White v. Gabriel CA6

Filed 2/6/26 White v. Gabriel CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THOMAS WHITE, H052203 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 22CV408831)

v.

ARIANA GABRIEL et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Thomas White sued Ariana Gabriel, Julia Thompson, James Wall, and Maya Harris (collectively, defendants) for defamation, alleging they spread false rape and sexual assault accusations against him. Defendants brought special motions to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court granted Gabriel’s and Thompson’s motions to strike the defamation claim in its entirety, and granted in part a similar joint motion from Wall and Harris. A different panel of this court reversed. (White v. Gabriel et al. (Apr. 28, 2025, H051530) [nonpub. opn.], as mod. on denial of rehg. May 27, 2025 (White I).) White now challenges $573,667.76 in attorney fees and costs the trial court awarded to defendants while the previous appeal of the underlying order was pending. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (c)(1).) As the order granting the anti-SLAPP motions was reversed, we will also reverse the corresponding fee awards and remand the matter for the trial court to exercise its discretion anew in light of White I.

I. BACKGROUND A. UNDERLYING LITIGATION

White and defendants are former or current students at Stanford University. White’s suit alleged defendants conspired to spread false rape and sexual assault accusations against him. He alleged that defendants shared four defamatory communications to individual Stanford students, two defamatory statements to and on behalf of a company where defendant Gabriel had worked, and two defamatory statements to the larger Stanford community. Defendants moved under the anti-SLAPP statute to strike the defamation claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) While the anti- SLAPP motions were pending, White was allowed to take limited depositions of each defendant, subpoena documents from Stanford, and obtain communications in defendants’ possession concerning the sexual assault allegations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (g).) The trial court granted Gabriel’s and Thompson’s individual anti-SLAPP motions in full, striking the defamation claim based on two communications involving Gabriel’s former employer. It granted in part Wall’s and Harris’s joint motion, striking the claim as to three of the four purported communications to individual Stanford students and one of the two purported communications to the Stanford community. The trial court denied Wall’s and Harris’s motion to strike the defamation claim as to one alleged conversation between individual Stanford students and one alleged post made to the Stanford community. (In considering Wall’s and Harris’s motion, the trial court did not address the statements Gabriel made to her former employer.) White and Wall and Harris all appealed, and the case was reassigned in the superior court. A different panel of this court reversed the anti-SLAPP rulings in White I. (At White’s request, we take judicial notice of the original opinion in White I and the order modifying the opinion and denying rehearing. (Evid. Code, §§ 459, subd. (a), 452, subd. (d); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b)(1).)) The previous panel concluded that 2