|
4017 A series of comments posted by defendant on the internet, along with those published by approximately 40 other people, all criticizing the management of plaintiff, a publicly traded company with 59,000 shares outstanding, were related to an issue of public interest; plaintiff became a limited issue public figure by injecting itself into the controversy surrounding the issue by its own internet postings attempting to justify its practices; plaintiff's failure to allege or establish any facts relating to defendant's state of mind prevented it from satisfying the element of actual malice in its defamation action and justified granting defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, requiring the award of attorney fees to defendant, even though plaintiff voluntarily dismissed while the SLAPP motion was pending.CitationAMPEX CORP v CARGLE (Internet Controversy) 128 CA4 1569 [See: CCP 425.16; Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc 418 US 323; Copp v Paxton 45 CA4 829, T/AT 6/96; St Amant v Thompson 390 US 727; Reader's Digest v Superior Court 37 C3 244]
|
|
