## Facts

- Diana Fineran led the Traditional Cat Association (TCA), and the individual defendants were TCA officers and directors.
- A leadership dispute arose in 1998; Fineran formed a separate organization, The Traditional Cat Association, Inc. (TTCA).
- TTCA and Fineran initiated litigation against TCA and the individual defendants alleging various business and intellectual-property related wrongs.
- In 1998, defendant John Herold created an internet site about the dispute and litigation that was highly critical of Fineran and TTCA and favorable to TCA and defendants.
- On May 22, 2002, TTCA and Fineran sued defendants for defamation and related claims based on statements on the website.
- The allegedly defamatory website statements had been posted more than one year before the complaint, and there was no evidence the site content was altered during the year before suit.
- Defendants filed a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 (anti-SLAPP), arguing the defamation claim was barred by the one-year limitations period for libel and slander (Code Civ. Proc. § 340).
- The trial court denied the motion; defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether California’s single-publication rule applies to allegedly defamatory statements posted on an internet website, so that the statute of limitations runs from the initial posting.
2. If so, whether the one-year statute of limitations bars the defamation claim, requiring it to be stricken under the anti-SLAPP statute.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order denying the special motion to strike as to the defamation cause of action.
- The court held the single-publication rule applies to statements published on internet websites.
- Because the statements were posted more than one year before the complaint and there was no qualifying republication within the limitations period, the defamation claim was time-barred under Code of Civil Procedure § 340.
- As a matter of law, plaintiffs could not show a probability of prevailing on the defamation claim; it had to be stricken under § 425.16.

## Legal Principles

- Under California’s single-publication rule, a defamation claim accrues upon the first general publication or broadcast of the statement; later distribution or access does not restart the limitations period.
- A republication (such as a separate publication or a substantive alteration that effectively reissues the statement) can create a new accrual date, but mere continued availability of unchanged material does not.
- The single-publication rule applies to internet website postings.
- Libel and slander actions are subject to a one-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure § 340.
- On an anti-SLAPP motion, a claim that is barred by the statute of limitations cannot satisfy the plaintiff’s burden to show a probability of prevailing.

## Conclusion

The court held that website defamation is governed by the single-publication rule and that the limitations period runs from the initial posting absent a republication; because the plaintiffs sued more than one year after first posting with no evidence of republication, the defamation claim was stricken under the anti-SLAPP statute.


Traditional Cat Ass'n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal. App. 4th 392, 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 353 (Ct. App. 2004)