Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center, Inc. v. Buschel

An Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied because the allegedly false accusation that plaintiff operated a single treatment facility without a required state license was not a matter of public concern and so was not protected speech.  The trial court correctly denied defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion in this defamation suit which plaintiff brought after defendant published an article in a weekly electronic addiction/recovery bulletin stating that plaintiff was operating a treatment facility without the required state license.  While the e-bulletin was a public forum, the licensure status of a single treatment center was not of sufficient public concern to bring the statement within the protection of CCP § 425.16(e)(3) or (4).

California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3 (Moore, J.); December 20, 2016; 2016 WL 7373841


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s