Kaufman v. Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn.
Decision Date | 16 March 1983 |
Citation | 140 Cal.App.3d 913,189 Cal.Rptr. 818 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | H.R. KAUFMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FIDELITY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 27935. |
Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment against him in an action for libel based on a letter written by defendants during the course of a zoning dispute.
Blue Jay Village, perched in the San Bernardino mountains, was the setting for this libel action. Defendant Fidelity Federal Savings and Loan Association felt the need to expand in order to better serve this community. A dispute arose as to whether such expansion was in the best interests of Blue Jay. During the course of hearings by the board of supervisors to determine the propriety of the expansion, Fidelity wrote the local residents seeking their support. Plaintiff H.R. Kaufman asserts he was defamed by this letter.
Fidelity has been a tenant of Kaufman's Blue Jay Village Corporation in the Village of Blue Jay for a number of years. Kaufman is the President of the Blue Jay Village Corporation which is the wholly owned subsidiary of Pioneer Take-Out Chicken Corporation. Kaufman is also the president and controlling stockholder of Pioneer Chicken.
Blue Jay Village was the only commercial property properly zoned for a savings and loan establishment. For a time the two savings and loans (Fidelity and Arrowhead Savings and Loan Association) have both been located in the village. Kaufman helped organize Arrowhead and is presently chairman of the board. Arrowhead leases and occupies a rather large free-standing building in Blue Jay Village.
In contrast, defendant Fidelity Federal Savings and Loan Association was leasing a significantly smaller space from the Blue Jay Village Corporation. During 1979 and prior thereto, defendant was negotiating for larger quarters with plaintiff's Blue Jay Village Corporation. These negotiations ultimately broke down and defendant purchased property adjacent to that owned by the Blue Jay Village Corporation. Defendant intended to construct a building to house its savings and loan on this property.
The property was not properly zoned for a professional building. In 1979, defendant commenced proceedings to have the property rezoned to allow it to carry out its plans for building.
These efforts were sporadically reported in the press until late 1980. After that time the dispute concerning Fidelity's plans came to a head. Community interest increased which resulted in more detailed press coverage. On September 18, 1980, the zone change was approved and reported in the Mountain News & Mountaineer and the Timberline Journal. These are both weekly newspapers of general circulation distributed in the Arrowhead and Blue Jay areas. The Mountain News on October 2, 1980, reported the zone change had been referred back to the planning commission based on improper notice of the hearing. The Timberline Journal published the same story on October 9, 1980. The zone change was approved on October 14, 1980, by the planning commission. This was reported in the Timberline Journal on October 16, 1980. These words appear in that article: "Frank Wilson, who filed the original appeal, did not appear, however, Ron Goldie, the attorney representing Pioneer Take-Out Corporation, owners of Blue Jay Village, did oppose the project." The approval of the zone change by the planning commission was also reported in the Mountain News on October 16, 1980. The article stated in part: "Tuesday's hearing brought opposition in the person of Ron Goldie, representing Blue Jay Village, a subsidiary of Pioneer Takeout, Inc., who contended that the Fidelity Federal plan would upset the overall plan for Blue Jay Village."
The controversy continued when the board of supervisors set a new hearing date (November 10, 1980); reported in the Mountain News on October 23, 1980. On October 30, 1980, the Mountain News carried this headline story on the front page: "FIDELITY ZONE CHANGE RUNS INTO MORE SNAGS." Contained within this article was the following: On October 30, 1980, the Timberline Journal carried the story of the resetting of Fidelity Savings and Loan's application for hearing on the zone change to November 10, 1980. These words appear in that article:
On November 6, 1980, the Timberline Journal, under the heading "Fidelity site stalled, again" published a story containing the following: On November 13, 1980, Mountain News carried this story covering the continuance of the zoning change, stating: "...
Against this backdrop, defendant sent the following letter to the local residents:
This letter was mailed on November 12, 1980.
Plaintiff instituted the present suit for libel based on this letter.
These facts are not contradicted by anything contained in plaintiff's affidavits in opposition to the motion for summary judgment.
The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment claiming the letter constituted opinion rather than fact as a matter of law. The court below granted the motion on two grounds: The statements were nonactionable opinions and conclusions of the defendant; the statements were nondefamatory as a matter of law.
Does the questioned letter contain opinion or fact? This is a matter of law and summary judgment is a favored remedy to resolve cases concerning First Amendment rights. The chilling effect of protracted litigation on the exercise of free speech requires speedy resolution. (Good Government Group of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 672, 685, 150 Cal.Rptr. 258, 586 P.2d 572.) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reader's Digest Assn. v. Superior Court
...cautioning that summary disposition is not appropriate if a triable issue of fact exists. (See Kaufman v. Fidelity Fed. S. & L. Assn. (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 913, 920, 189 Cal.Rptr. 818; Bill v. Superior Court (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1015, 187 Cal.Rptr. 625; Desert Sun Publishing Co. v. S......
-
Lacher v. Superior Court, G009348
...196 Cal.Rptr. 670.) The process by which development approvals are obtained is a political one. (Kaufman v. Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 913, 920, 189 Cal.Rptr. 818.) Vigorous political debate and long, often acrimonious, public hearings before planning commissions,......
-
Live Oak Publishing Co. v. Cohagan
..." (Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 744, 257 Cal.Rptr. 708, 771 P.2d 406. See Kaufman v. Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 913, 920, 189 Cal.Rptr. 818.) Generally, authors are considered to have "participated sufficiently in public controversies or .......
-
Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
...his ability to play professional football); Rosanova v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., supra; Kaufman v. Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn., 140 Cal.App.3d 913, 189 Cal.Rptr. 818 (1983) (bank president who sought to influence governmental officials in charge of zoning was a public We believe......