Sykes v. Gilbert [1] SummaryThreat Type: LawsuitDate: 05/01/2004Status: ConcludedDisposition: Dismissed (total)Location: California Verdict or Settlement Amount: N/ALegal Claims: DefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTortious Interference Jonathan Sykes is a professor and practitioner of plastic and reconstructive surgery at the University of California, Davis Medical Center in Sacramento. He performed a series of facial cosmetic procedures on Georgette Gilbert in February 2003. Gilbert was unhappy with the results.... read full description PartiesParty Issuing Legal Threat: Jonathan SykesParty Receiving Legal Threat: Georgette GilbertType of Party: IndividualType of Party: IndividualLocation of Party: CaliforniaLocation of Party: CaliforniaLegal Counsel: Philip R. Birney, Danielle M. Guard, and Daniel L. Baxter Legal Counsel: Kathryn E. Karcher; Megan Whyman Olesek, Jerold L. Hersh, and Gregory J. Lundell Description Jonathan Sykes is a professor and practitioner of plastic and reconstructive surgery at the University of California, Davis Medical Center in Sacramento. He performed a series of facial cosmetic procedures on Georgette Gilbert in February 2003. Gilbert was unhappy with the results. She sued Sykes for malpractice and created a website relating her experiences with Dr. Sykes (including before and after photos). Her website was not simply aimed at criticizing Dr. Sykes, but also offered information and advice for those considering plastic surgery. Dr. Sykes filed a cross-complaint in the malpractice action, alleging that the statements on the website constituted defamation, and that Gilbert's actions constituted intentional and negligent interference with economic advantage and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Gilbert brought a motion to strike the cross-complaint pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. ยง 425.16 [2]). The district court denied the motion, finding that the Sykes had shown a probability of prevailing on his defamation claim. In January 2007, the Court of Appeals of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reversed, holding that Sykes was a limited purpose public figure and therefore had the burden of making a preliminary showing that the statements on the website were false and published with actual malice. The court found that the before-and-after photos on Gilbert's site were not misleading, and that various other statements were substantially true and not subject to a defamatory meaning. The court held further that Sykes's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and interference with economic advantage failed automatically due to the dismissal of his defamation claim because those claims were based entirely on Gilbert's protected speech. Related Links: C.A. Says Surgery Advocate Limited Purpose Public Figure, Tosses Suit [3] MLRC's Legal Actions and Developments Involving Blogs [4] DetailsWeb Site(s) Involved: My Surgery Nightmare [5] Publication Medium: WebsiteSubject Area: DefamationSLAPP Court Information & DocumentsJurisdiction: CaliforniaSource of Law: CaliforniaCourt Name: California Superior Court, Sacramento CountyCourt Type: StateCase Number: 04AS02094 (trial court); C050766 (appeal)Relevant Documents: 2007-01-26-Appellate Decision.pdf [6] 2007-05-19-Gilbert's Reply Brief on Appeal.pdf [7] CMLP Information (Private)CMLP Notes: 5/01/2004 date is approximate for sometime in May 2004 Unable to find docket information for the lower court, although the appellate decision lists May 2004 as when Gilbert brought the malpractice suit against Sykes. TO-DO: Get more precise date; more court documents