Martin v. Kearney

• Decision Date: 10 September 1975
• Citation: Martin v. Kearney, 124 Cal.Rptr. 281, 51 Cal.App.3d 309 (Cal. App. 1975)
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: Henriette T. MARTIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Phil KEARNEY et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 44647.

Page 281

124 Cal.Rptr. 281

51 Cal.App.3d 309

Henriette T. MARTIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.Phil KEARNEY et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 44647.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

Sept. 10, 1975.

Arthur A. Corrales, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.

Timothy M. O'Connor, and Robert Alden Welbourn, Redondo Beach, for defendants and respondents.

ORDER

FLEMING, Associate Justice.

Libel action by Henriette Martin, a public school teacher, against the Kearneys and the Bracketts, parents of two or Martin's students.The action complains of defendants' letters to the school principal which questioned Martin's classroom conduct and her fitness to teach typing to high school students.The trial court granted defendants a judgment on the pleadings, and Martin has appealed.

Martin's complaint alleged: On 15 February 1972defendants'with intent to injure plaintiff in her reputation and occupation, maliciously published, among and to various persons including plaintiff's superiors and employers, letter(s) addressed to plaintiff's superior, Mr. Edward C. Moore, Principal of Palos Verdes High School.'The letters falsely stated that Martin had displayed an utter lack of judgment or respect, had been rude, vindictive and unjust, misused her authority and had given failing grades to students she did not like.One letter stated, 'We are sending you this information . . . in the hope that either Miss Martin is able to correct her personality defects (with or without professional assistance) or in the future will teach adults who perhaps can cope with her problems.'Defendants knew these statements were untrue and published them for the purpose of exposing plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy in order to injure her in her occupation.Defendants harbored ill-will toward plaintiff and intended by their letters to vex, harass, and annoy her.They published their statements with malicious, wanton recklessness and heedlessness for plaintiff's reputation, with intent to injury her in her occupation and bring her into public disgrace and disrepute.

We agree with the trial court that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for libel.On its face the complaint shows that the assertedly libelous statements were publications in an official proceeding as well as communications between interested persons and hence were both absolutely and qualifiedly privileged.

1.Absolute Privilege.Civil Code section 47, subdivision 2, provides that a publication is absolutely privileged if made in any official proceeding authorized by law.'(A) communication to an official administrative agency, which communication is designed to prompt action by that agency, is as much a part of the 'official proceeding' as a communication made after the proceedings have commenced.'(King v. Borges, 28 Cal.App.3d 27, 34, 104 Cal.Rptr. 414, 417;Ascherman v. Natanson, 23 Cal.App.3d 861, 100 Cal.Rptr. 656.)Defendants, the parents of Martin's students, sent to her superior officer and to her employer letters designed to prompt official action with respect to Martin's conduct as a public school teacher.The trial court could take judicial notice (cf.Code Civ.Proc., § 430.70;Evid.Code, § 452(d)) of Palos Verdes School Board rules which require such communications to be in writing:

'Citizens Complaints Against Certificated Personnel

'The normal procedure for handling complaints about certificated personnel shall be to encourage the complaining party to begin with the source of his complaint (teacher, administrator, supervisor).

'If the problem is not handled satisfactorily at this level, informal discussion is to be...