California Court of Appeal

In a defamation action, trial court's authorization for plaintiff to amend her complaint to plead actual malice based on evidence submitted for defendant's strike motion under the anti-SLAPP statute is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff demonstrated defendant's accusations constituted clear and convincing evidence that he harbored actual malice; 2) the amendment is justified as false statements uttered with actual malice serve no public interest, and thus, defendant's complaint falls outside the purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/27/2009
• Published 02/27/2009

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• John L. Dodd & Associates and John L. Dodd, Tustin;  Bucher & Palmer and Mark W. Bucher, Tustin, for Defendant and Appellant., Donna Bader, Laguna Beach;  Lents & Foley and Katrina Anne Foley, Newport Beach, for Plaintiff and Respondent.