1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 JEAN K. HYAMS, ESQ., State Bar No. 144425 E-Mail: [email protected] 2 LESLIE F. LEVY, ESQ., State Bar No. 104634 E-Mail: [email protected] 3 HILARY P. HAMMELL, ESQ., State Bar No. 291347 4 E-Mail: [email protected] LEVY VINICK BURRELL HYAMS LLP 5 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 6 Tel.: (510) 318-7700 Fax: (510) 318-7701 7 8 Attorneys for Defendant Pamela Lopez 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 11 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 12 ) Case No. 34-2018-00238699 13 ) ) DEFENDANT PAMELA LOPEZ’S 14 MATTHEW DABABNEH, an individual, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF HER 15 Plaintiff, ) SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE 16 ) PURSUANT TO CCP § 425.16 v. ) 17 ) Reservation No. 2374427 PAMELA LOPEZ, an individual, ) 18 and DOES 1-10, ) Date: December 6, 2018 ) Time: 2:00 p.m. 19 Defendants. ) Dept.: 53 20 ) ) Complaint Filed: August 14, 2018 21 ) Trial Date: TBD 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT PAMELA LOPEZ’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I-S-O HER SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CCP § 425.16 - CASE NO. 34-2018-00238699 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 2 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 1 3 LEGAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 4 4 I. THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE STRICKEN IN ITS ENTIRETY. ................... 4 5 A. Ms. Lopez’s Reporting Sexual Assault to the Legislature and the Press 6 Was “In Furtherance of [her] Right of Petition or Free Speech.” ............... 5 7 B. Ms. Lopez’s Speech Is Absolutely Protected under Section 425.16(e)(1) 8 and (2) as Speech Before a Legislative Proceeding or in Connection with 9 an Issue under Review by a Legislative Body. ........................................... 5 10 C. Dababneh’s Attack on Ms. Lopez’s Speech Must Be Stopped Because 11 Sexual Harassment is an Issue of Public Concern and He Cannot Show 12 any Probability of Proving What She Said was Unprivileged and False. ... 7 13 1. Reforming Institutions to End the Culture of Sexual Harassment is 14 an Issue of Public Concern. ............................................................ 7 15 2. Dababneh Cannot Establish a Probability He Will Prevail on His 16 Causes of Action for Defamation or Intentional Infliction of 17 Emotional Distress. ......................................................................... 9 18 D. The Court Should Award Ms. Lopez Attorney Fees and Costs for Having 19 to Defend Against this Specious and Retaliatory Lawsuit........................ 15 20 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 15 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT PAMELA LOPEZ’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I-S-O HER SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CCP § 425.16 - CASE NO. 34-2018-00238699 1 FEDERAL CASES 2 Crane v. Arizona Republic, (9th Cir. 1992) 972 F.2d 1511, 1518 ................................................ 13 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 344–45 .......................................................... 10 3 Minnesota Voters All. v. Mansky, (2018) 138 S. Ct. 1876, 1890 .................................................... 8 4 Price v. Stossel, (9th Cir. 2010) 620 F.3d 992, 1000 ....................................................................... 9 5 Vackar v. Package Machinery Co., 841 F.Supp. 310, 314-315 .................................................... 14 6 STATE CASES 7 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Steinberg, (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 568, 587–88................................... 14 Agarwal v. Johnson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 932, 946 ........................................................................... 15 8 Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, (1999) 19 Cal. 4th 1106, 1116 ......................... 8 9 Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim, (1996) 42 Cal. App. 4th 628, 645................................. 2, 9 10 Comstock v. Aber, (2012) 212 Cal. App. 4th 931, 941 ................................................................... 6 11 DuPont Merck Pharm. Co. v. Superior Court, (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th 562, 566 ......................... 7 Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 57 ........................................ 6 12 Feldman v. 1100 Park Lane Assocs., (2008) 160 Cal. App. 4th 1467, 1485 ................................ 15 13 Healthsmart Pacific, Inc. v. Kabateck, (2017) 7 Cal. App. 5th 416, 430 .................... 10, 13, 14, 15 14 Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal. 4th 1035, 1050-1051 ..................................................................... 15 15 Ketchum v. Moses, (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1133 ......................................................................... 16 16 Klem v. Access Ins. Co., (2017) 17 Cal. App. 5th 595, 613 .......................................................... 14 Lafayette Morehouse Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 855, 863............ 8 17 McGarry v. Univ. of San Diego, (2007) 154 Cal. App. 4th 97, 114 ............................................. 11 18 Melbostad v. Fisher, (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 987, 992 .............................................................. 16 19 Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 1027, 1042 .......................................... 10 20 Okorie v. LAUSD, (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 574 .............................................................................. 16 th 21 Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4 798, 806-807 ........................... 10, 11 Silberg v. Anderson, (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 205 .................................................................................. 15 22 Sippel v. Foundation for National Progress (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 226, 239 ......................... 8, 11 23 Smith v. Maldonado, (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 637, 653 ......................................................... 11, 13 24 Tiedemann v. Superior Court, (1978) 83 Cal. App. 3d 918, 925.................................................. 14 25 CODES Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 ........................................................................................ 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 26 Civ. Code § 47 ........................................................................................................................ 13, 14 27 Civ. Code §§ 45, 46 ...................................................................................................................... 12 28 DEFENDANT PAMELA LOPEZ’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I-S-O HER SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CCP § 425.16 - CASE NO. 34-2018-00238699 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Former State Assembly Member Matt Dababneh does not bring his lawsuit to pursue 3 legitimate causes of action. He brings this lawsuit to retaliate against Pamela Lopez for having 4 the courage to speak out about pervasive sexual misconduct in the state Capitol, of which 5 Mr. Dababneh’s illegal conduct is a prime example. His attempts to muzzle Ms. Lopez began in 6 the Las Vegas bathroom where, having just sexually assaulted her, he told her not to tell anyone. 7 They continued when he threatened her with a defamation lawsuit just hours before she publicly 8 named him as the perpetrator in a report to the California State Assembly Rules Committee. 9 (“Rules Committee”) And they culminated when he filed this action attacking her morally 10 courageous and constitutionally protected speech. Dababneh’s lawsuit is a desperate attempt to 11 resuscitate the culture of fear and silence that kept women in California state politics from 12 reporting sexual misconduct for far too long. It must not be allowed to succeed. 13 The legislature passed the anti-SLAPP statute in 1992 to respond to “a disturbing 14 increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of 15 freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.” (CCP § 425.16(a)) This retaliatory 16 and frivolous lawsuit, brought by a powerful former elected official and announced future 17 candidate for Lieutenant Governor against one of the many women who have named him as a 18 perpetrator of sexual assault, is a textbook example of why California’s anti-SLAPP law exists. 19 The anti-SLAPP special motion to strike enables courts to dismiss, early in the proceedings, 20 specious lawsuits that “lack[] merit,” whose “aim is not to win the lawsuit but to detract the 21 defendant from his or her objective” by depleting the defendant’s funds and energy. (Church of 22 Scientology v. Wollersheim, (1996) 42 Cal. App. 4th 628, 645, disapproved of on another point 23 by Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 53) That is exactly what 24 Dababneh seeks to do here, and this Court should not let him get away with it. 25 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 26 Pamela Lopez is a political consultant who runs a small lobbying firm in Sacramento. 27 She, like other political professionals, depends for her livelihood on building and maintaining 28 productive relationships with state lawmakers. Unfortunately, women in the Sacramento political 1 DEFENDANT PAMELA LOPEZ’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I-S-O HER SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CCP § 425.16 - CASE NO. 34-2018-00238699 1 community, including Ms. Lopez, have long experienced rampant sexual harassment and 2 discrimination