Dubac sued Itkoff and Diamond, claiming that they had sent defamatory emails accusing Dubac of various wrongdoings, including being a pathological liar, committing perjury, and causing problems within the association. These emails were shared with other members of the community, adding to the allegedly public nature of the conflict. In response, Itkoff and Diamond filed a motion to strike the lawsuit under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

In analyzing the anti-SLAPP issue, the court evaluated whether the statements made by Itkoff and Diamond were part of a public issue or a matter of public interest. The trial court ruled that some statements were connected to a public issue and others were not. Thus, Dubac’s lawsuit continued.

On appeal, the court agreed that the majority of the statements made by Itkoff and Diamond did not meet the criteria for being protected speech under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court emphasized that while some statements involved matters of interest to the association, and therefore were public, not all personal disputes within a private organization rise to the level of public concern, particularly when the number of people affected in an intrabuilding dispute were “minute.”

TAKEAWAY:  Defamation claims can be very complex, particularly in the context of community association disputes. The anti-SLAPP statute has limitations when it comes to distinguishing between public and private matters.