Caraway v. Haller CA1/2

California Court of Appeal Apr 26, 2023 No. A164808Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a report to police is protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute and that the plaintiff failed to show the report was illegal as a matter of law, as the record did not conclusively demonstrate its falsity.

Issues

Whether a report to police constitutes protected activity under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.
Whether an allegedly false police report is excluded from anti-SLAPP protection when the record does not conclusively demonstrate its falsity.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Reports to police are protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, as statements made in connection with official proceedings.”

“Only if the record conclusively demonstrates that a police report is false does it constitute illegal activity that falls outside the scope of protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.”

“The record does not conclusively demonstrate that Haller’s allegedly false statements to police were untrue.”

Filed 4/26/23 Caraway v. Haller CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

DOUGLAS CARAWAY, Plaintiff and Appellant, A164808 v. VICTORIA HALLER, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 20CIV05524) Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff and appellant Douglas Caraway filed this defamation action against defendant and respondent Victoria Haller, alleging that in December 2018 Haller made false and defamatory statements to police after the two got into an altercation over a parking spot. Specifically, he alleges that as the two were trying to park in the same spot, Haller began yelling at him in an intimidating manner, and then after he finished parking in the spot, she screamed at him and threatened to call the police. He alleges that he never hit Haller or fled the scene, but that when police arrived, he was arrested for a “hit and run” and the charges were eventually dropped. In a single count for defamation, he alleged that Haller made “one or more false statements which were intended to impeach [his]

honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation,” the “general substance” of which “was that [he] had conducted a ‘hit and run’ against her.”1 The trial court granted Haller’s anti-SLAPP special motion to strike the complaint (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), and this appeal followed. We reject his sole claim of error and affirm. DISCUSSION I. “Litigation of an anti-SLAPP motion involves a two-step process. First, ‘the moving defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged allegations or claims “aris[e] from” protected activity in which the defendant has engaged.’ [Citation.] Second, for each claim that does arise from protected activity, the plaintiff must show the claim has ‘at least “minimal merit.” ’ [Citation.] If the plaintiff cannot make this showing, the court will strike the claim.” (Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995, 1009; Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).)

Caraway v. Haller CA1/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

STEWART, P.J.

MILLER, J.

AI Brief