Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp.
Decision Date | 16 April 2002 |
Docket Number | No. A094062.,A094062. |
Citation | 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 108,97 Cal.App.4th 798 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Jennifer SEELIG, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. INFINITY BROADCASTING CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
Reality television and talk radio are two of the more popular cultural phenomena of the new century. In the first, real people often compete for a prize under the most unrealistic, often demeaning conditions. In the second, a host discusses topics of current interest with live guests and call-in audience members. These discussions often, though not always, include generous portions of insult and invective. Given these programming themes, it was inevitable that a participant in a reality television competition would be insulted by a talk-radio host and sue for defamation.
The instant appeal involves such a suit. Defendants Infinity Broadcasting Corporation, Uzette Salazar, Vincent Crackhorn and Steve Dinardo filed a special motion to strike plaintiffs complaint and asserted that the suit constituted a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) suit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (hereafter § 425.16). The trial court denied the motion. We conclude that the challenged commentary was made "in connection with an issue of public interest" (§ 425.16, subd. (e)(3) & (4)), even though much of it concerned plaintiffs unwillingness to appear on the radio program. Further, we determine that the insults uttered are not actionable under section 425.16 and reverse the order of the trial court.
Plaintiff participated as one of 50 contestants in the television program Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire (hereafter the Show). In this program, women contestants competed for the right to marry a wealthy stranger. In addition to the marriage, complete with a prenuptial agreement, the bride received a $35,000 wedding ring and a new car. Plaintiff was not chosen to marry the putative multimillionaire, nor even selected as one of the five finalists, though she did appear briefly as a contestant in a portion of the television broadcast. During her time on air, she stated only her name, that she was from San Francisco, and that she worked in sales at KFRC,2 a San Francisco radio station. Her total participation in the television broadcast lasted less than one minute. Though plaintiff was not paid for her participation in the Show, she received the cost of the trip to Las Vegas and some gifts.
The taping of the Show occurred before its airing on February 15, 2000, with all taping involving plaintiff being completed prior to February 1, 2000. To plaintiffs knowledge, her name and likeness were neither aired nor made public in any way by the producers of the Show before the television broadcast.
Defendant Uzette Salazar (Uzette) contacted plaintiff on or about February 1, 2000, and asked if she would participate in a discussion regarding the Show on KLLC's "Sarah and Vinnie" morning radio program. Plaintiff declined. She informed Uzette that she competed in the contest only as a personal experience, and that she did not wish to be interviewed on their radio program because she did not want to bring attention to herself or to chance being ridiculed or subjected to public humiliation. She also told Uzette that she was contractually prohibited from entering into any type of publicity concerning the Show.
On February 15, 2000, during the radio program, but before the Show was televised, the following colloquy occurred between Sarah Clark (Sarah)3 and Vincent Crackhorn (Vinnie), KLLC's morning broadcast cohosts, along with Uzette, the radio program's on-air producer:
After the radio program, but before the airing of the Show, plaintiff received numerous telephone calls from individuals, business associates, and personal friends, stating that they were aware she had been humiliated on the broadcast. Plaintiff became extremely upset and angry with her ex-husband because she thought he had made the statements about her until he assured her he had not. Plaintiffs ex-husband was never asked if he thought plaintiff was a "skank" and he never stated to anyone connected with KLLC that his ex-wife was a skank. The statement Uzette attributed to him was false, and Uzette later apologized to him for stating he had called plaintiff a big skank.
As a result of the radio broadcast, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) slander per se; (2) slander; (3) invasion of privacy; (4) negligent hiring, retention and supervision of employees; (5) and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court sustained demurrers to the causes of action for slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress, without leave to amend, because they were duplicative of other claims within the complaint. This appeal follows defendants' unsuccessful concurrent motion to strike the complaint pursuant to section 425.16, subd. (b).
In 1992, the Legislature enacted section 425.16 in an effort to curtail lawsuits brought primarily "to chill the valid exercise of ... freedom of speech and petition for redress of grievances" and "to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance." (§ 425.16, subd. (a).) The section authorizes a special motion to strike "[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 ...."(§ 425.16, subd. (b)(...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Healthsmart Pac., Inc. v. Kabateck
......subd. (a); see Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 798, 808, 119 ......
-
Gallagher v. Philipps
...("[S]tatements during a radio interview meet subdivision (e)(3)’s public forum requirement." (citing Seelig v. Infinity Broad. Corp. , 97 Cal. App. 4th 798, 807, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 108 (2002) )). Statements made in a podcast are sufficiently similar that the Court finds them to satisfy the pub......
-
Daniel v. Wayans
......CBS Broadcasting, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1521, 1525, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 123.) The ...McKesson Corp . (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686, 706, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 773, 219 P.3d 749 ), " ... scrutiny and potential ridicule by the public and the media." ( Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp . (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 798, 808, 119 ......
-
Cross v. Cooper
...S. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1146 [statements about lesbian couple that had achieved national attention]; Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 798 (Seelig) [statements about a participant in popular national reality TV show]; ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal......
-
Defamation
...true that there can be no defamation unless the defamatory imputation is in fact false. ( Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp . (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 798, 809.) Accordingly, the interrogatories set forth in this section explore the defendant’s contentions regarding the alleged falsity of t......
-
Defamation
...true that there can be no defamation unless the defamatory imputation is in fact false. ( Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp . (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 798, 809.) Accordingly, the interrogatories set forth in this section explore the defendant’s contentions regarding the alleged falsity of t......