...seen this? Not a Righthaven issue, but rather about holding a Message Board owner libel for what is written on it, and what is protected speech, etc.
IHUB knocked Eades scammy socks off!! It will definately be Case Law for future Cases and certainly provides you better cover from such bullshit SLAPP Suits. I believe scion (who used to post on FAKE along with many of us) has all o0f the PACER info on that Lawsuit. Frankly, it means that all the threats you got over what Posters put on your MB are hollow, and will go nowhere - true SLAPP bs...
In light of the above, maybe FAKE can return????
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/lh9vd
"2. Actual Malice
Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of showing that his defamation claims are “legally sufficient” for a separate reason: He did not plead actual malice in his Complaint.
Defamatory statements regarding matters of public concern are actionable only if the plaintiff pleads and proves that the defendant acted with constitutional actual malice. Miller v. Nestande, 192 Cal. App. 3d 191, 197-98 (1987). This standard applies not only to public figures, but also to private figures defamed with statements that are of public concern. Id. Neither party disputed that this requirement applies here. When a plaintiff fails to plead actual malice, his claim is legally insufficient and must be dismissed. See Vogel v. Felice, 127 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1017-18 (2005) (finding that a “conclusory boilerplate allegation that defendant acted ‘maliciously and oppressively, and in conscious disregard of [plaintiff’s] rights’” did not satisfy the pleading requirement because “[s]uch an allegation is insufficient to state a cause of action in a case where ‘actual malice’… is required.”).
Here, the challenged statements were of public concern. Accordingly, in order to establish the legal sufficiency of his claims, Plaintiff was required to plead actual malice. Plaintiff failed to do so. Plaintiff argues that, under Civil Rule 8, he sufficiently pleaded actual malice. Plaintiff also contends that, in this federal proceeding, he need not allege facts showing malice, and that it can be implied from the defamatory content itself. Plaintiff does not cite any case law supporting these assertions. The Court is not persuaded and finds that Plaintiff’s claim is legally insufficient due to a failure to allege, or to offer evidence to support, malice."
PS - A lot of talk on YAHOO EIGH Board about you deleting all references to Monk, if you are interested. BTW, he and the rest of the EIGH crew haven't got a prayer in any SLAPP Suit based upon that 9th Circuit Decision.
| 