Ocean Towers Housing Corp., the owner of an apartment building in Santa Monica, California filed a defamation lawsuit against one of its tenants Richard Stone, who accused the company of breaching its fiduciary duty to its shareholders.  According to filings in the case, in a posting on his website The Ocean View, Stone accused Ocean Towers of using company funds to finance a loan for a board member's nephew.  Stone claimed that the company did this despite statements that it lacked sufficient funds to engage in "much needed building repairs."

On December 22, 2006, Stone filed a motion to dismiss the suit under California's anti-SLAPP statute.  As an alternative reason for dismissal, Stone argued that his statements were priviliged because they litigation or were protected communications between parties who share an "interest" in an issue of direct and immediate concern.

The Superior Court denied the motion, finding that the statement constituted defamation per se and that there was evidence suggesting Stone's statements were false.  Further, the court found that Stone may have had malice in publishing the disputed statement.  The court also found that the litigation privilege didn't apply because both Stone and his comments were unrelated to the other Ocean Towers lawsuit.

Stone appealed to California's Second Appellate District.  The appeals court affirmed the ruling on essentially the same grounds.  The court also explicitly rejected the "interest" privilege, which Stone argued had not been addressed in the trial court.  The court recognized that Stone might have qualified for the privilege if he had made his statements in a letter to another interested party, but it determined that posting a statement on the Internet does not prove the required intent to reach a specific interested party.

The case is scheduled to go to trial in L.A. Superior Court on 03/30/2009.

Update:

05/15/2009 - According to the case summary (search "BC359619"), the case was dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice.  It appears that a settlement was reached.

Scott Wilbanks, a viatical settlement broker, filed a defamation and unfair business practices lawsuit against Gloria Wolk, a former insurance agent and author of books on viatical settlements (viaticals are arrangements that allow dying persons with life insurance policies to sell their policies to investors for a percentage of the death benefits). 

According to Wilbanks's complaint, Wolk defamed him and his company on her website Viatical & Life Settlements Consumer Information, which provides information about settlement brokers, by publishing the following statements:

• Be very careful when dealing with this broker. Wilbanks and Assoc. is under investigation by the CA dept. of insurance. The complaint originated with a California viator who won a judgment against Wilbanks. How many others have been injured but didn’t have the strength to do anything about it?
• The company is under investigation. Stay tuned for details.
• Wilbanks and Associates provided incompetent advice.
• Wilbanks and Associates is unethical.

Wolk moved to strike the defamation claim under California's anti-SLAPP statute.  The court granted her motion and awarded Wolk $7,000 in attorney fees and costs.

On August 17, 2004, the California Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Wilbanks had shown a reasonable probability of success on the merits of his claims.

Update:

The California Superior Court's electronic docket states that the case was dismissed with prejudice on August 18, 2005, following settlement discussions in chambers. 

Michael J. Zwebner, CEO of penny-stock holding company Universal Communication Systems, sued a number of "Doe" defendants over statements on the Raging Bull financial message board that were critical of him and his company. 

Zwebner's 300+ page complaint seeks damages for harassment, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

On November 18, 2003, one of the anonymous defendants filed a motion to quash plaintiffs' subpoena to Lycos, operator of the Raging Bull forum.  Lycos also refused to comply with the subpoena after reviewing the complaint. 

On February 4, 2004, the court dismissed the case without prejudice due to Zwebner's failure to file a joint scheduling report.

Virgie Arthur, the mother of deceased celebrity Anna Nicole Smith, filed a defamation suit against a number of bloggers and others in Texas state court, alleging that the defendants conspired to ruin her reputation through defamatory e-mails, blog and website postings, and other activities.

Among the defendants are gossip site TMZ.com and TMZ.com editor Harvey Levin, who allegedly posted a defamatory article entitled "Virgie has son with her stepbrother" (now removed). Arthur also claims that defendant Art Harris allegedly made defamatory postings on his blog, The Bald Truth.

Aside from these two articles, Arthur's complaint does not delineate each defendants' allegedly defamatory statements. Instead, Arthur accuses the "cabal" as a whole of publishing defamatory articles and otherwise engaging in a general conspiracy to defame her.

Arthur also sought to add many of these same defendants to her related federal lawsuit, but that court denied her motion. See Arthur v. TMZ.com (federal) for more information. Arthur also has subpoenaed defendant Harrington in the federal case. See Arthur v. Harrington.

Update:

5/22/09 - Lyndal Harrington was held in civil contempt and sent to jail for not turning over a computer containing information subpoenaed by Smith.

Trial set for 06/01/2009.

Virgie Arthur, mother of deceased celebrity Anna Nicole Smith, subpoenaed blogger Lyndal Harrington in a federal defamation lawsuit.  Arthur originally filed claims of defamation and conspiracy to defame against Howard K. Stern, CBS Studios, and KPRC Houston after Stern and Anna Nicole Smith allegedly defamed Arthur on an episode of "Entertainment Tonight."  Numerous blogs and websites discussed and criticized Arthur following the episode and lawsuit.

The subpoena against Harrington sought:

• all of Harrington's e-mails sent to or received from Stern and Smith;
• all e-mails regarding Arthur or her attorneys, regardless of who they came from or were sent to;
• all documentation regarding Harrington's blog and website postings related to Arthur, Stern, Smith, and other parties related to the suit;
• various chat room logs concerning the suit, related parties or related issues;
• all documents concerning communications with Stern and other parties, including Stern's attorneys; and
• a copy of the portions of Harrington's computer hard drive and other storage media that contain content related to the lawsuit, related individuals, and related Internet postings.

Arthur withdrew the subpoena without prejudice on Feb. 11, 2008 for purposes of re-calendaring, citing a Bahamanian inquest into the death of her son.  She served Harrington with a new subpoena on March 24.  On April 14, 2008, Arthur  again withdrew her subpoena without prejudice in order to give Harrington -- who had been representing herself pro se -- more time to find an attorney. 

 UPDATE:

5/22/09 - The court found Harrington in comptempt for failing to turn over her computer, which she claims was "stolen in a burglary less than a week after the judge ordered the machine to be produced." Harrington was jailed for five days. It is extremely unusual to order jail time in a civil trial. 

She had not yet filed a new subpoena as of June 16, 2009.

Arthur has also sued Harrington in a related Texas state suit.  See Arthur v. TMZ.com (state) for more information. 

James Sachay, former assistant commissioner of the Chicago’s aviation department, sued Frank Coconate and the Chicago Reader for defamation and false light after the Chicago Reader's Clout City blog published a comment that purported to be written by "Sachay."  According to the complaint, the comment said:

 I am voting for Frank Coconate. I am sorry I challenged his petitions under false pretenses. I am sorry I stole money from Roman Pucinski. I am sorry I got illegal contracts for my son and acted criminally at O'Hare.

Sachay alleges that the comment is false and defamatory and that Frank Coconate, a political rival, posted it.

The Chicago Reader moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunized it for publishing the statement of a third party.  In June 2008, Sachay voluntarily dismissed the complaint against the Chicago Reader. The lawsuit against Coconate remains pending.

Reverend Ronald K. Moore and his wife sued Valerie O'Bannon after she created a website claiming that she had a five-month affair with Moore. According to the MLRC, Moore obtained an injunction from a Mississippi chancery court shutting down the website in February 2007 and attempted to have O'Bannon put in jail when she failed to do so.  Moore later refiled the case in Circuit Court in Hines County.

The California law firm Peters & Freedman sued Elizabeth and Arnold McMahon for libel and invasion of privacy based on statements they posted on their website, American Homeowners Resource Center, which describes itself as a “public interest interactive website for homeowners” to "help citizens in homeowner associations . . . take back their homes from the two generations of crooked lawyers, politicians, judges and vendors who have stolen them."

The law firm, which specializes in homeowners’ association law, asserts in its complaint that the McMahons falsely accused it of committing illegal and unprofessional conduct while representing homeowners associations in various lawsuits. One of the law firms lawyers, Jeffrey Pratt, also sued the McMahons for libel. See the related entry, Pratt v. McMahon, for more information.

On September 27, 2006, the McMahons filed a motion under California's anti-SLAPP statute to strike the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff's claims arose from the exercise of their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and to petition for the redress of grievances.

The court denied the motion to dismiss, and a California appellate court affirmed, holding that the comments “do not concern a public issue."

The case is set for a jury trial on 1/12/09.