This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
Defamation
Unfair Competition

Shahid Buttar for Congress Committee, Shahid Buttar, an individual v. Hearst Communications Inc., and Does 1 through 5

Published: Sep. 1, 2023 | Result Date: Feb. 16, 2023 | Filing Date: Jul. 20, 2021 |

Case number: 3:21-cv-05566-EMC Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Edward M. Chen

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Gautam Dutta
(Business, Energy, and Election Law PC)


Defendant

Thomas Rohlfs Burke
(Davis, Wright & Tremaine LLP)


Facts

Shahid Buttar was a candidate for California's 12th Congressional District in the November 3, 2020 general election. Shahid Buttar for Congress Committee is an unincorporated organization that handled Buttar's congressional campaign. Hearst Communications, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns the San Francisco Chronicle, the newspaper of record for the 12th Congressional District.

On July 22, 20202, the Chronicle published an article discussing allegations that Buttar had sexually harassed a former acquaintance of his. On July 20, 2021, Buttar and his congressional campaign filed suit against Hearst Communications.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that they had denied the claims included in the article prior to publication; that the author of the piece had interviewed neither Buttar nor his alleged accuser prior to publishing the article; that the accuser had made prior false claims, they had informed the defendant of these claims, but the defendant did not follow up on that information; that the defendant's publication of the story was reckless; that it misled voters; and that it harmed Buttar's campaign and reputation. The plaintiffs contended the defendant was liable for defamation per se; that it had published false allegations with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth; and they had suffered lasting harm as a result. Moreover, the plaintiff contended that the defendant had violated the unfair competition law by maliciously defaming Buttar.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: The defendant denied any wrongdoing or liability. Moreover, the defendant moved to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute.

Result

The court granted the defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike and granted the defendant's motion for attorney's fees and costs.


#141344

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390