Case Summary

4870 REVIEW DENIED A public figure suing for defamation is required to plead "actual malice," which the United States Supreme Court said means when making the statement defendant either knew it was false or acted with a reckless disregard for truth; in connection with a hearing on his SLAPP motion defendant's submitted statement that he never met plaintiff, but knew of her only from media reports, none of which even hinted she was a communist, was sufficient to support an inference that his statement that she was a communist was a fabrication, and therefore made with knowledge it was false, or was the product of his imagination, and therefore made with reckless disregard for the truth; even if traditional malice allegations of a complaint were not sufficient to plead actual malice, since defendant's own evidence in connection with a SLAPP motion established the elements of actual malice, it was proper for the trial court to permit amendment of the complaint to allege actual malice while the SLAPP motion was pending.

NGUYEN-LAM v CAO (Commie Bating) 171 CA4 858 [See: CCP 425.16; NY Times v Sullivan 376 US 254; Gertz v Robert Welch 418 US 323; Ghafur v Bernstein 131 CA4 1230, T/AT 9/05; Vogel v Felice 127 CA4 1006,T/AT 4/05]