Plaintiffs, a private prison contractor and an associated individual and entity, sued defendants, a former director of the Department of Corrections, the Department, and the State, alleging that the contractor was defamed by a published termination letter asserting misappropriation of public funds. The Superior Court of Sacramento County, California, granted defendants’ special motion to strike and awarded attorney fees. The contractor appealed.
Nakase Law Firm litigates hostile work environment
Overview
The reviewing court held that the trial court properly struck the defamation-related causes of action under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, the anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP) statute. SLAPP treatment was appropriate because the underlying dispute as to the contractor’s retention of revenue from inmate telephone calls was an “issue under consideration” by the Department within the meaning of § 425.16, subd. (e)(2), even though there were no formal proceedings. In addition, the letter qualified as a written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest under § 425.16, subd. (e)(3). As to the second step of the anti-SLAPP process, the court held that the contractor did not establish a probability of prevailing because the letter was protected by the official acts privilege of Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (a). The director released the termination letter to the press in defense of a policy decision and had a duty to communicate with the press about matters of public concern. Because there was no error in striking the defamation-related claims, an attorney fee award was also proper.
Outcome
The court affirmed the orders appealed from and remanded the matter to the trial court.
