If you ever want to feel as if you're inside the Matrix where you're not sure what's real and what isn't, read the Riverside County court's transcript from Feb. 15 in the case pitting longtime Beaumont contractor Urban Logic versus a group of citizens there.
First, some background: The residents, Beaumont Citizens for Responsible Growth, had set up a website alleging misdeeds and cronyism in the city's relationship with the firm that supplies Beaumont its economic development director, planning director and public works director. Urban Logic sued late last year for defamation. The Beaumont group's lawyer responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, invoked when it appears that free speech rights are being stymied. If the motion is granted, it would effectively dismiss the suit and the plaintiff would be responsible for attorneys' fees. The motion's purpose is to prevent better funded individuals from intimidating others from speaking or printing information freely with the threat of prolonged litigation. In the case of an anti-SLAPP motion, the person alleging defamation in this circumstance has to prove "actual malice" on the part of the person making or printing the supposed defamatory statements.
So back to the transcript.
Riverside County Court Commissioner Paulette Durand-Barkley made a tentative ruling on Feb. 15 (note: it's not final but essentially the direction she's leaning so lawyers can come back and attempt to convince her otherwise) in favor of the citizens group. Durand-Barkley clearly says, according to the transcript, that Urban Logic's lawyer had failed to prove that the group intended "actual malice" in posting what it did about the firm. Sure, Urban Logic's plaintiffs stated that they believed the citizens group harbored "ill-will" toward them, but that's wasn't proof that malice involved.
So no actual malice, according to the court so far. At no time in the hearing on Friday did the court decide if the statements made by the Beaumont group were indeed false. That hearing was for the anti-SLAPP motion, alone, not to decide on the defamation claims outright. Nonetheless lawyers for Urban Logic and Beaumont's city manager were both quoted in publications afterward stating that the court had indeed ruled that the statements were false:
The Daily Journal legal publication paraphrased Urban Logic's lawyer Peter Sunukjian in saying that the court found that "the group's statements were false and libelous." It did not. In an e-mail to PublicCEO.com, Beaumont City Manager Alan Kapanicas apparently wrote in an e-mail "We heard there was a ruling and that the Judge found the accusations of BCRG members to be false, libelous and damaging, just not clearly malicious." Again, the court did no such thing.
At one point, Durand-Barkley said, "even if there was some untrue statement, you have to show the malice issue and actual malice is a high standard." That's if there was some untrue statement, not that there was an untrue statement. The suit hasn't gotten to the point of proving the falsity of the statements, just the malice behind them.
On the other side, a press release issued that day by the Beaumont Citizens For Responsible Growth is no less inaccurate. Besides overstating the court's ruling (the lawsuit hasn't been thrown out officially yet, the court has just ruled tentatively that it likely will throw it out unless convinced otherwise) it states that the court ruled the accusations made on the group's website "are not false, not defamatory, and are well-founded on public record." Again, the court did none of the above.
-- Kimberly Pierceall
kpierceall@PE.com