Joyner v. www.socalsoccertalk.com
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted a special motion to strike brought by defendants under the anti-SLAPP statute.[1] (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16.) Joyner contends the trial court erred in granting defendants anti-SLAPP motion because defendants failed to show the defamatory postings concerned a matter of public interest, and the trial court previously had granted Joyners preliminary injunction request, which required the court to find Joyner had demonstrated a probability of success on the merits. Joyner further contends the trial court awarded excessive attorney fees to defendants and erred in dismissing the entire complaint, issuing discovery sanctions, and ordering postjudgment examinations.
Although the alleged defamatory statements were made in a public forum, they were not made in connection with an issue of public interest. (See 425.16, subd. (e)(3).) Accordingly, Court conclude the complaint does not fall within the anti-SLAPP statute and reverse.
Comments on Joyner v. www.socalsoccertalk.com