Wineland-Thomson Adventures v. Doe-1 CA1/3

Filed 10/8/14 Wineland-Thomson Adventures v. Doe-1 CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

WINELAND-THOMSON ADVENTURES, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, A140537

v. (City & County of San Francisco DOE 1, Super. Ct. No. CGC-13-528871) Defendant and Appellant.

Doe 1 (Doe) appeals from the denial of its special motion to strike the complaint of Wineland-Thomson Adventures, Inc., doing business as Thomson Safaris (Thomson) under the so-called anti-SLAPP1 statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16).2 The complaint alleges causes of action for defamation and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage based on Doe’s creation of a website, “Stop Thomson Safaris,” accusing Thomson of multiple acts of criminal and unethical conduct in the management of land in Tanzania where Thomson operates tours and safaris. In denying the motion, the trial court held that although Doe had “made a prima facie showing that the alleged conduct arises from protected activity,” Thomson “produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate a probability of prevailing” in the action. We agree with the trial court’s evaluation of the evidence submitted in opposition to the motion and shall affirm.

1 “SLAPP” is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. 2 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.

1

Background The complaint alleges that Doe used a website named “WEEBLY” to accuse Thomson and its principals of engaging in the beating of children and adults, illegally confiscating property, refusing to allow local inhabitants access to water sources, confining and starving members of the local Tanzanian community, burning homes, and bribing police and other government officials, all of which Thomson alleges is false and libelous on its face. 3 The complaint further alleges that these statements encourage visitors to avoid travelling with Thomson and instead to travel with other tour companies (that Thomson elsewhere suggests are the true party or parties behind the website), and that the false statements were made “willfully, maliciously and deliberately attempt[ing] to deprive [Thomson] of the ability to compete in the tour industry.” Thomson alleges that it has been damaged by a resulting loss of reputation and of business and the need to incur additional offsetting expenses. The record in support of and opposition to the special motion to strike contains several pages from the Stop Thomson Safaris website in which the allegedly false statements are made either explicitly or implicitly. The opposition also contains several declarations asserting the falsity of the statements and the lack of any knowledge of specific alleged incidents by the supervisors who presumably would be aware of the facts if true. It is unnecessary to recite in this opinion all of the charges and denials contained in the record, but we shall set forth below sufficient specifics to dispose of the issues on appeal. In finding that Thomson’s showing met its burden under the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis, the trial court stated simply that “[t]he declarations produced by plaintiff are circumstantial evidence showing that the statements on the website were false.” Doe has timely appealed from the denial of the special motion to strike.