Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co.

• Decision Date: 09 August 1995
• Docket Number: No. A067522,A067522
• Citation: 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 46,37 Cal.App.4th 855
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 102 Ed. Law Rep. 678, 23 Media L. Rep. 2389, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6359, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,818 LAFAYETTE MOREHOUSE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. The CHRONICLE PUBLISHING COMPANY et al., Defendants/Respondents.

Page 46

44 Cal.Rptr.2d 46

37 Cal.App.4th 855, 102 Ed. Law Rep. 678, 23 Media L. Rep. 2389,

95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6359,

95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,818

LAFAYETTE MOREHOUSE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. The CHRONICLE PUBLISHING COMPANY et al., Defendants/Respondents.

No. A067522.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5, California.

Aug. 9, 1995.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 1, 1995.

Review Denied Nov. 30, 1995.

Richard W. Hyland, Lafayette, Walter P. Maksym, Walter Maksym & Associates, Oak Brook, IL, for appellants.

James M. Wagstaffe, Mark L. Tuft, Cooper, White & Cooper, San Francisco, for respondents.

PETERSON, Presiding Justice.

In 1992, California enacted an anti-SLAPP statute. (Stats.1992, ch. 726, § 2, No. 10 West's Cal.Legis.Service, pp. 3031-3032; CODE CIV.PROC., § 425.16¹.) SLAPP is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. SLAPP litigation, generally, is litigation without merit filed to dissuade or punish the exercise of First Amendment rights of defendants. (Hull v. Rossi (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1763, 1769, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 457; cf. Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 815-816, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 446 (Wilcox ).)

Anti-SLAPP statutes such as section 425.16 provide a procedural remedy to expose and dismiss at an early stage such nonmeritorious actions which chill, inter alia, "the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech...." (Subd. (a).) Section 425.16, subdivision (b) does so by making "[a] cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's [constitutional] right of ... free speech ... in connection with a public issue ... subject to a special motion to strike," unless the person asserting that cause of action establishes by pleading and affidavit a "probability" of prevailing thereon.

In this appeal, we hold: (1) The corporate publisher of a newspaper and its reporters, who are sued for libel based on published articles made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, are all persons who may lawfully invoke the provisions of section 425.16. (2) On this record, appellants failed to show a probability they would prevail on their libel cause of action against respondents, and the trial court properly granted respondents' special motion to strike the cause of action under section 425.16.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This appeal arises from the trial court's decision to dismiss a libel complaint filed by More University and several affiliated persons and entities, against the company which publishes the San Francisco Chronicle and several of its reporters.

More University was founded in the late 1960's as an outgrowth of the alternative living experiments of the time. Located near Lafayette, ² the university describes itself as a "unique" institution, which was established to "expand the physical, spiritual, and intellectual capacities" of its students, while maintaining "tolerance for all apparent alien encounters." The university offers courses in a variety of traditional disciplines such as art, music, and philosophy. However, the university also offers somewhat unique degrees in the areas of "sensuality," "lifestyles," and "communication." Students studying in these latter disciplines take courses in areas such as "niceness & meanness," "teasing," "sensuality," and "mutual pleasurable stimulation of the human nervous system." Through study and course work both in class and at home), students can obtain advanced degrees in these fields, such as a Ph.D. in "sensuality."

In early 1992, persons living on the More University property permitted a large number of homeless to live in tents on the site. This influx caused a corresponding increase of complaints from neighbors who alleged they were subjected to the annoying and sometimes criminal behavior of these new residents. Store owners experienced a sharp increase in the number of aggressive panhandlers and persons harassing their customers. Homeowners reported cases of public urination and public intoxication. Other homeowners complained of an increase in litter and petty crime. A local police lieutenant reported a "significant" increase in the number of problems related to the More University property, including felony assaults, panhandling, and abandoned vehicles in residential and commercial areas.

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors responded to these and other complaints by holding a series of public hearings beginning in May 1992, to discuss whether this use of the More University property violated local health, land use, or other governmental regulations. As a result of those hearings, the board of supervisors determined that permits were needed since the activities violated local zoning laws. When More University officials refused to comply with the permit process or to cease the challenged activity, the county filed an action in state court to enjoin the alleged violations. More and various related entities responded by filing their own civil rights suit in federal court alleging the county's enforcement action violated their right to free expression and privacy.

Beginning in June 1992, the San Francisco Chronicle published a series of articles which described the dispute we have set forth above. The articles reported the influx of homeless living at the More University site and the corresponding increase in complaints from neighbors. The articles also discussed the board hearings which were held to discuss the problem, the county's enforcement action, and the university's complaint in federal court. The reporters who wrote the articles sometimes used colorful language in describing the dispute and the parties, e.g., characterizing More as a "sensuality school" and stating that it offered a "unique course in carnal knowledge." In addition, the articles characterized Victor Baranco, the founder of More, as a "reclusive guru" and accurately reported that he and his wife Cynthia were the subject of an LSD drug prosecution in Hawaii. The articles also reported the allegations of a former student, Alan Steele, who said that More coerced students into prostitution and provided them with LSD and other illegal drugs. Furthermore, the article accurately reported that More had filed a libel suit against Steele arising from his allegations.

More and various other persons and entities who were mentioned in the articles filed a complaint against the Chronicle and the reporters who wrote them. ³ As eventually amended, the complaint alleged seven causes of action; however, only one of them is relevant on the present appeal. More alleged that the newspaper articles were libelous.

The Chronicle responded to the complaint by filing a special motion to strike under section 425.16. ⁴ Consistent with the language in that section, the Chronicle argued that More could not establish there was a probability it would prevail on the complaint because, among other things, the articles were neither false nor defamatory. After hearing and argument, the trial court agreed and granted the special motion to strike, ruling that More had failed to present proof of falsity.

More then asked the court to reconsider its ruling, and it filed numerous declarations in support of its request. After argument, the court denied the motion, finding that More had failed to present evidence of falsity, and that it had not presented a prima facie case of actual malice. This appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Applicability of Section 425.16 to a Case Involving Media Defendants

The first issue is whether the trial court properly applied section 425.16 to the present suit. More argues that the statute was adopted to deal only with the problems presented by archetypal SLAPP suits, and that it should not be interpreted to apply to a libel suit brought against media defendants based on their news reporting activities.

In assessing the correctness of More's contention that section 425.16 must be interpreted to exclude the applicability of its special motion to strike procedure to a publisher of a newspaper and its reporters sued for libel in the circumstances of this case, we are governed by familiar rules of statutory interpretation. Our primary duty when interpreting a statute is to effectuate the Legislature's intent. (Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Pol. Practices Com. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 744, 764, 274 Cal.Rptr. 787, 799 P.2d 1220.) When the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no need for interpretation and we must apply the statute as written. (Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 73, 276 Cal.Rptr. 130, 801 P.2d 373; see also Ornelas v. Randolph (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1095, 1105, fn. 8, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 594, 847 P.2d 560.) With these rules in mind, we turn to the statute at hand.

Section 425.16, subdivision (b) states, in part, "A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be 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."

We find this plain language applies to the present libel cause of action brought against the Chronicle based on its news reporting activities. First, More does not seriously contend, and we do not find, that the statute's reference to "persons" renders it inapplicable. Section 17 specifically states that when the term "person" is used in a statute, it also applies to corporations; and the fact that the Chronicle Publishing Company is a corporation does not exclude it from the ambit of the statute.

The principal issue then is whether the present suit arose from an act of the...