Facts
- Jeff Henderson, a former felon who later became an award-winning chef, wrote an autobiographical book about his life, including his time in prison; the book was published by Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., through its William Morrow imprint.
- In the book, Henderson described a fellow inmate known as “Love Bug,” portraying him as a dominant figure in the prison yard who offered contraband (including “heat”) and who forced other inmates to submit to sexual acts as repayment for debts.
- Henry Lee Wallace alleged that he and Henderson were incarcerated together and that Wallace was known by the nickname “Love Bug.”
- Wallace claimed the “Love Bug” passage was “of and concerning” him and falsely depicted him as possessing and distributing weapons and coercing inmates into sexual conduct.
- Wallace sued Henderson and the publisher defendants for defamation in California state court based on the book passage.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court on diversity jurisdiction and filed a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16.
Issues
- Whether Wallace’s defamation claim arose from defendants’ protected activity under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, based on the authorship and publication of an autobiographical book discussing prison life.
- If the claim arose from protected activity, whether Wallace carried his burden to show a probability of prevailing on defamation by presenting admissible, prima facie evidence that the challenged passage was “of and concerning” Wallace, false, and otherwise actionable.
Decision
- The court treated the writing and publication of Henderson’s memoir as protected activity for purposes of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 and proceeded to the statute’s second step.
- The court granted defendants’ special motion to strike because Wallace did not make the required evidentiary showing of a probability of success on his defamation claim.
- The court dismissed the complaint but granted Wallace leave to amend by the deadline set in the order.
Legal Principles
- In a federal diversity case, California substantive law governs state-law defamation claims, and California’s anti-SLAPP statute may be applied by the federal court.
- California’s anti-SLAPP statute uses a two-step framework: (1) the defendant must show the challenged claim arises from protected activity; (2) if so, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show a probability of prevailing with competent evidence.
- Authorship and publication of a book are forms of speech that can qualify as protected activity under § 425.16 when the claim targets the content of the publication.
- At the second step, a plaintiff cannot rely on conclusory allegations; the plaintiff must present admissible evidence making a prima facie showing on each element of defamation.
- A defamation plaintiff must show the statement is “of and concerning” the plaintiff—i.e., that reasonable readers who know the plaintiff would understand the statement to refer to the plaintiff.
- A court may grant an anti-SLAPP motion and still allow leave to amend when deficiencies might be cured by additional factual allegations and supporting evidence.
Conclusion
In Wallace v. Henderson, the federal district court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike Wallace’s defamation complaint arising from a passage in Jeff Henderson’s memoir describing an inmate called “Love Bug,” because Wallace did not provide sufficient admissible evidence at the anti-SLAPP stage to show a probability of prevailing; the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.