy claim must meet the requirements of a libel claim “on all aspects of the case,” including the requirements of Civil Code section 48a ( Briscoe, supra; Kapellas v. Kofinan, supra, 1 Cal. 3d 20 ), it has not expressly declared that the requirements of Civil Code section 45a are applicable to a false light claim. 8 To the extent that section 45a applies to such a claim, its *1135 requirements are met in the present case.

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

2023(Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 869 , 884 (Medical Marijuana); see also Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1242 (Shively) [a “written dissemination” is not required for a statement to be “published” for purposes of defamation].) A false light claim is a species of invasion of privacy and arises out of “ ‘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 wh

2017(Selleck, supra, 166 Cal.App.3d at p. 1133 [italics added].). “[T]he determinative question [for a libel claim] is whether the ‘gist or sting’ of the statement is true or false, benign or defamatory, in substance. [Citations.]” (Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 1165, 1181-1182 .) After reviewing her complaint and her arguments on appeal, we are left wondering what “gist or sting” Bartholomew is even claiming wronged her. 13 To shore up this weakness, Bartholomew resorts to a legal doctrine normally used in statutory construction and contract interpretati

1990(Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 529, 543 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 866 , 483 P.2d 34 , 57 A.L.R.3d 1 ]; Selleck v. Globe International, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1123, 1133 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 838 ].) As already noted in our discussion of appellant’s defamation claims, there is no evidence that ABC broadcast its statements for any reason other than those usually associated with newscasts.

2015Special Motions to Strike and Standard of Review An order denying a special motion to strike under section 425.16 is appealable. (§ 425.16, subd. (i).) “Resolving the merits of a section 425.16 motion involves a two- part analysis, concentrating initially on whether the challenged cause of action arises from protected activity within the meaning of the statute and, if it does, proceeding secondly to whether the plaintiff can establish a probability of prevailing on the merits.” (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 699 (Overstock.com).) “In this case, ‘we

2013Discussion Resolving the merits of an anti-SLAPP motion under section 425.16 is ordinarily “a two-part analysis, concentrating initially on whether the challenged cause of action arises from protected activity within the meaning of the statute and, if it does, proceeding secondly to whether the plaintiff can establish a probability of prevailing on the merits.” (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 699 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 ] (Overstock.com).) In this case, “we bypass the initial inquiry because everyone agrees that the first hurdle in obtaining anti-SLAPP

2008(See Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 600-601 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 552 P.2d 425 ( Gregory ).) Because the law does not recognize the possibility of a false opinion, a claim for defamation cannot succeed unless the challenged statement can be reasonably understood to express or imply a provably false assertion of fact. ( Kahn v. Bower (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1599, 1607, 1608, 1609 , 284 Cal.Rptr. 244 .) "If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim." ( Vogel, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1020, 26 Cal. Rptr.3d 350 .) A statement i

2008(See Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 600-601 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 552 P.2d 425 ( Gregory ).) Because the law does not recognize the possibility of a false opinion, a claim for defamation cannot succeed unless the challenged statement can be reasonably understood to express or imply a provably false assertion of fact. ( Kahn v. Bower (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1599, 1607, 1608, 1609 , 284 Cal.Rptr. 244 .) "If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim." ( Vogel, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1020, 26 Cal. Rptr.3d 350 .) A statement i

1971We have previously stated that a “false light” cause of action “is in substance equivalent to . . . [a] libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim . . . including proof of malice (cf. Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967) 385 U.S. 374 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 456 , 87 S.Ct. 534 ]) and fulfillment of the requirements of section 48a [of the Civil Code] (See Werner v. Times-Mirror Co., 193 Cal.App.2d 111, 122-123 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 208 ].)” (Kapellas v. Kofman, supra, 1 Cal.3d 20, 35, fn. 16 .) 20 Plaintiff here alleged malice, but at no time complied with the requirements of section 48 a.

1971We have previously stated that a “false light” cause of action “is in substance equivalent to . . . [a] libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim . . . including proof of malice (cf. Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967) 385 U.S. 374 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 456 , 87 S.Ct. 534 ]) and fulfillment of the requirements of section 48a [of the Civil Code] (See Werner v. Times-Mirror Co., 193 Cal.App.2d 111, 122-123 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 208 ].)” (Kapellas v. Kofman, supra, 1 Cal.3d 20, 35, fn. 16 .) 20 Plaintiff here alleged malice, but at no time complied with the requirements of section 48 a.

2023(Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 869 , 884 (Medical Marijuana); see also Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1242 (Shively) [a “written dissemination” is not required for a statement to be “published” for purposes of defamation].) A false light claim is a species of invasion of privacy and arises out of “ ‘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 wh

2015In general, libel is "a written communication that is false, that is not protected by any privilege, and that exposes a person to contempt or ridicule or certain other reputational injuries." (Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1242 .) To prevail on a libel claim, "the First Amendment also requires that the statement on which the claim is based must specifically refer to, or be 'of and concerning,' the plaintiff in some way."1 (Blatty v. New York Times Co. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1033, 1042 .) Appellants challenge Tenborg's showing on each of these elements.

1971We have previously stated that a “false light” cause of action “is in substance equivalent to . . . [a] libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim . . . including proof of malice (cf. Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967) 385 U.S. 374 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 456 , 87 S.Ct. 534 ]) and fulfillment of the requirements of section 48a [of the Civil Code] (See Werner v. Times-Mirror Co., 193 Cal.App.2d 111, 122-123 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 208 ].)” (Kapellas v. Kofman, supra, 1 Cal.3d 20, 35, fn. 16 .) 20 Plaintiff here alleged malice, but at no time complied with the requirements of section 48 a.

1971We have previously stated that a “false light” cause of action “is in substance equivalent to . . . [a] libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim . . . including proof of malice (cf. Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967) 385 U.S. 374 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 456 , 87 S.Ct. 534 ]) and fulfillment of the requirements of section 48a [of the Civil Code] (See Werner v. Times-Mirror Co., 193 Cal.App.2d 111, 122-123 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 208 ].)” (Kapellas v. Kofman, supra, 1 Cal.3d 20, 35, fn. 16 .) 20 Plaintiff here alleged malice, but at no time complied with the requirements of section 48 a.

2016G. v. Time Warner, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 623, 636 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ].) “A ‘false light’ cause of action is in substance equivalent to a libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim, including proof of malice.” (Aisenson v. American Broadcasting Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 146, 161 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 379 ].) To show a probability of prevailing on his claims, “ ‘the plaintiff “must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plain

2016G. v. Time Warner, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 623, 636 .) ―A ‗false light‘ cause of action is in substance equivalent to a libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim, including proof of malice.‖ (Aisenson v. American Broadcasting Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 146, 161 .) To show a probability of prevailing on his claims, ― ‗the plaintiff ―must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.‖ [Citations.] . . . [T]hou

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

2023In Barrett, for example, our Supreme Court recognized that “[w]eb sites accessible to the public . . . are ‘public forums’ for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute.” (Barrett v. Rosenthal (2006) 40 Cal.4th 33, 41, fn. 4 (Barrett).) The high court then went on to conclude that, on the merits, the plaintiff’s libel claim failed under the “broad immunity” afforded by section 230.

2017G. v. Time Warner, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 623, 636 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ].) “ ‘A “false light” cause of action is in substance equivalent to a libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim, including proof of malice [where malice is required for the libel claim].’ ” (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 602, 616 [ 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 45 ]; accord, Aisenson v. American Broadcasting Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 146, 161 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 379 ]; see generally Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 215 , 721 P.2d 97 ] [

2017G. v. Time Warner, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 623, 636 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ].) “ ‘A “false light” cause of action is in substance equivalent to a libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim, including proof of malice [where malice is required for the libel claim].’ ” (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 602, 616 [ 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 45 ]; accord, Aisenson v. American Broadcasting Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 146, 161 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 379 ]; see generally Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 215 , 721 P.2d 97 ] [

2017G. v. Time Warner, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 623, 636 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ].) “ ‘A “false light” cause of action is in substance equivalent to a libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim, including proof of malice [where malice is required for the libel claim].’ ” (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 602, 616 [ 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 45 ]; accord, Aisenson v. American Broadcasting Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 146, 161 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 379 ]; see generally Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 215 , 721 P.2d 97 ] [

2017G. v. Time Warner, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 623, 636 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ].) “ ‘A “false light” cause of action is in substance equivalent to a libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim, including proof of malice [where malice is required for the libel claim].’ ” (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 602, 616 [ 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 45 ]; accord, Aisenson v. American Broadcasting Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 146, 161 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 379 ]; see generally Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 215 , 721 P.2d 97 ] [

2017G. v. Time Warner, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 623, 636 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ].) “ ‘A “false light” cause of action is in substance equivalent to a libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim, including proof of malice [where malice is required for the libel claim].’ ” (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 602, 616 [ 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 45 ]; accord, Aisenson v. American Broadcasting Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 146, 161 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 379 ]; see generally Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 215 , 721 P.2d 97 ] [

2017G. v. Time Warner, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 623, 636 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ].) “ ‘A “false light” cause of action is in substance equivalent to a libel claim, and should meet the same requirements of the libel claim, including proof of malice [where malice is required for the libel claim].’ ” (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 602, 616 [ 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 45 ]; accord, Aisenson v. American Broadcasting Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 146, 161 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 379 ]; see generally Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 215 , 721 P.2d 97 ] [

2016Co. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 783, 801 [ 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 873 ] [ Vons and Snowney require a substantial connection between the plaintiff’s claims and the defendant’s forum contacts; test is not satisfied whenever there is “any relationship at all”].) In Keeton, supra, 465 U.S. 770 , the United States Supreme Court upheld the assertion of specific jurisdiction in New Hampshire to adjudicate the libel claims of a New York resident against an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in California. {Id. at pp. 772-774.) The high court found the defendant’s regular circulation of magazine

2016Co. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 783, 801 [ 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 873 ] [ Vons and Snowney require a substantial connection between the plaintiff’s claims and the defendant’s forum contacts; test is not satisfied whenever there is “any relationship at all”].) In Keeton, supra, 465 U.S. 770 , the United States Supreme Court upheld the assertion of specific jurisdiction in New Hampshire to adjudicate the libel claims of a New York resident against an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in California. {Id. at pp. 772-774.) The high court found the defendant’s regular circulation of magazine

2015(Id. at p. 479; see Roberts v. McAfee, Inc. (9th Cir. 2011) 660 F.3d 1156, 1166-1167 .) For example, in Strick v. Superior Court (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 916 (Strick), the court dismissed causes of action for fraud and deceit, which were grounded on the same facts as the plaintiff's libel cause of action, because the one- year statute of limitations on the libel claim had expired.