Libel Lawsuit Over Highly Publicized L.A. Landlord-Tenant Dispute Thrown Out

From Doe v. Nexstar Media Group, Inc., decided July 27 by L.A. Superior Court Judge Gary Roberts:

This case arises from a publicized landlord-tenant dispute between Plaintiff Jane Doe … and Defendant Aleksandar Jovanovic …. Plaintiff alleges that [Jovanovic] made various false statements about Plaintiff to various third parties, including various news outlets for the sole purpose of terrorizing her, spreading outrageous lies about her, resulting in obscene threats to her physical safety….

Plaintiff alleges …. “Defendants Jovanovic and Rucci played out this strategy by effectively making themselves stars of Defendant Nexstar’s show “Banfield” hosted by Ashleigh Banfield …. On numerous episodes, Banfield hosted Defendants Jovanovic and Rucci, outrageously and falsely stating, or otherwise inferring that Plaintiff was engaging in criminal conduct, and other false stories. Defendant Nexstar otherwise plastered Plaintiffs image all throughout the internet and the national media, shaming Plaintiff, a sexual assault survivor, inciting numerous third parties to threaten Plaintiff with physical violence.” “Defendant Nexstar also posted Plaintiffs image all over the national media and the internet, shaming and humiliating her with lies.”

“Nexstar know[s] that Plaintiff has received numerous threats to her personal safety because her image and personal information is posted on the internet in connection with a “doxing and smear campaign” and still refuses “to remove Plaintiffs image and personal information from websites they own or otherwise control.” “Plaintiff objectively and reasonably fears for her safety because [] Nexstar are posting her image and personal information on websites they own or otherwise control and Plaintiff, as a sexual assault survivor, has received numerous abhorrent and vile threats to her safety.”

The court held that defendants’ speech was presumptively covered by California’s anti-SLAPP law, which allows prompt dismissal for speech on various matters of public concern, including speech related to pending court cases:

Nexstar’s alleged conduct falls squarely within the protection of section 425.16(e)(2), as the alleged “smear campaign” arises from Nexstar’s reporting made in connection with the underlying litigation between Plaintiff and Jovanovic, where Plaintiff has engaged in a public lawsuit using her full name [citing case no. 23SMCV02658, which is captioned Aleksandar Jovanovic v. Elizabeth Hirschhorn -EV]. Plaintiff was also involved in an unlawful detainer between herself and Jovanovic…. [S]ubdivision (e)(2) affords anti-SLAPP protection to “any written or oral statement or writing 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.” …  [And] “statements to a news publication related to judicial proceedings qualify for section 425.16(e)(2)’s protection.” …

Nexstar’s alleged conduct also falls squarely within the protection of section 425.16(e)(4), as Nexstar’s alleged activities for which Plaintiff seeks to impose liability all relate to Nexstar’s news broadcasting…. [S]ubdivision (e)(4) affords anti-SLAPP protection to “any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” … “There is a protected free speech right to report the news….”

Furthermore, the broadcasts at issue pertain to the “public interest.” The definition of “public interest” as it pertains to the anti-SLAPP statute has been “broadly construed to include not only governmental matters, but also private conduct that impacts a broad segment of society and/or that affects a community in a manner similar to that of a governmental entity.” … The Civil Action and the entire underlying landlord-tenant dispute garnered extensive media coverage. The issues emphasized by the Civil Action directly impacts the life of a large portion of the community of Los Angeles, such as homeowners, tenants, Airbnb-hosts, and Airbnb-residents….

[Nexstar’s activity is protected notwithstanding] Plaintiff’s allegations regarding Nexstar’s  refusal to depublish Plaintiff’s “personal information,” including her name and image, even though she is protected by the California Safe at Home Program. (Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn (1975) [First Amendment protected reporter who published rape victim’s name in violation of state criminal statute]; Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (1979) [invalidating state law that criminalized publication of juvenile murder suspect’s name without court permission]; Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989) [First Amendment protected newspaper that published rape victim’s name—inadvertently released by police—in violation of state criminal statute].)

Given that the anti-SLAPP statute applies, “plaintiff must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.” And the court held that plaintiff’s claim was legally insufficient because of the “fair and true report” privilege, under which a speaker is immune from defamation liability for

a fair and true report in, or a communication to, a public journal, of (A) a judicial, (B) legislative, or (C) other public official proceeding, or (D) of anything said in the course thereof, or (E) of a verified charge or complaint made by any person to a public official, upon which complaint a warrant has been issued.

The court reasoned:

[T]he Segments provide updates on the status of the underlying litigation between Jovanovic and Doe, and analyses of the parties’ arguments and positions in that litigation. In providing information on the Civil Action including applicable law and recent filings, the Court finds that the Segments accurately capture the gist and sting of the allegations and arguments in that litigation. Based on the Court’s review of the Segments, a reasonable viewer could understand that the broadcasts are merely reporting on the underlying litigation between Plaintiff and Jovanovic….

Thanks to the Media Law Resource Center (MLRC) MediaLawDaily for the pointer.