GREWAL v.JAMMU










Filed 1/11/11





CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

HARDEV SINGH GREWAL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AMOLAK SINGH JAMMU et al., Defendants and Appellants.

A126239 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG06274673)

Plaintiff Hardev Singh Grewal, a 73-year-old interpreter for the Alameda County Superior Court and a 39-year resident of Fremont, is a well-known member of the Sikh Temple, San Francisco Bay Area, who, he alleged, “enjoyed a good reputation . . . in the Temple and in his occupation.” On two occasions in 2005 the Punjab Times published calumnious statements about plaintiff, and in 2006 he filed suit for defamation. The suit named several defendants, including Amolak Singh Jammu and A.B. Publication, Inc., the editor and publisher of the Punjab Times (when referred to collectively, the Jammu defendants). Another article followed, this stating that plaintiff referred to the Temple school as a “madrassa,” a training school for terrorists and students of the Taliban. This caused an amended complaint, and plaintiff’s suit came to include four causes of action for libel.
The Jammu defendants filed a special motion to strike (Anti-SLAPP) these causes of action, a motion that was noteworthy in several respects, in that it was filed: (1) almost three years after plaintiff’s original complaint; (2) despite that the Jammu defendants had filed verified answers to plaintiff’s earlier complaints containing identical causes of action; and (3) despite that an earlier anti-SLAPP motion by three other defendants had been denied in an order expressly holding that plaintiff had a probability of prevailing. Beyond all that, the motion was scheduled to be heard five days before the date on which the case had long been set for trial.
Defendants’ moving papers—a voluminous 206 pages, not including a request for judicial notice of thousands of pages of three Alameda County court files and the 54-page opinion by this court in Singh v. Singh (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1264 (Singh)—argued that the causes of action involved an “issue of public interest.” Plaintiff’s opposition argued otherwise, an opposition that also showed that in any event there is a “strong likelihood that he will prevail on his claims. . . .[¶] . . . . The published statements are provably false, caused plaintiff damages and defendants failed to use reasonable care in publishing the statements.” That, plaintiff claimed, was “established.” Defendants’ reply did not disagree, acknowledging that “by denying or refuting the statements [that] plaintiff has taken issue with, at best he has merely put them at issue.”
The trial court entered a detailed order concluding that the first three causes of action did not involve an issue of public interest and that plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on the fourth. The Jammu defendants appealed, as the anti‑SLAPP statute gives them the right to do.
We review the matter de novo, and we affirm, doing so without adding to the burgeoning California jurisprudence as to what is, or is not, an “issue of public interest.” For, such issue or not, plaintiff has met his burden under the anti-SLAPP statute—as the Jammu defendants essentially conceded. And we affirm with the observation that, however efficacious the anti-SLAPP procedure may be in the right case, it can be badly abused in the wrong one, resulting in substantial cost—and prejudicial delay. It is time for plaintiff’s case to be heard on the merits. Perhaps it is also time for the Legislature to revisit whether a defendant losing an anti-SLAPP motion has an absolute right to appeal.
BACKGROUND
The Sikh Temple and Its Governance
To put the matter in context, we begin with some historical background, much of which is from our opinion in Singh, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th 1264, which background begins in 1977, when the Sikh Temple was incorporated as a non-profit religious corporation. (Id. at p. 1269.) Plaintiff was active in the founding of the Temple and in the early years was involved in its management, until 1983. Plaintiff has not been involved in the management of the Temple since 1984, though he remains a regular member and attends religious services there.
The early years after incorporation were apparently uneventful, but things began to change in the late 1980s, as issues arose concerning governance of the Temple, which issues continued for some years. This ultimately led to the first of several lawsuits, filed in August 1996. This lawsuit quickly settled, “when the parties agreed to a court‑supervised election of the Supreme Council. That election occurred on December 22, 1996, and resulted in the election of five Supreme Council members.” (Singh, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 1270.) In 1999, one member of the Supreme Council was involuntarily removed pursuant to the bylaws, and one Mota Singh was nominated and selected as a replacement by the congregation. Other than the filling of this vacancy, no elections for the Supreme Council were held between December 1996 and March 2002. (Id. at pp. 1270-1271.)
Meanwhile, in December 1998, a second lawsuit was filed, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and a receivership. Plaintiffs in that case “complained that there was an unlawful cancellation of a general election scheduled for December 20, 1998, by the defendants named in that case and the assumption of office by a new board of directors on December 6, 1998, without the benefit of an election.” (Singh, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 1271.) This second lawsuit proceeded to a court trial in 1999.
Sometime later, issues apparently arose in connection with a March 2002 election. Following various meetings, one group remained as the Supreme Council and “refused to vacate,” which led to lawsuit number three, filed in April 2002, the lawsuit that gave rise to our 2004 decision in Singh. (Singh, supra, at p. 1272.)
Apparently three lawsuits had no calming influence on some Temple members, and elections continue to generate intense feelings. And it was allegedly in connection with an upcoming January 2006 election that the Punjab Times published the materials leading to plaintiff’s lawsuit here.
Plaintiff’s Lawsuit
The complaint in issue is plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on February 23, 2009, which we discuss in detail below. Before doing so, we recount some earlier developments in the case, many of which the parties have not discussed but which we piece together from entries in the register of actions and miscellaneous pleadings and papers put before us as exhibits or in requests for judicial notice.
Plaintiff’s original complaint was filed on June 14, 2006, and named seven defendants: Devinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Avtar Singh, Harjinder Singh, Palwinder Singh, and the two Jammu defendants. The complaint alleged three causes of action, the first two for libel against all defendants, the third for slander against the five defendants with the surname Singh. The libel claims were based on two publications in the Punjab Times—plaintiff calls them articles, the Jammu defendants call them advertisements—one on June 18, 2005, and one on December 31, 2005. These claims remained in plaintiff’s complaints throughout.
On March 2, 2007, defendants Sukhdev Singh, Avtar Singh, and Palwinder Singh filed an answer. Twelve days later, these same defendants filed a special motion to strike. That motion came on for hearing before the Honorable Winfred Smith who, by order dated April 30, 2007, denied the motion, concluding that “Plaintiff . . . has established a probability that he will prevail on his claims. (See [Code of Civil Procedure section] 426.16(b)(1).)^[[1]] Put another way, plaintiff has demonstrated by competent evidence a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by him is credited. (See Wilson v. Parker [, Covert & Chidester] (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 821.)”[2]
Meanwhile, and of significance here, on April 4, 2007 the Jammu defendants filed a verified answer to plaintiff’s complaint.
In May 2007 plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which was granted, and a first amended complaint (FAC) was filed on June 29, 2007. The FAC added Gurmeet Singh Khalsa as a defendant, and alleged five causes of action, the same three as in the original complaint, a second libel claim based on the December 31, 2005 article, and an additional slander claim against Khalsa. As before, the Jammu defendants filed a verified answer, this time to a complaint that contained three of the four causes of action they would later attack by their motion to strike.
This answer was filed on August 10, 2007, and from that point on the register of actions contains references to substitutions of attorneys; a motion to be relieved as counsel (June 24, 2008); numerous case management statements; and an order of October 20, 2008 that the case was set for “Civil Jury Trial 7/6/2009.” A flurry of trial preparation-type motions followed, and then, for reasons unexplained in the record, on February 23, 2009, a “Second Amended Complaint [was] filed.” This is the complaint in issue here.
The second amended complaint (SAC) named the same eight defendants as in the FAC: the five Singhs, the two Jammu defendants, and Khalsa. The SAC began with plaintiff’s description of himself: “employed as a Court Interpreter for the Superior Court of California, with his place of employment in the County of Alameda. Plaintiff resides in the City of Union City, County of Alameda, California, and has resided there for 38 years. Plaintiff is also a well-known member of the Sikh Temple . . . (Temple). At all pertinent times, plaintiff has enjoyed a good reputation generally, in the Temple and in his occupation.”
The SAC went on to identify the defendants, alleging this about the Jammu defendants: that A.B. Publication is an Illinois corporation, doing business in Union City; that A.B. Publication publishes and circulates a weekly publication called the Punjab Times, which “has a wide circulation in California and other states, and is read by a great number of California persons and citizens of the areas in which it is published and circulated”; and that Jammu was the publisher and editor of the Punjab Times. While the SAC alleged seven causes of action, only four were against the Jammu defendants and thus pertinent here, and we describe only them:
First Cause of Action – libel based on a June 18, 2005 article in the Punjab Times, attached as an exhibit. The article was described as “libelous on its face because, among other things, it accused plaintiff of committing a serious crime, of being unfit as a president of the Temple, of being divisive, dishonest and lacking in respect for the Sikh religion and baptism, and lacking in humility and integrity. Specifically, it stated that plaintiff admittedly went into hiding from the Temple in 1984, and only visited the Temple secretly. . . . The article stated that plaintiff was against the Sikh religion, that he sided with forces out to destroy the Sikh nation, and that he does not believe in Sikh baptism. The article stated that plaintiff joined forces with a certain group in the forcible takeover of the Temple in 1996, and that thereafter he betrayed that group by joining forces with another opposing group. The article stated that plaintiff disrespected the Rehat Maryada Handbook (the Sikh Code of Conduct) by swinging and slamming it hard on the floor, and quipping: ‘what is the use of keeping it now‌’ ”
Second Cause of Action – libel based on a December 31, 2005 article in the Punjab Times, also attached as an exhibit. This article, too, was “libelous on its face because, among other things, it accused plaintiff of committing the crimes of theft, embezzlement and tax fraud, of being unfit as a president of the Temple, of being divisive, dishonest and lacking in respect for the Sikh religion and baptism . . . . That article also suggested that plaintiff . . . desecrated the Sikh religion and Sikh baptism by precluding baptism from taking place at the Temple, permitting alcohol to be consumed at the Temple and by claiming that he would never marry his daughter to a Sikh. . . . The same article claimed that plaintiff used to improperly take Temple cash offerings home for his personal tax- deduction purposes; and that he used to charge members of the Temple for the car-parking fees he incurred during his personal errands to San Francisco.”
Third Cause of Action – libel, also based on the December 31, 2005 article, which is “libelous on its face because, among other things, it accused plaintiff, a Sikh, of being unscrupulous, vice‑indulgent, and devoid of the Sikh way of life. Furthermore, the article stated that plaintiff exhibited total contempt for the Sikh’s golden principles, and that he swung the code copy of the Rehat Maryada Handbook (the Sikh Code of Conduct), ‘slammed it hard on the floor, and retorted “now, what is the need for this for us‌” ’ ”
We pause to note that the first and second causes of action in the SAC are identical to those in the original complaint, and that the third cause of action is identical to that in the FAC. They were thus two of the causes of action as to which Judge Smith held that plaintiff had a probability of prevailing—and three of the causes of action to which the Jammu defendants had filed verified answers.
Sixth Cause of Action – libel based on a May 24, 2008 article in the Punjab Times, also attached as an exhibit. This article is entitled “Very Serious Notice Taken of Hardev Grewal’s Statement About Guru Granth Sahib,” and it is, plaintiff alleged, “libelous on its face because, among other things, . . . the article claimed that plaintiff, a Sikh, had described a Sikh school operated on the premises of the Fremont Sikh Temple . . . as a training ground for fundamentalist terrorists. The article also claimed that plaintiff had described the students of the same school as the . . . same terrorist organization reportedly responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. Specifically, the articles stated that Plaintiff and his associates had described the Khalsa School operated on the Temple premises as a ‘madrassa’ (an Urdu term for School of Islamic Instruction) and its students as the ‘Talibans.’ . . .”
On April 15, 2009 the Jammu defendants filed their verified answer to the SAC, and seven days later the anti-SLAPP motion at issue here.
The Anti-SLAPP Motion
On April 22, 2009, 58 days after the SAC was filed, the Jammu defendants filed a “Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 Special Motion to Strike (Anti-SLAPP)”; it was set for hearing on July 1, 2009, five days before the scheduled July 6 trial date.[3] The motion to strike was supported by a 15-page memorandum of points and authorities, nine declarations (including one of counsel), and a request for judicial notice of the three Alameda County Superior Court files from the cases mentioned above and our decision in Singh, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th 1264.[4]
The points and authorities have no argument headings, so the Jammu defendants’ precise argument(s) is (are) not easily determined. Indeed, the points and authorities—or, for that matter, the motion itself—do not even specify which of the four descriptions in section 425.16, subdivision (e) supposedly encompasses plaintiff’s lawsuit. However, various assertions in the points and authorities appear in boldface, including this: “An issue of public interest comes under the anti‑SLAPP suit protections of C.C.P. §425.16 simply if the public is interested. The issue need not be significant. The Sikh Temple election with a membership of over 8,216 held a hotly contested election in 2005 and 2006 and bylaw amendment proposals in which the plaintiff was openly involved in. Has the plaintiff involved himself in an issue of public interest‌” [5]
The Jammu defendants’ own description of the matter, and their apparent position, reads this way: “The ads and article that the plaintiff takes issue with: The first three libel causes of action contained in the second amended complaint are based on three paid for advertisements which were published in the Punjab Times . . . . In reading these ads three themes immediately emerge: (1) These ads discuss a matters concerning the Sikh religion; (2) These ads are part of a debate over the administration of Fremont Sikh Temple and board of director elections; and (3) These ads concern the credibility of plaintiff who the writers of these ads obviously disagree with. [¶] A news article appeared in the Punjab Times on May 24, 2008 which attributed various statements and actions to the plaintiff . . . . The plaintiff, by virtue of the above entitled action, took exception to this article. The May 24th news article is the subject of the plaintiff’s sixth cause of action. . . .”
We assume from this, an assumption confirmed at oral argument, that the Jammu defendants rely on section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4), which provides as follows: “As used in this section, ‘act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue’ includes: . . . (4) . . . any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.”
The eight non-counsel declarations submitted in support of the motion refer to various events over the years concerning Temple elections and governance, and plaintiff’s claimed participation. The Jammu defendants describe the thrust of the declarations this way: “The Declarations submitted: The declarations submitted all contain firsthand accounts of plaintiff Grewal’s involvement in the politics and affairs of the Fremont Sikh Temple and establish the plaintiff’s public figure status. . . . The declaration of defendant Jammu establishes the context in which the ads and articles were published and demonstrates the very important 1st amendment role that the Punjab Times and other news papers like his plays within the Sikh community. The conclusion that can be drawn from Mr. Jammu’s declaration is that to permit the plaintiff’s lawsuit to continue would be punish ethnic newspapers in their role of communicators of information within a religious community. [¶] Finally, what the case is really all about is a dispute centered on religion and the politics of an 8,126 member Sikh Temple.”[6] Significantly, not one of the declarants attempted to show that any of the disparaging things said about plaintiff was true.
Plaintiff filed vigorous opposition, which included 20 declarations. One was from his counsel, which attached and authenticated numerous pleadings and documents. Eighteen were from colleagues, friends, and acquaintances, many of whom held executive positions in technology companies and, inferentially at least, had no vested interest in the dispute. These declarants testified at length about their interactions with plaintiff, his involvement in Temple matters, and his stellar reputation. Some declarants also testified—without objection—about the person who turned out to be the sole source of the publications, a person whose reputation was, according to this testimony, less than stellar. The 20th declaration was from plaintiff himself, who testified at length about his background, his family, his history at the Temple, the false things said about him, and their effect. All this will be set forth in detail in connection with the discussion showing that plaintiff met his burden under the anti-SLAPP law.
The Jammu defendants filed a 10-page reply. The first paragraph cited, without discussion, four cases they claimed supported that statements “published during the heat of election involving an 8,126 member Sikh Temple are . . . matters of public interest.” The next two paragraphs asserted, without benefit of authority or citation, that plaintiff has not shown that he is not a public figure and that the Punjab Times is not a newspaper. And then the reply said this: “So what this motion really comes down to is whether the plaintiff has established a probability of prevailing. [¶] When sorting through all the verbiage and at times vitriolic rhetoric contained in the declarations submitted by the plaintiff all we have is a bunch of friends and political allies saying how nice a guy the plaintiff is. If anything, these declarations serve as evidence that establish the plaintiff’s public figure status. [¶] The plaintiff has not established that the defendants acted with malice. The plaintiff has not established that the statements made in the articles were false. Rather by denying or refuting the statements the plaintiff has taken issue with, at best he merely has put them at issue. And putting the statements at issue is a far cry from establishing a prima facie case that would bring plaintiff a favorable judgment. . . .” (Italics added.)
The motion came on for hearing on July 1, 2009 before the Honorable Jo‑Lynne Q. Lee. Judge Lee had published a tentative ruling denying the motion and, following brief argument, announced that the tentative ruling would be affirmed. Judge Lee thereafter entered a detailed order denying the motion, which order held in pertinent part as follows: “[T]he first three causes of action do not arise from Defendants’ exercise of first amendment rights ‘in connection with a public issue’ or ‘an issue of public interest.’ (CCP § 425.16(b)(1), (e).) The alleged publications about Plaintiff were made in connection with elections to the board of a Sikh temple and disputes over its by-laws, both purely private matters within the temple’s congregation.” Judge Lee’s order went on to thoughtfully distinguish the cases relied on by the Jammu defendants.
As to the sixth cause of action, Judge Lee held that as it involved a statement that the Temple school was an Islamic instruction school and referred to the Taliban, it did involve an issue of public interest. But, she went on, plaintiff met his burden with sufficient evidence.[7]
The Jammu defendants filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
The Anti-SLAPP Analysis
Essentially every case involving an appeal under the anti-SLAPP statute describes early in the discussion the two-step process for determining the case. Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 192 is illustrative: “First, the court must determine ‘whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action’ arises from an act in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. [Citation.] Second, the court must ‘determine whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim.’ ” And, of course, our determination is de novo. (Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) 39 Cal.4th 260, 269, fn. 3.)
With relatively few exceptions, the cases then proceed to a determination of the first step: whether defendant made a threshold showing implicating the anti-SLAPP statute. These determinations typically—and understandably—involve many pages of analysis discussing the pertinent law, and then applying it to determine whether the complaint before the court does, or does not, implicate the anti-SLAPP statute. And thus has developed a significant body of lengthy jurisprudence that has burdened—many would say overburdened—the courts of California.
We could write at length on the question whether the publications here concerned “an issue of public interest,” and add to all this. And assuming we were to agree with Judge Lee’s thorough analysis, we would affirm her decision on the first three causes of action.[8] That, of course, would still leave the sixth. We resist this temptation, and determine only step two: whether plaintiff met the burden imposed on him. And easily conclude that he did.
Plaintiff Met His Burden Under Section 425.16

We decide the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis on consideration of “the pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.” (§ 425.16, subd. (b).) Looking at those affidavits, “[w]e do not weigh credibility, nor do we evaluate the weight of the evidence. Instead, we accept as true all evidence favorable to the plaintiff and assess the defendant’s evidence only to determine if it defeats the plaintiff’s submission as a matter of law.” (Overstock.com, Inc. v Gradient Analytics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 699-700.)
That is the setting in which we determine whether plaintiff has met the required showing, a showing that is “not high.” (Overstock.com, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 700.) In the words of the Supreme Court, plaintiff need show only a “minimum level of legal sufficiency and triability.” (Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 438, fn. 5.) In the words of other courts, plaintiff need show only a case of “minimal merit.” (See Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 658, 675, quoting Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 95.)
As noted, the Jammu defendants conceded in their reply brief below that plaintiff’s opposition put the matter “at issue,” a concession that makes other descriptions of a plaintiff’s burden in an anti-SLAPP motion even more apt. As the Supreme Court early-on noted, the anti-SLAPP statute operates like a “motion for summary judgment in ‘reverse.’ ” (College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 719.) Or, as that court would later put it, “Section 425.16 therefore establishes a procedure where the trial court evaluates the merits of the lawsuit using a summary judgment-like procedure at an early stage of the litigation. [Citation.]” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 192; accord, Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 714.)
Numerous courts of appeal have articulated the test in similar language. (See Tichinin v. City of Morgan Hill (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1062 [“a standard ‘similar to that employed in determining nonsuit, directed verdict or summary judgment motions’ ”]; Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 298, 317 [“plaintiff’s burden as to the second prong of the anti-SLAPP test is akin to that of a party opposing a motion for summary judgment”]; Kyle v. Carmon (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 901, 907 [“similar to the standard used in determining motions for nonsuit, directed verdict, or summary judgment”].)
Applying those descriptions here leads easily to the conclusion that plaintiff met his burden under the anti-SLAPP statute, in light of the applicable substantive law.
The Substantive Law
As described above, the four causes of action pertinent here are for libel, defined as: “[A] false and unprivileged publication by writing . . . which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which . . . has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.” (Civ. Code, § 45, see §§ 44, subd. (a), 45a.) To prevail on a claim for libel, plaintiff must show four elements: that defendants published the statements; the statements were about plaintiff; that they were false; and that defendants failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity. (CACI 1704.)
Plaintiff’s evidence showed that the first article, published June 18, 2005, was entitled “Few Words with [Plaintiff].” It asserted that from 1984 to 2002 plaintiff had “gone into hiding” and had visited the Temple only secretly, and wondered what kind of atrocities plaintiff had committed that forced him into seclusion. This article accused plaintiff of siding with traitors out to destroy the Sikh nation; and claimed he had disrespected the Handbook of Sikh Code of Conduct by swinging it and slamming it hard on the floor. Plaintiff also submitted several declarations establishing that the statements and things attributed to him in this article were false.
The second article, published on December 31, 2005 and entitled “Some observations about [Plaintiff’s] Golden Period,” was the basis of the second and third libel claims. The article falsely charged plaintiff with tax fraud, including that during his term as Temple president in the late 1970’s, he took the cash offerings home for his own purposes. This article also asserted that plaintiff charged his personal parking fees to the Temple, and that he treated the Temple as a club, including by having alcohol served there, and called him “wretched, unscrupulous, vice-indulgent, and fun-loving.” Again, plaintiff submitted declarations establishing that the things said about him in this article were false.
The fourth libel claim was based on the article published in May 2008, after this lawsuit was filed. This article stated that plaintiff referred to the Temple school as a “madrassa,” a training school for terrorists and students of the Taliban. Plaintiff submitted evidence that he never made the statement, demanded a retraction, and that the response in the Punjab Times was inadequate.
The above showing met plaintiff’s burden as to the first three elements of his libel claims. As to the last element, lack of reasonable care, plaintiff presented evidence that before the Jammu defendants published the first of the articles, they knew plaintiff had a good reputation, a “positive standing,” in the Sikh community, indeed, a cofounder of, and influential member in, the Temple. Nevertheless, they published what they did. And based on what‌
The evidence revealed that the content of the publications originated from a single source: Gurmeet Singh. According to abundant evidence presented by plaintiff, Gurmeet Singh had been charged with a criminal offense, arrested, and led from the Temple in handcuffs. He was also fired as the president of the Temple. In addition to that, there was Gurmeet Singh’s reputation within the Temple community, where he was variously described as a person with a “dishonest character and bad reputation,” as a “conniving” person, as having a “criminal record for domestic violence,” and as one who would readily spread false rumors to discredit anyone who did not agree with him.[9]
In sum, in point blank terms plaintiff testified that the many libelous statements “made against [him] are totally false and have no factual basis.” They were, he said, “lies.” And he was damaged by them. As he graphically described it at one point, “The defendants’ allegations have resulted in irreparable harm to me and my family. Their false claims have been read and talked about by members of the Sikh community and received by many people as fact. Today my family and I cannot go out in public without receiving some accusatory glares from other members of the community. When I see some people talking in a group at social programs, I can’t help think that they probably are talking about me. This is especially the feeling when I walk up to them and they stop their conversation. I just cannot take this hurt off my mind. I feel betrayed as I have been forever linked to these despicable lies. This incident has affected me and my family adversely. My children fail to understand why anybody would hurt their father so cruelly for the service he did so with dedication for the community. The lies were not just published facts, but were printed with a larger font, highlighted with solid black margins around them, and with a full photograph of the Temple, to ensure that the articles did not escape the attention of the reader.”
The above shows that plaintiff met the burden imposed on him. And there is nothing in the Jammu defendants’ briefs here that raises any question about that. Nothing. We nevertheless discuss these briefs, to demonstrate just how burdensome a misguided anti-SLAPP motion can be.
The Jammu Defendants’ Briefs Miss the Point

The opening brief of the Jammu defendants is 72 pages long. Following an abbreviated “Statement of the Case,” the brief spends almost 21 pages on a “summary of facts,” reciting the claimed facts from the Jammu defendants’ perspective only, their “summary of [plaintiff’s] evidence and declarations” consisting of a grand total of 20 lines. Such advocacy is not to be condoned. (See generally Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2010) § 9:27, p. 9‑8 [“brief should accurately and fairly state the critical facts . . . :”].) Beyond that, the brief is not well organized, and lacks any meaningful or logical argument headings, jumping from arguments referring to “issues of public interest” (Arguments IV and V) to “free exercise of religion” (Argument VI) to “limited public figure” (Argument VII) to “public figure status.” (Arguments VIII, IX, and X.) The brief is, in a word, unhelpful.
The 66-page (!) reply brief is no better, with five arguments (some with multiple subparts) set forth with headings ranging from five lines to 13 lines. Again, not commendable. (See Eisenberg, supra, 9:107, p. 9-31, advising to “keep headings short and concise”.) These arguments jump too, from “free exercise” and “free exercise clause” (Arguments II and III) to “public figure status” (Argument IV) to “issues of public interest” (Argument V).
But beyond these deficiencies, the briefs utterly fail to come to grips with the issue here.
The essential position of the Jammu defendants is this: the publications were an issue of public interest; and plaintiff was a public figure (or at least a limited public figure); and free exercise of religion was involved; and thus plaintiff had to prove malice. However quizzically worded, this is how the reply brief synthesizes it: “As the publications [plaintiff] complains of involved an act in furtherance of the exercise of free speech in connection with an issue of public interest, appellants contend that the publications are speech afforded the anti-SLAPP protections contained in Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16. But more importantly, by virtue of defamation or the exercise of speech being the gravamen of [plaintiff’s] claims, anti-SLAPP protections necessarily apply provided it is in connection with an issue of public interest. [¶] Appellants further contend that the publications not only involve . . . an issue of public interest but as the content of the speech is entangled with matters of religion, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment is implicated. As such, at the very least, [plaintiff] must demonstrate appellants acted with malice. But due to the excessive entanglement of religion involved in [plaintiff’s] claims, they many have to be dismissed in the first instance. [¶] Appellants also contend that at the least [plaintiff] is a limited public figure and in any instance, [plaintiff] failed to show that appellants acted negligently, let alone, with malice.”
Our reaction‌ Disbelief. A few observations should suffice to explain why.
First, Judge Lee specifically held that the first three causes of action did not involve an “issue of public interest.” But even if such an issue were involved, it is only the first of the two‑step anti-SLAPP analysis. And as set forth above, the second step analysis is devastating to the Jammu defendants. They simply ignore it.
Second, Judge Lee (and for that matter Judge Smith before her) specifically held that plaintiff was not a public figure. An ipse dixit does not demonstrate otherwise.
Third, any claim of “free exercise of religion” or “excessive entanglement of religion” does not apply, as the sole case on which the Jammu defendants rely expressly holds. That case is McNair v. Worldwide Church of God (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 363, which held that any special protection is afforded only to a defamation “made during the course of a doctrinal explanation by a duly authorized minister.” (Id. at p. 377.) The publications here were not “doctrinal explanations,” Jammu and the Punjab Times not “ministers.”
In short, plaintiff did not have to show malice. But even if he did, such could be present here, in light of the evidence that the Jammu defendants relied solely on Gurmeet Singh, hardly a reliable source. There was evidence he had been charged with a criminal offense, arrested, and led from the Temple in handcuffs; that he had been fired as Temple president; and that he had a reputation within the Temple community as a “dishonest” person, a “conniving” person,” and a person who would readily spread false rumors to discredit anyone with whom he disagreed. Reliance on such a person evidences malice. (See Fisher v. Larsen (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 627, 640 [charge of criminal conduct based on information from source hostile to plaintiff presented jury question whether there was reckless disregard of truth]; Khawar v. Globe Internat. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 254, 278.) Beyond all that, the Punjab Times published the articles in 16 states besides California, over‑publication that is also evidence of malice. (Rancho La Costa, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 646, 667.)
Based on all the above, we conclude that Judge Lee properly denied the Jammu defendants anti-SLAPP motion, a motion, we add, that should never have been brought, generating an appeal that, as shown, is utterly lacking in merit. Something is wrong with this picture.




To Be Continue As Part II………


Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

---