Conroy v. Spitzer

• Decision Date: 31 March 1999
• Docket Number: No. G021750,G021750
• Citation: 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 443,70 Cal.App.4th 1446
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2341, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3063 Mickey CONROY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Todd SPITZER, Defendant and Respondent.

Page 443

83 Cal.Rptr.2d 443

70 Cal.App.4th 1446, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2341,

1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3063

Mickey CONROY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Todd SPITZER, Defendant and Respondent.

No. G021750.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California.

March 31, 1999.

[70 Cal.App.4th 1448] Bradley P. Knypstra, Orange, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Ufkes & Bright and Jamie Morris Spitzer for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

SILLS, P.J.

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 was enacted to discourage the filing of SLAPP suits--otherwise known as strategic lawsuits against public participation. SLAPP suits are, by definition, aimed at chilling the valid exercise of political rights, particularly the right of freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances.

The present case involves what the trial court characterized as a SLAPP suit, and after reviewing the entire record we agree. Mickey Conroy filed a defamation suit against Todd Spitzer, his political rival in the 1996 elections for the Orange County Board of Supervisors. At that time Conroy was a California State Assemblyman whose former assistant had filed sexual harassment charges against him. Conroy was investigated by the Assembly and reprimanded for violating the Assembly's sexual harassment policy. Various newspapers reported on the sexual harassment suit, Conroy's reprimand and the cost of Conroy's defense. During his campaign, Spitzer made numerous comments about the sexual harassment suit, which became the basis for Conroy's defamation suit.

The trial court granted Spitzer's motion to strike the complaint as a SLAPP suit, noting that Spitzer's campaign statements were either true or based on reliable evidence. Conroy was ordered to pay $3,421 in attorney's fees and costs. We affirm because, as explained below, Conroy failed to show a probability of prevailing on his defamation claim.

FACTS

In 1996, Conroy and Spitzer were candidates for a seat on the Orange County Board of Supervisors. At that time, Conroy, a member of the California State Assembly, was facing a sexual harassment suit filed by a former assistant. The Assembly investigated the allegations and reprimanded Conroy "for engaging in conduct ... that constituted violations of the [Assembly's] Sexual Harassment Policy...." Various newspapers--including the San Francisco Examiner, the Sacramento Bee, the Orange County Register, and the Los Angeles Times--printed reports of the sexual harassment suit, Conroy's reprimand and the cost of Conroy's defense. ¹

Spitzer used this information in his campaign against Conroy. In a letter to absentee voters, Spitzer stated that Conroy "is also spending $583,000 of taxpayer money to fight sexual harassment charges, for which he has already been found guilty in the Assembly Rules Committee." Spitzer's campaign mailers contained the following statements: "Fact: The bi-partisan Assembly Rules Committee conducted a thorough investigation and found that Mickey Conroy was guilty of sexual harassment of one of his employees.... [p] Fact: Conroy has done everything he can to delay the lawsuit until after the November 5th election. [p] Fact: Taxpayers have already spent more than $583,000 in legal fees, including helping Conroy delay the trial, despite the Legislature's findings. [p] Fact: Taxpayers will spend at least another $250,000 in legal fees helping Conroy defend himself against charges that have already been proven. [p] Fact: Conroy stated on KOCE-TV that he will 'probably settle' the case after the election." Spitzer spoke about Conroy on local television and radio programs, stating that "the state legislative committee which investigated him has already found him guilty;" "he's already been found guilty of sexual harassment;" and "he has used every trick in the book to postpone his trial until after election."

Conroy filed suit against Spitzer, claiming libel, slander per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Spitzer filed a special motion to strike Conroy's complaint pursuant to section 425.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court granted Spitzer's motion to dismiss the entire action with prejudice and ordered Conroy to pay $3,421 in attorney's fees and costs. The court found that: "Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating a probability that they will prevail on their claims pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(b). Plaintiffs have not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that defendant possessed the requisite actual malice required under New York Times v. Sullivan ... [and] Robertson v. Rodriguez ...." From the judgment of dismissal Conroy now appeals.

DISCUSSION

Background of Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16

Strategic lawsuits against public participation or SLAPP suits (as they are more commonly known) have "been described as '[ ]meritless suit[s] filed primarily to chill [a] defendant's exercise of First Amendment rights." (Macias v. Hartwell (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 669, 672, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 222, quoting Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 815, fn. 2, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 446.) Finding a "disturbing increase" in such lawsuits, the Legislature enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. This anti-SLAPP statute provides that a cause of action arising from a person's exercise of the constitutional rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue is "subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) The purpose of section 425.16 ² is to "encourage continued participation in matters of public significance" by "eliminat[ing] meritless litigation at an early stage in the proceedings." (Macias v. Hartwell, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 672, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 222 (citation omitted).)

Under the anti-SLAPP statute, once Spitzer showed that his statements were acts in furtherance of his right of free speech and made in connection with a public issue, then, in order to defeat Spitzer's motion to strike, Conroy had the burden of showing a probability of prevailing on his defamation claim.

Spitzer's Statements Involved His Right of Free Speech in Connection With a Public Issue

Section 425.16 applies to suits involving statements made during political campaigns. (See Beilenson v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 944, 950, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 357 [applying section 425.16 to a libel action by a losing political candidate against the winner for statements made in campaign mailers]; Matson v. Dvorak (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 542, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 880 [applying section 425.16 to statements made in a campaign flyer concerning a candidate]; Robertson v. Rodriguez (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 347, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 464 [applying section 425.16 to statements made in a mailer in connection with a recall election].) "The right to speak on political matters is the quintessential subject of our constitutional protections of the right of free speech. 'Public discussion about the qualifications of those who hold or who wish to hold positions of public trust presents the strongest possible case for applications of the safeguards afforded by the First Amendment.' " (Matson v. Dvorak, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 548, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 880, quoting Aisenson v. American Broadcasting Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 146, 154, 269 Cal.Rptr. 379.)

Here, Spitzer's statements obviously fell within the purview of section 425.16 because they addressed a matter of public concern--a candidate's qualifications and conduct in office. Therefore, the only issue is whether Conroy established a probability of prevailing on his defamation claim.

Conroy Failed to Show a Probability of Prevailing on His Defamation Claim

In order to establish a "probability" of prevailing on his defamation claim against Spitzer, Conroy had to make a prima facie showing of facts which would, if credited, support a judgment in his favor. (Wilcox v. Superior Court, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at pp. 823-824, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 446.) As a public official, Conroy could not recover damages for Spitzer's statements about his fitness for office unless he proved by clear and convincing evidence that the "statement[s] [were] made with 'actual malice'--that is, with knowledge that [they were] false or with reckless disregard of whether [they were] false or not." (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 279-280, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686.) Therefore, in addressing the issue of whether Conroy demonstrated the existence of a prima facie case for defamation, we "bear in mind the higher clear and convincing standard of proof." (Robertson v. Rodriguez, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 358, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 464; cf. Looney v. Superior Court (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 521, 538, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 182 ["Section 425.13 ... require[s] only that a plaintiff demonstrate the existence of sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for punitive damages, having in mind the higher clear and convincing standard of proof."].)

Here, the trial court found that the factual statements Spitzer made during the campaign were either true, i.e., Conroy was indeed reprimanded by the Assembly for sexual harassment, or based on reliable evidence, i.e., the Assembly investigation report and reprimand letter, newspaper articles, and Conroy's own statements. A complete review of the record shows no reason to doubt the trial court's determination.

First, Conroy was sent a formal letter of reprimand from then Speaker of the Assembly, Willie Brown, on March 8, 1994, after an investigation by the Assembly Rules Committee revealed that Conroy's "conduct was inappropriate and violative of the Assembly policy." ³ The Committee recommended peer review and additional sexual harassment and sensitivity...