Why is Darren Chaker stalking Maura Larkins--even though his conditions of release from federal prison forbid it?

Related story: Completely false allegations made in an effort to banish woman from California school (Article about a situation similar to the story below; the accusers were the ones who ended up in jail when two parents at an Irvine, California elementary school tried to destroy the reputation of a parent volunteer)  See also The Letter that got Maura Larkins fired regarding Castle Park Elementary School in Chula Vista.

Why is Darren Chaker so interested in Maura Larkins?

by Maura Larkins
Jan. 24, 2015

In San Diego, Darren Chaker, who is currently on supervised release from federal prison for bankruptcy fraud, is stalking me (teacher/blogger Maura Larkins).  As his rap sheet makes clear, Chaker doesn't let honesty interfere with his efforts to achieve his goals.

Why is this man so interested in me?

Darren Chaker has been sending letters about me to people on my street. Some of us are a little bit nervous, since Mr. Chaker has a troubling law enforcement record.

It seems clear that Darren Chaker got interested in me because I reminded him
of Wendy Mateo, the grandmother of his child.  A few years ago Chaker sued Mateo for calling
him a "deadbeat dad".   His suit was thrown out as a "SLAPP" by San Diego
Superior Court.

In July 2011, Chaker was appealing his loss to the Court of Appeal.

At the same time, I was appealing a ruling by Judge Judith Hayes, who ordered
me never to speak or write the names of Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm or
any of its attorneys.

My case was clearly very similar to the Mateo case.

Mr. Cahker sat down next to me at the Court of Appeal in July 2011 on the day
that attorney Shaun Martin presented winning arguments in my case.

I spoke to Chaker for a while, then I moved to the front row of the gallery.

My friend remained seated near Chaker.  She reported to me that Mr. Chaker
became very disturbed as he listened to the oral arguments and the comments
of the judges.  I suspect that Mr. Chaker was upset because it seemed likely
that the judges were going to come down on the side of free speech.

If that is what he believed, he was right.

On August 5, 2011 the California Court of Appeal in San Diego ruled that Judge
Hayes' injunction permanently forbidding me from mentioning the name of Stutz
law firm, either orally or in writing, was "exceedingly unconstitutional."

As I walked out of the Court of Appeal after oral arguments, I was approached by
Darren Chaker.

From the FBI website:
Man Sentenced to Federal Prison for Bankruptcy Fraud
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Dec. 17, 2013
HOUSTON—Darren David Chaker, 41, of Beverly Hills, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada, has been ordered to federal prison following his conviction of bankruptcy fraud, announced United States Attorney Kenneth Magidson. Chaker was found guilty April 4, 2013, following a five-day bench trial before U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas.

Today, Judge Atlas sentenced Chaker to a term of 15 months in prison, to be immediately followed by a three-year-term of supervised release. He was further ordered to pay a $2,000 fine. As part of the sentencing, Judge Atlas included special conditions that he not stalk or harass anyone and obtain mental health counseling and anger management...


A sampling of Darren Chaker cases: 
Wendy Mateo
Chaker v. Crogan
Zaya v. Chaker

 
Mr. Chaker advised me to take down my website in exchange for the law firm's
agreement to not to make me pay attorney's fees.

I told Mr. Chaker that I would rather go to jail. He said, "I'm just advising you to do
this because they are so nasty."

Then Mr. Chaker went over to two members of the Plaintiff's law firm, and walked
out of the courtroom chatting with them! I do not believe that they had asked him
to approach me.  I believe he hatched the plan all by himself.

I reported the Court of Appeal incident with Mr. Chaker on my blog, thus apparently earning the ire of a man who is widely known for dishonest, malicious and aggressive behavior.

Mr. Chaker seems to have became even more enraged when he lost the appeal in the Mateo case.

He makes bizarre accusations about all sorts of people.  He refuses to acknowledge that Chula Vista
Elementary School District desperately tried to get me to go back to work after I
had been viciously harassed by Robin Donlan and other teachers at Castle Park Elementary.

I refused to go back to work without an investigation into the harassment I
suffered.  The district refused to produce a report on the "investigation" it claimed
to have initiated.

I was fired for "insubordination" because I refused to go back to work.  Here are
the charges against me.

Darren Chaker fails to mention that Robin Donlan and other teachers who
harassed me were transferred out of Castle Park Elementary when the district
realized that it had made a mistake by paying huge amounts of taxpayer money to
defend teachers who had behaved unlawfully.

Castle Park Elementary was out of control, with a $20,000 PTA embezzlement by Kim Simmons,
a parent who was a close associate of Robin Donlan.  The school was almost ungovernable as 11 principals in 11 years struggled to create a professional working climate.


Complaint board on Darren Chaker
Child molestation

From the defamation archives: Dentist claims he lost $300,000 due to an online review that was up for three weeks

Our health is at risk when doctors and dentists can silence patients who have been harmed. All a doctor has to do to silence criticism is to threaten expensive litigation even when the patient would win in court if he had the resources to go to trial. How many patients have the resources to pay for years of litigation?

A Portland dentist is suing a former patient for what the dentist claims are defamatory reviews in online forums
By Sam Stites
Willamette Week
September 3, 2012

Dr. Mo Saleh, of Dental Dynamics, originally filed suit against Spencer Bailey in Multnomah Circuit Court on June 26 seeking $300,000 after Bailey wrote about Saleh’s dental skills on Yelp, DoctorOogle.com and Google. In his lawsuit, Saleh says Bailey posts caused damage to his reputation, loss of profits and emotional distress.

The reviews cited in the complaint include statements saying Bailey implied ”improper and insufficient dental services by Dr. Saleh.” The complaint further alleges that Bailey wrote, “if Dr. Saleh tells you that you have a cavity — GET A SECOND OPINION.”

According to the complaint. Bailey said he had never had a cavity in 32 years until Saleh found several. Bailey’s lawyers have responded by stating that Bailey went to Saleh for dental work and then went to another dentist after experiencing pain. They claim that the other dentist advised Bailey that some of the fillings were unnecessary and some were poorly put in.

Bailey’s attorneys, Jeremiah Ross and Linda Williams, also claimed that Saleh contacted Bailey after he reviewed the dentist on various web sites, threatening him to remove them. They say Bailey removed the postings out of concern for his and his family’s safety. Even though Bailey removed the postings, Saleh is proceeding with his suit. (Saleh’s lawyer declined to comment.)

As online commentary about all manner of topics has exploded, so too has the number of lawsuits unhappy targets have filed about such commentary. Saleh’s suit falls under what lawyers call a practice of Strategic Law Against Public Participation or SLAPP. SLAPP cases take aim at people making statements or publishing information that could be damaging to the plaintiff. Critics say these suits are sometimes little more than attempt to censor, silence and in intimidate the defendant.



In a similar case, a Washington County pastor sued a former parishioner in June, claiming an online review of his church was defamatory. The defendant’s attorney, Linda Williams—who is also representing Bailey, the dental patient—employed an Oregon anti-SLAPP statute passed in 2001 aimed at frivolous SLAPP lawsuits. The judge ruled in favor of the Washington County defendant and said that the statements were made “in a public forum and concern an issue of public interest,” according to KATU.

Earlier this month Bailey’s attorneys filed a motion to strike Saleh’s lawsuit under the anti-SLAPP statute, declaring that Bailey’s online reviews are free speech in a public forum. "Spencer's review was a protected opinion and the Plaintiff cannot prove their allegations," Ross, Bailey’s co-counsel tells WW via email. "Nor can they prove $300,000 in damages for a post that was up for three weeks."

A judge will hear the anti-SLAPP motion on Sept. 5.

Defamation case dropped by football player who tweeted photo of unconsious girl who was raped; he didn't like the criticism that followed

"That there was much local coverage at all seems like a small miracle, based on what one source familiar with the Steubenville media told us. The source knew of one instance in which a higher-up ordered a local reporter not to touch the story, apparently out of deference to Steubenville's beloved football program."

How An Alleged Rape Involving Ohio High School Football Players Unfolded On Twitter, Instagram, And YouTube
Tom Ley
deadspin.com
Dec 17, 2012

Yesterday's New York Times has a thorough and thoroughly unsettling story about two members of Ohio's Steubenville High School football team who stand accused of raping a drunk and unresponsive 16-year-old girl during a night of partying in August. Maybe most unsettling of all: The girl may never have learned of the night's events had they not been so diligently tweeted, YouTubed, and Instagrammed.

The boys—Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond, both 16 years old—were arrested Aug. 22, 11 days after the alleged incidents. They are currently awaiting trial, which is scheduled for Feb. 13. The girl is not a Steubenville High School student; according to the Times, she attended "a smaller, religion-based school."

...That there was much local coverage at all seems like a small miracle, based on what one source familiar with the Steubenville media told us. The source knew of one instance in which a higher-up ordered a local reporter not to touch the story, apparently out of deference to Steubenville's beloved football program.

Mays, a quarterback, and Richmond, a wide receiver, weren't allowed to play this year. But the school's head football coach, Reno Saccoccia—who testified as a character witness on behalf of Mays and Richmond—decided not to discipline any of the other players who testified to witnessing the assault until there were only two games left in the season. When pressed on this by the Times, the coach became combative:

Saccoccia, pronounced SOCK-otch, told the principal and school superintendent that the players who posted online photographs and comments about the girl the night of the parties said they did not think they had done anything wrong. Because of that, he said, he had no basis for benching those players.

[...]

Approached in November to be interviewed about the case, Saccoccia said he did not "do the Internet," so he had not seen the comments and photographs posted online from that night. When asked again about the players involved and why he chose not to discipline them, he became agitated.

"You made me mad now," he said, throwing in several expletives as he walked from the high school to his car.

Nearly nose to nose with a reporter, he growled: "You're going to get yours. And if you don't get yours, somebody close to you will."

Saltsman v. Goddard
January 17th, 2013
DMLP Staff

In August 2012, two football players from Steubenville High School were arrested and charged with the rape of a 16-year-old girl. Classmates circulated Twitter posts, videos, and photographs indicating that the players may have carried the girl, unconscious, from party to party and sexually assaulted her while others watched. A police investigation uncovered pictures of the girl, naked and apparently unconscious, from partygoers' phones.

Cody Saltsman, a football player who was not indicted, tweeted a picture of the girl looking unresponsive as two boys carry her by her wrists and ankles. He also tweeted comments about the girl, including the phrases "whore status," "sloppy," and "I have no sympathy for whores."

Alexandria Goddard, a blogger who writes under the pseudonym "Prinnie" at prinniefied.com, wrote a series of blog posts on the case. She posted screen shots of related Twitter posts and photos. She also suggested that a number of unindicted individuals had participated in the rape, including Cody Saltsman. In response to a comment on her blog reading "students by day ... gang rape participants by night," Goddard wrote, "Cody Saltsman [is] playing tonight. Reno, SHAME ON YOU." She also wrote that his fellow football players should "roll on their pal Cody Manson" and "[p]erhaps when scumbag is finally arrested I will post a picture of him for his mother that says ‘How do you like your scumbag son now?' ... Tell Cody not to feel too bad, he is not the lone asshole in all this."

A number of commenters on the blog also posted about Saltsman, including statements that he was there when the rape was occurring, that he was the "mastermind" behind the crime, that he had previously stated he would "ruin that bitch," and that he had sent the victim's father the picture of her being carried by her wrists and ankles with text reading "look at your whore daughter now." Other commenters made comments including: "[g]et CS and his posy [sic] off the field and problem solved"; "Cody needs to suffr some consequences too!"; and, in response to the question "[w]hat is [the Saltsman's] business because I never want to spend money there," the statement "CS father owns Fort Steuben Plumbing/Maintenance."

On October 25, 2012, Saltsman and his parents, James and Johna Saltsman, filed a complaint against Goddard, fifteen anonymous commenters identified by screen names and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses (including those who made the above statements), and ten additional John Doe defendants. Saltsman sued for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages in excess of $25,000, and punitive damages. The complaint was amended on November 19, 2012 to add claims for false light and spoliation of evidence.

Saltsman's attorneys obtained the IP addresses for each anonymous commenter from HostGator, the Internet Service Provider (ISP) for the "prinnified" blog, which apparently turned over the IP addresses without providing notice to the commenters or to Goddard. On November 16, the plaintiffs moved for authorization to conduct discovery from each anonymous commenter's ISP in order to obtain the commenters' identities.

Goddard's counsel objected to Plaintiffs' motion for authorization to conduct discovery to obtain the identities of the anonymous defendants, asserting that the First Amendment right to speak anonymously barred such discovery.

In a supplemental memo supporting the motion for authority to conduct discovery, Saltsman disputed that the First Amendment protected the identities of the authors, urged the court to act quickly in order to prevent the ISPs from deleting relevant information, and argued that Goddard had no standing to object on behalf of the Does.

Acknowledging that there were no published Ohio decisions on point, Saltsman directed the court to the often-followed test laid out in Dendrite Int'l Inc. v. Doe No. 3. 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2001). Under Dendrite, courts allow plaintiffs to conduct discovery on anonymous online posters' identities when plaintiffs (1) attempt to notify defendants that their identities are being sought and explain how to present a defense; (2) quote verbatim the allegedly actionable online speech; (3) allege all elements of the cause of action; (4) present evidence supporting the claim of violation; and (5) show that, on balance and in context, the plaintiff's right to identify the speaker in order to redress alleged wrongs outweighs the First Amendment right to anonymous speech. Saltsman asserted that he met all of these elements, particularly focusing on the fifth element, the balancing of rights. Because the First Amendment does not protect false assertions of fact, he argued, the defendants had no right to anonymous speech in this context.

Goddard filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the motion on November 21, and a supplemental Memorandum in Opposition on November 26. Plaintiffs' responded with a second supplemental memorandum in support of their motion on November 28.

The Court filed an order on November 29, granting the plaintiffs' motion. The court authorized the relevant ISPs to release personally identifiable information associated with the IP addresses identified in the complaint. The court required that notice of the discovery be given to the anonymous commenters and that the commenters be given fourteen days after the notice to file motions to quash.

On December 14, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio stated in a press release that they had offered to represent a number of the "John Doe" defendants. ACLU Volunteer Attorney Scott Greenwood stated, "[w]e believe the real goal of this lawsuit is to discover the identity of anonymous online commenters so that they, and future commenters will be intimidated and discouraged from voicing their opinions. This is just an updated form of a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) which is typically used to silence speech that is protected under the First Amendment."

Plaintiffs reached a settlement with Goddard and the anonymous commenters and voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice on December 27, 2012. With one exception (defendant Waguespack), the identities of the commenters were not disclosed. No money was exchanged, and Goddard did not retract any statements or agree to stop covering the case. Goddard did write on her blog that she "never had any evidence of [Cody Saltsman's] direct involvement" in the events of the night and agreed to give him space on her blog to present his side of the story.

The "prinnified" blog also ran the following statement from Cody Saltsman: "I deeply regret my actions on the night of August 11, 2012. While I wasn't at the home where the alleged assault took place, there is no doubt that I was wrong to post that picture from an earlier party and tweet those awful comments. ... At no time did my family mean to stop anyone from expressing themselves online - we only wanted to correct what we believed were misstatements that appeared on Ms. Goddard's blog. "

Former UCLA player Reeves Nelson's defamation lawsuit is thrown out of court

See all posts re UCLA.

See all posts on UCLA from Thank Heaven for Insurance Companies blog.

Former UCLA player Reeves Nelson's lawsuit is thrown out of court
By Chris Foster
Los Angeles Times
October 18, 2012

Former UCLA basketball player Reeves Nelson's lawsuit against Sports Illustrated and reporter George Dohrmann was thrown out of court Wednesday.

Nelson filed a defamation lawsuit against Time Inc., Sports Illustrated's parent company, in May over an article that portrayed Nelson as a bully who had had tried to injure teammates at times. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mary Ann Murphy ruled that the suit infringed on freedom of speech rights for the magazine and writer.

She also found that Dohrmann had numerous sources to back up the facts in the article.

Nelson was thrown off the UCLA team in December. He had been seeking $10 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages.

Anti-SLAPP motion wins: Court of Appeal Says Online Comments by Mother, Grandmother of Plaintiff’s Child Were Opinions

Update Dec. 2013: Darren Chaker Sentenced to Federal Prison for Bankruptcy Fraud

See my earlier post about Darren Chaker.

See Court of Appeal decision in Chaker v. Mateo.

Panel Says Online Comments by Mother, Grandmother of Plaintiff’s Child Were Opinions
Defamation Suit Over ‘Deadbeat Dad’ Reference Held SLAPP
By KENNETH OFGANG
Metropolitan News-Enterprise
October 5, 2012

Two women who referred to a San Diego man, in an online posting, as a “criminal and a deadbeat dad” who “may be taking steroids” were expressing protected opinions and cannot be liable for defamation, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday. Div. One affirmed a San Diego Superior Court judge’s ruling that the suit by Darren D. Chaker against Wendy and Nicole Mateo was a strategic lawsuit against public participation. The justices agreed with Judge Timothy Taylor that the suit arose from speech on a public issue, and that the action is barred by the First Amendment.

The evidence, Justice Patricia Benke explained, showed that Nicole Mateo became pregnant during a brief relationship with Chaker, resulting in contentious paternity and child support litigation in Mateo’s home state of Texas. In 2010, comments about Chaker and his forensics business, including claims that he was involved in fraud and prostitution, as well as the deadbeat dad and steroid references, began showing up in the comments sections of websites such as Topix, where he had posted a profile, and the Ripoff Report.

Anti-SLAPP Motion

Chaker attributed some of those statements to Nicole Mateo and her mother Wendy Mateo, and sued both of them, as well as others. Wendy Mateo brought an anti-SLAPP motion, which the judge granted.

Benke, like the trial judge, rejected Chaker’s argument that the allegedly defamatory statements related to a purely private dispute, thus falling outside the scope of the statute. The justice cited Wilbanks v. Wolk (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 883, which held that the Internet is a public forum, as well as cases holding that public statements about private conduct—such as criticism of the treatment of young athletes by their coaches— may be matters of public interest for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 425.16.

“Like the court in Wilbanks, we view the Internet as an electronic bulletin board open to literally billions of people all over the world,” the jurist wrote. “...The Internet is a classic public forum which permits an exchange of views in public about everything from the great issues of war, peace, and economic development to the relative quality of the chicken pot pies served at competing family restaurants in a single small neighborhood.”

She went on to say:

“The statements posted to the ‘Ripoff Report’ Web site about Chaker’s character and business practices plainly fall within in the rubric of consumer information about Chaker’s ‘Counterforensics’ business and were intended to serve as a warning to consumers about his trustworthiness.”

By posting his profile on Topix, she added, Chaker “made his character a matter of public interest as the term has been interpreted.”

Because the comments deal with a matter of public interest, Benke wrote, the burden shifted to Chaker to show that he was likely to prevail. But because the First Amendment protects opinion, she said, he could not make such a showing.

Opinion, Not Fact

Citing a number of recent cases holding similar online comments to be opinion, rather than assertions of fact, the justice said the statements challenged by Chaker had to be understood in the context of the litigation between him and Nicole Mateo, particularly since they “were made on Internet Web sites which plainly invited the sort of exaggerated and insulting criticisms of businesses and individuals which occurred here.”

Attacking Chaker as “dishonest and scary,” the justice said, “is on its face nothing more than a negative, but nonactionable opinion.

A different result might have been reached, Benke suggested, if, instead of mere generalized attacks on the plaintiff’s character, the defendants made allegations of specific wrongdoing at specified times and places.

The reference to Chaker as a “criminal,” the justice added, was arguably defamatory, but is nonactionable because Chaker was convicted of a crime, although the conviction was expunged.

The case is Chaker v. Mateo, D058753

California patient wins anti-SLAPP motion against doctor she criticized on the Internet

See also Minnesota Supreme Court says you can call a doctor a "tool" online--if he is one.

Filler v. Walker
Citizen Media Law Project

Dr. Aaron Filler filed a complaint against former patient Susan Walker in Los Angeles Superior Court on May 31, 2011. In his complaint, Filler alleged defamation and interference with prospective economic advantage in response to Walker's review of Dr. Filler on a physician rating site.

On August 24, 2011, Walker filed a motion to strike based on California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.16 and 45, California's anti-SLAPP statute. Walker's motion argues that Walker is shielded from liability as the "dissemination of consumer information about medical care is a vital ‘public issue' and the internet is a ‘public forum,' and that Dr. Filler is a public figure subject to the burden of proving actual malice. Filler filed an opposition to this motion on September 16, 2011, also requesting leave to amend the complaint to plead more specific factual allegations to establish actual malice. Walker replied to Filler's opposition on September 22, 2011.

After a hearing on April 19, 2011, Walker's motion to strike was granted. In the order filed on May 8, 2012, Judge Elizabeth White held that Filler's claims arose from Walker's act of free speech in connection with a public issue under CCP § 425.16 and that Filler did not establish a probability of prevailing on these claims. In accordance with this order, Judge White later ordered Filler to pay $50,259.65 to Walker for attorneys' fees and costs.

Party Issuing Legal Threat: Dr. Aaron Filler; Aaron Filler, MD, PHD, APC; Imagebased Sugicenter Corporation; Neurograph Institute Medical Associates

Party Receiving Legal Threat: Susan Walker; Does 1-25

Do students and parents have to keep silent when teachers or coaches are abusive? California court says NO.

Coach Mike Lee

Written Complaint to School Board Held Protected Under Anti-SLAPP Law
Summer 2006
Lee v. Fick (2005) 35 Cal. App. 4th 89
By Kelly T. Boruszewski
Lorber, Greenfield & Polito, LLP

Michael Lee, a high school baseball coach, sued a parent for, among others, libel, and slander. These causes of action were based upon that parent publishing a letter to the Conejo Valley Unified School District claiming Lee was manipulative to the players, the parents, and the other coaches; verbally abusive to the kids; emotionally abusing the kids with his outbursts of anger and favoritism to certain players; and threw a fit in the dugout and verbally attacked the parent’s
son for not respecting his authority.

The slander case of action was based on the allegation that the parent stated to at least eight people Lee was a bad coach, was unethical, and had severe anger and emotional and anger problems. In both causes of action, Lee alleged the parents acted with malice and caused him to lose his job.

In response to the Complaint, the parent brought a special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP motion) pursuant to Section 425.16 of the Code Civil Procedure. Section 425.16, subdivision (b)(1) provides: “A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the
plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” Subdivision (e)(1) provides that an act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech includes, “any written or oral statement . . . made before a . . . judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law . . . .”

Section 425.16 requires a two-step analysis: First, determination whether defendants had made a threshold showing that the challenged causes of action arise from a protected activity. If so, then, second, whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim, i.e., the complaint is sufficient and is supported by facts sufficient to sustain a judgment in plaintiff’s favor.
To that end, the parent filed a declaration stating Lee became angry as her son when the son “shook off” Lee’s baseball signs, to which Lee verbally and physically threatened the son, poking a finger in his chest.

As a result, the parent wrote a letter addressed “To Whom It May Concern,” alleging libelous statements. The libel cause of action arose from the letter the parent sent to the school board.

Privilege

Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b) provides that any publication made in any “judicial proceeding” or “in any other official proceeding authorized by law” is privileged. Thus, communications to an official agency intended to induce the agency to initiate action are part of an “official proceeding,” including complaints to school authorities about a teacher or principal in the performance of his or her official duties.

Lee submitted an affidavit in opposition to the motion. He declared the parent’s son was rude to the coaches and had a bad attitude, and denied that he physically or verbally abused the son.

When Lee read the parent letter submitted to the school district, he could not believe what was alleged. School officials conducted a four-week investigation, and Lee continued as baseball coach for the next season. It was only after the parent then met with the principal of the school that Lee was terminated as head coach.
Lee argued the parents never intended to initiate any legally authorized proceedings because the letter was not addressed to a school official, but “To Whom It May Concern.” The Court held that the address on the letter is not determinative and the parent’s uncontradicted declaration that she wrote the letter to deliver to the school district and did not publish the letter to any other person.

Lee then argued that the letter did not request an investigation or hearing and did not ask for any action. But the Court held that it is obvious from the content of the letter the parents were requesting that Lee be removed as coach.

The Court of Appeal held that complaints to school authorities about a teacher or principal in the performance of his or her official duties are privileged, pursuant to Section 47, subd. (d) of the Civil Code, holding that a letter written by a parent to school officials containing allegedly libelous statements about the coach was written to prompt official action and was privileged, even though the letter did not request an investigation or hearing and did not ask for any action.

Further, the Court held that it was not required that the letter expressly request an investigation or hearing or that school officials take any particular action. Notwithstanding, it concluded that it was obvious from the content of the letter that the parent was requesting that the coach be fired.

Under Lee’s slander cause of action, the Court held that the parent’s alleged comments to school officials and other “interested” parents of baseball players discussing her concerns about Lee’s conduct were privileged and Lee cannot avoid the privilege by characterizing the discussion among parents as gossip.

Lee last attempt was to claim that after school officials initially determined to retain him, the matter was no longer under consideration in any official proceeding. However, the Court held that the parent asked the school officials to reconsider, which is part of the official proceedings and is as privileged as an initial complaint.

The parent, as the prevailing party in the anti-SLAPP motion, was entitled to attorneys’ fees.




IS WINNING MORE IMPORTANT THAN HONORING PLAYERS' RIGHTS?

I think the answer to this question might be, more often than not, YES. Coach Lee seems to be doing fine now (see story below).

But sometimes it is the parent who complains who is crushed by the school authorities. Click here for the story of one San Diego parent who spent a week in jail for complaining about a coach.


Coach Lee’s supporters emerge
Claremont Currier
October 17, 2007
Regarding the topic of Claremont High School’s head varsity baseball coach Mike Lee and his past, the Claremont Unified School District along with the majority of CUSD parents are ready to move on with Coach Lee still intact...

...Newbury Park High School parent Debbie Alia said that she was “appalled” while reading a recent Los Angeles Times article on October 3 that focused on the text message issue...“He taught the kids respect, that baseball is a team sport and also taught them not to argue with the umpire or curse..."

Though Mr. Lee resigned from his position as baseball coach at Westlake High School last year and was terminated from his coaching position at Newbury Park High, former principals at Newbury Park and Westlake wrote favorable recommendations on behalf of Mr. Lee when he applied for the coaching position at CHS...