Nota Bene

The North County Times reports:

Saying that comments posted on a local blog have defamed him, a Murrieta man filed a civil lawsuit Thursday in what his attorney calls “a novel legal issue.”

Roy Holmgren claims in his lawsuit that statements made about him on murrietaopinion.blogspot.com have exposed him to “hatred, ridicule, contempt and disgrace.”

Holmgren is suing the operator of the blog as well as those who have posted the comments about him.

But, so far, neither he nor his attorney, Richard Ackerman, know who specifically they are suing.

“… the defendants hide behind the veil of the Internet to cover up their nefarious and tortious activities,” the lawsuit states.

Ackerman said Thursday that he has tried to find out who runs the blog from the host of the site, blogspot.com, but they have yet to cooperate.

“Whoever they are, they don’t have the right to publish defamatory material,” Ackerman said.

The lawsuit lists what it calls “false statements or general assertions” about Holmgren made on the blog.

According to the suit, bloggers said he was a stalker, that he is married to an illegal alien, that he has committed crimes that destroyed property, illegally gained credit report information, vandalized a blogger’s sport utility vehicle, and that he begs for money on the side of the road.

One blogger called Holmgren “a danger to this community” and wrote that he has mental and emotional problems he can’t control, according to the lawsuit.

The Metropolitan News Enterprise reports

Voice mail messages about anticipated litigation are privileged, the Court of Appeal for this district ruled yesterday, throwing out a slander suit under the anti-SLAPP statute.

Writing for the court, Justice Richard Mosk opined that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Hess erred in denying an anti-SLAPP motion attacking Sophia Rohde’s complaint against West Los Angeles attorney Michael Wolf.

The case evolved out of a dispute between Rhode and her brother, George Metsos over distribution of their father’s will, specifically over the sale of property and distribution of the proceeds.

You can read the decision in Rohde v. Wolf here.

The Legal Reader reports on a new lawsuit has been filed against an attorney in New Jersey. The attorney, in a prior medical malpractice case is accused of asking an “inhumane” question: asking a husband whether he felt his wife had played a role in the death of their infant daughter by handling the child roughly. I don’t know the law in New Jersey, but here in California, such a lawsuit would be subject to a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP law and would likely be dismissed very quickly.

The Santa Barbara Independent reports:

Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderle on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit by the City of Santa Barbara against a woman who organized a ballot initiative in that would give marijuana offenses by adults the lowest law enforcement priority. Heather Poet, the woman named in the lawsuit, filed a motion to strike the suit based on the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, which prevents strategic lawsuits that would limit public participation in the political process. The ACLU Drug Law Reform Project attorney who represented Poet praised the decision, calling it a “resounding affirmation of voters’ right to de-prioritize marijuana enforcement.”

Two California companies have been waging war against each other in several different Southern California courts over the past few years: Contemporary Services Corporation (”CSC”) and Staff Pro Inc. (”Staff Pro”). The latest battle was played out in the California Court of Appeal concerning whether an E-Mail that Staff Pro sent its customers concerning the status of the CSC-Staff Pro Inc. litigation was protected by the First Amendment and the proper subject of an anti-SLAPP motion. Staff Pro won this round. The Metropolitan News Enterprise reports:

A litigation update that a company sent to customers concerning its business competitor was not commercial speech excepted from anti-SLAPP protections, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held yesterday.

Agreeing with Orange Superior Court Judge Daniel J. Didier, Div. Three upheld the dismissal of a defamation suit by Contemporary Services Corporation, in Northridge, against its Huntington Beach-based rival Staff Pro. Both compete in the business of providing staffing and crowd control services for sports and entertainment events in California.

CSC and its president, Damon Zumwalt, sued Staff Pro and president Cory Meredith last January over negative remarks Meredith made to some of its customers about CSC. The allegedly defamatory statements pertained to litigation that CSC had commenced in 2001 alleging its rival engaged in unfair business practices, including predatory pricing.

In an e-mail update sent to numerous individuals connected with the 2001 case, which was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Meredith said his “personal opinion” was that “everyone knows CSC uses the courts as a weapon against its competitors.”

You and read the decision in Contemporary Services Corporation v. Staff Pro Inc. (June 27, 2007 G037750) here.

The Student Press Law Center reports:

A student blogger at the University of California at Berkeley lost a small claims libel lawsuit filed against him by a FrontPageMag.com columnist whose articles the student’s blog scrutinized.

While exploring his remaining legal options following the June 13 decision, the student, Yaman Salahi, is asking for donations on his blog to help pay the $7,500 that the judge awarded to the columnist, Lee Kaplan.

Salahi started the blog in May 2006 to “take a critical look at [Kaplan’s] articles and point out inaccuracies or falsifications,” he said. Salahi said Kaplan is a local figure involved in covering student activism.

After repeatedly threatening litigation, Kaplan sued in September for libel and tortious business interference.

“Instead of criticizing my politics, he tried to go after my personal reputation as a journalist,” Kaplan said. “He put up things saying I’ve been sued for libel, that I’ve engaged in criminal activity, that I’ve violated contracts,” Kaplan said.

In the lawsuit, Kaplan alleged that Salahi called him a “douche bag,” but Salahi said the phrase never appeared on his blog. “He’s completely lying,” Kaplan said.

One might ask why the blogger did not fight the small claims lawsuit with an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike. The answer, according to the Student Press Law Center: “the judge dismissed Salahi’s anti-SLAPP motion as inappropriate for small claims court.” The blogger has set up a legal defense fund that you can access here. While I don’t agree with this particular blogger’s politics, this sure seems like an example of a SLAPP suit which should concern bloggers everywhere.