Maltez v. Alvaro

No. RG04-146639 (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda County Sept. 8, 2004) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55810

Description

California Court Dismisses Employer’s Slander Complaint Against Picketing Unpaid Day Laborers

Abstract

Pursuant to California’s “anti-Slapp” (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law, a procedural device that allows fast dismissal of lawsuits brought to chill the exercise of constitutional rights of petition or free speech, a state court dismissed an employer’s complaint against unpaid former employees and their supporters. Plaintiffs—the employer and his family—admitted that they owed the two employees wages but called slanderous defendants’ statements to the press that the sum owed was $20,000. Plaintiffs also claimed intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, defamation, violation of privacy, stalking, and trespass, all arising from defendants’ press contacts and picketing at plaintiffs’ house. Defendants showed, the court found, that the lawsuit arose from protected statements in connection with the employees’ wage claims to the labor commission and associated picketing and publicity and that employer’s alleged conduct was an issue of public interest, namely, labor abuses against day laborers. Plaintiffs failed to establish a probability of prevailing on their claims, the court found. Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the picketing charged misconduct by unspecified persons, and defendants, as the picket organizers, could not be held responsible for acts of other protesters. As for the emotional-distress claims, plaintiffs lacked evidence that defendants’ conduct was outrageous. And plaintiffs did not show that the statements regarding wages owed were false—a prerequisite for the defamation claim. The court granted defendants’ motion to strike the complaint and awarded defendants attorney fees and costs.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Docket Date
2004-09-08 00:00:00+00:00

Files

Filed under: