Case Summary

4809 REVIEW DENIED Statements made to a 10,000-member union local regarding alleged illegalities committed by a union executive were an exercise of the constitutional right of free speech on a public issue, so an action arising from them was subject to the SLAPP statute; evidence that defendants said plaintiff union official had been caught "double dipping" were defamatory, and in the absence of proof that plaintiff had the fraudulent intent necessary to be guilty of the crime to which it referred were untrue; evidence that there was animosity between the parties and that defendants did not have a good faith belief in the statements was sufficient to raise questions of fact about whether defendants had the necessary malice to be liable for defamation and whether malice prevented application of the common interest privilege.

HAILSTONE v MARTINEZ (Double Dipping) 169 CA4 728 [See: CCP 425.16; CivC 47; Damon v Ocean Hills 85 CA4 468, T/AT 1/01; Macias v Hartwell 55 CA4 669, T/AT 7/97; Du Charme v International 110 CA4 107, P/AT 9/03 ]