UPEPAOpinions

ALL OPINIONS WITH AI SUMMARIES

Al-Albustani v. Alger, 2022 WL 3213331 (W.D.Wa., Aug. 9, 2022). ♦ Al-Albustani v. Alger, 2022 WL 3213331 (W.D.Wa., Aug. 9, 2022). (1) Background: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made false and defamatory statements about him on a radio show, claiming he murdered his wife. Plaintiff sued Defendant for copyright infringement, violation of the Washington Personality Rights Act (WPRA), invasion of privacy by false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. (2) Defendant's Motion: Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under the Washington Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), which is Washington's anti-SLAPP law. Defendant argued that her statements were opinions and that she did not mention Plaintiff by name. (3) Court's Ruling: The court granted Defendant's motion in part and denied it in part. Copyright Infringement: The court dismissed this claim with prejudice because Plaintiff abandoned it. WPRA: The court dismissed this claim without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to allege that Defendant used the deceased's name for advertising purposes. Plaintiff was given leave to amend this claim. Invasion of Privacy by False Light: The court denied the motion because Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Defendant's statements were false and highly offensive. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: The court denied the motion because Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Defendant's statements were outrageous. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: The court denied the motion because Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Defendant's statements caused him emotional distress. (4) Key Takeaways: The court applied a two-pronged standard for UPEPA motions: If the motion challenges the legal sufficiency of a claim, the court applies the Rule 12(b)(6) standard; If the motion challenges the factual sufficiency of a claim, the court applies the Rule 56 standard and allows discovery. The court found that even opinion statements can be actionable under false light if they falsely express or imply provable facts about the plaintiff. The court found that a single, outrageous statement on a nationally syndicated radio show can be sufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court found that PTSD can be sufficient to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. ♦

Boshears v. People Connect, Inc., 2022 WL 888300 (W.D.Wa., March 25, 2022).

Jha v. Khan, 2022 WL 16918101 (Wash.App., Div. 1, Nov. 14, 2022).

Project Veritas v. Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 2022 WL 1555047 (W.D.Wa., May 17, 2022).

Torchstar Corp., Hyatech, Inc., 2023 WL 137762 (E.D.Wa., Jan. 9, 2023).

Davenport Extreme Pools & Spas, Inc. v. Mulflur, 2024 WL 2982718 (Ky.App., June 14, 2024).

Peach v. Hagerman, 2024 WL 1748443 (W.D.Ky., April 23, 2024).

Thurman v. Cowles Co., 2024 WL 119333 (Wash.App., Jan. 11, 2024).

Briggs v. Eden Council, 19 Cal.4th 1106 (1999).

Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001).

City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (2002).

Equilon Enterprises, LLC v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53, 52 P.3d 685 (2002).

Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82, 52 P.3d 703 (2002).