Tannous v. Rickel CA1/3

Filed 3/6/13 Tannous v. Rickel CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

LINDA ELISA TANNOUS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, A134832 v. ROLLAND JAMES RICKEL, (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. CVPO 10-56682) Defendant and Appellant.

A motor home park resident made statements on television accusing the park owners of being “lazy,” “liars,” and “terrorists” from the Middle East, among other things. The park owners sued for defamation and the park resident claimed the lawsuit was a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) subject to a special motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)1 The court denied the motion and this appeal followed. We conclude that the park owners established a probability of prevailing on their claims and shall affirm the order.

STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiffs Linda, Yousef, and Issa Tannous own a mobile home park in Ukiah, California.2 Defendant Rolland James Rickel is a resident of the park and produces a local television show. In July 2010, plaintiffs filed this action for defamation and related claims upon allegations that Rickel made false and malicious statements on his show.

1 All further section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 Linda and Yousef Tannous are a married couple. Issa is Yousef’s brother.

1

Allegedly, Rickel accused the plaintiffs, who are from Jordan, of being prejudiced against “White park residents,” “acting like terrorists,” sexually abusing residents, and illegally growing or using marijuana. Rickel claimed his statements were protected speech and filed a special motion to strike under the SLAPP statute. (§ 425.16.) The court denied the motion. Rickel appealed but the appeal was dismissed because he failed to provide an adequate record. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint reasserting the above defamatory statements and adding others. Plaintiffs alleged that Rickel made defamatory statements on his television show from May 2010 through October 2011, including statements that plaintiffs are “lazy,” “liars,” and “terrorists” from the Middle East, “associated with terrorist activities and planes and so forth,” illegally “overcharge veterans, seniors, and other individuals in the mobile home park,” and discriminate against “white folks.” Rickel also allegedly said that the plaintiffs, who operate a used car lot in addition to the mobile home park, “are not ethical in their sales of vehicles” and “are trying to ‘rip off’ the public.” Rickel assertedly derided plaintiffs on his television show by “intentionally mispronoun[ing] the Plaintiffs’ name in order to call them ‘asses’ by separating their last name and accentuating the last part of their name, as follows: ‘Tan asses.’ ” Rickel claimed his statements were protected speech and filed a motion to strike the amended pleading as a SLAPP suit. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the challenged statements were not protected speech because they were made in connection with a private landlord-tenant dispute rather than an issue of public interest and, even if public interest was implicated, they were likely to prevail on the merits. The court denied the motion to strike: “The court finds that defendant [Rickel] has made a threshold showing . . . , albeit marginally, that plaintiffs’ causes of action arise from the defendant’s exercise of his constitutional right of free speech. The court further finds that plaintiffs amply . . . demonstrat[ed] a probability of prevailing on their claims.” The court also found that Rickel’s motion was a repetition of his prior failed motion, “completely without merit,” “frivolous” and “solely intended to cause unnecessary delay” and awarded plaintiffs’ attorney fees incurred in opposing the motion. The court awarded