San Francisco Federal Credit Union v. Fielding

DocketDescription: Case complete.

DocketDescription: Remittitur issued.

DocketDescription: Mod. of opinion filed (no change in judgment).; Notes: THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on August 21, 2023, be modified as follows: 1. In the second full paragraph on page 17, after the fifth sentence which ends, "Fielding made comments that could reasonably be considered as asserting or implying provably false assertions of fact, even if some details are missing." insert the following footnote: In a petition for rehearing, Fielding argues that the challenged statements that "[t]he CEO refuse[d] to take appropriate precautions" and that "[t]he CEO [was] very selective" in providing information to the Board and gave them "false information to keep them at bay" are not actionable by the Credit Union because they specifically refer to Oliver. However, as the Credit Union pointed out in its opening brief, "[t]here is no requirement that the person defamed be mentioned by name. [Citation.] It is sufficient if from the evidence the jury can infer that the defamatory statement applies to the plaintiff. [Citation.] It is sufficient if the publication points to the plaintiff by description or circumstance tending to identify him." (Di Giorgio Fruit Corp. v. AFL-CIO, supra, 215 Cal.App.2d at pp. 569-570; see also Dong v. Board of Trustees (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1572, 1587 [" 'it is of course possible that two persons may stand in such a relation that defamation of one will be found to reflect upon the reputation of the other' "].) Moreover, "language which casts aspersions upon its business character is actionable" by the business. (Di Giorgio Fruit Corp. v. AFL-CIO, at p. 571.) Because Fielding's post is about the Credit Union's inadequate COVID-19 measures, the statements that refer to its CEO's actions (or lack thereof), when read in context, can reasonably be understood as accusations directed at the Credit Union. (See id. at p. 570 ["it is clear even from the references to [the individual founder of the corporation] that the defamatory accusations are directed at the corporate owner of the ranch"].) Furthermore, even if we were to conclude that those particular statements are not actionable by the Credit Union, the outcome of this appeal would not change. As explained in more detail below, the Credit Union established a probability of prevailing as to at least some of the other challenged statements in Fielding's Facebook post, and those statements are actionable by the Credit Union. This footnote will become footnote number 7, renumbering all subsequent footnotes accordingly. 2. On page 21, the third sentence of the second full paragraph is replaced with the following sentence: He further claimed that "[o]ther infections at the branches went unreported and un treated [sic]" and that the "CEO of the organization refuse[d] to take appropriate precautions to protect the employees and members." There is no change in the judgment. The petition for rehearing, filed September 5, 2023, is denied.

DocketDescription: Rehearing petition filed.; Notes: (By respondent.)

DispositionDescription: Affirmed/part, rev/part, remanded w/direction; Disposition Type: Final The order granting Fielding's special motion to strike is reversed in part. On remand, the trial court is directed to enter an order denying the motion to strike as to the Credit Union's defamation claim. The order denying Fielding's motion to strike is affirmed as to the Credit Union's trade libel claim. Each side shall bear its own costs.; Publication Status: Signed Unpublished; Author: Bowen, Christopher R.; Participants: Margulies, Sandra Lynn (Concur) Banke, Kathleen M. (Concur)

DocketDescription: Opinion filed.; Notes: (Signed Unpublished) The order granting Fielding's special motion to strike is reversed in part. On remand, the trial court is directed to enter an order denying the motion to strike as to the Credit Union's defamation claim. The order denying Fielding's motion to strike is affirmed as to the Credit Union's trade libel claim. Each side shall bear its own costs.

DocketDescription: Cause argued and submitted.; Notes: Robyn Callahan appearing on behalf of the appellant Rachel Norby appearing on behalf of the respondent

DocketDescription: Email sent to:; Notes: Email sent to all counsel with oral argument calendar and BlueJeans link

DocketDescription: Calendar notice sent. Calendar date:; Notes: Aug. 3, 2023 @ 9:00 a.m.

DocketDescription: Filed change of firm name.; Notes: Notice of Change of Firm Name and Email Address for Attorneys for Appellant, San Francisco Federal Credit Union

DocketDescription: Stipulation of extension of time filed to:; Notes: Appellant's appendix and opening brief filed. Due on 02/25/2022 By 60 Day(s) AOB stipulated to 2/25/22

DocketDescription: Record on appeal filed.; Notes: R-1(e-filed)(attached to designation) **Entire Record Electronic**

DocketDescription: Appellant's notice designating record on appeal filed in trial court on:; Notes: 11/08/2021. Designating 8.124 with RT(attached to designation).

DocketDescription: Civil case information statement filed.; Notes: Plaintiff and Appellant: San Francisco Federal Credit Union Attorney: Jonathan M. Cohen Order attached.

DocketDescription: Certificate of interested entities or persons filed by:; Notes: (Appellant.)

DocketBrief: Civil case information statement filed.; Party Attorney: Plaintiff and Appellant: San Francisco Federal Credit UnionAttorney: Jonathan M. Cohen; Notes: Order attached.

DocketDescription: Filing fee.; Notes: Paid by mail.

DocketDescription: Notified parties of local rules and procedures.

DocketDescription: Notice of appeal lodged/received.; Notes: filed 10-13-21 by counsel for plaintiff from order of 8-19-21

DocketTrial Court Name: Contra Costa County Superior Court - Main; County: Contra Costa; Trial Court Case Number: C2100811; Trial Court Judge: Fannin, Jill