Newport cites free-speech rights in its effort to beat critic’s defamation suit

The city of Newport Beach is hitting back at a local activist’s defamation lawsuit by saying his claims infringe on the city’s right to free speech.

The city filed what is known as an anti-SLAPP motion on Thursday in its bid for dismissal of a slander and libel case brought against it by Newport Beach resident and frequent local-government critic Mike Glenn.

Glenn sued the city earlier this year in Orange County Superior Court’s small-claims court, alleging that Councilwoman Diane Dixon defamed him when she called him out at a City Council meeting about $619.93 in public records fees that she said he owes but he said he doesn’t.

SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” or one that is intended to burden opponents until they drop their opposition. California is one of 28 states that have anti-SLAPP laws.

In its motion, the city says Dixon’s comments were about the use of taxpayer dollars, which is a matter of public concern. It also says Glenn was unlikely to prevail in his lawsuit because Dixon’s comments were “substantially true” and were made in the legally protected setting of a City Council meeting while doing the public’s business. The city also contends Glenn undermined his claims of damage to his reputation when he posted a clip of his exchange with Dixon on YouTube.

“This lawsuit is a meritless attack that, if allowed to proceed, threatens to chill the city defendants’ valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech,” City Clerk Leilani Brown wrote in the city’s motion.

“This is a frivolous lawsuit requiring valuable time of our city staff to respond to,” Dixon said Thursday. She declined to comment further.

The city’s motion cites a 2011 state appeals court ruling backing the city of Salinas as an argument that anti-SLAPP laws protect government entities along with private citizens. According to the opinion in that case, which involved allegations of misuse of public funds, “the government has an interest in speaking out on issues of public concern and in being free of the costs of defending meritless lawsuits aimed at infringing the government’s free-speech activities.”

Mark Goldowitz, founder and director of the California Anti-SLAPP Project law firm in Berkeley, said state and local governments have become more aggressive recently in filing anti-SLAPP motions.

It’s a controversial tactic, he said, and sometimes the government entities prevail, “but overall, I think the blowback, the karma or whatever, it doesn’t work.”

“At the very least, the optics are bad,” Goldowitz said. “That’s not just an optics question. The optics are bad because it’s fundamentally bad policy.”

In an instance when such a motion didn’t succeed, Goldowitz cited a May ruling by the California Supreme Court in a case in which the California State University board of trustees argued that its decision to deny tenure to a Cal State Los Angeles professor was protected activity. The professor, who is Korean, had claimed discrimination based on national origin.

“The court basically said, ‘No, you can’t prevent citizens from challenging decisions of the government by invoking the anti-SLAPP law,’ ” Goldowitz said. “That’s like turning it on its head.”

Glenn filed suit in August in response to Dixon’s sharp rebuke from the dais at an April 11 council meeting after Glenn had shared his skepticism about the Balboa Peninsula Trolley during a public comment period.

Dixon, whose district covers the peninsula, asked him if he was aware that he owed the city money for making copies of public records he had requested over the previous two years and hadn’t picked up. She said more than 500 hours of staff time had been devoted to producing the records.

Glenn replied that he never asked to pick up copies of the records and that if city staff members made physical copies, it was their own decision. He also said nobody from the city had informed him of an outstanding fee balance.

In an interview Thursday, Glenn said the city’s anti-SLAPP motion argues that council members should be given immunity when speaking from the dais.

“Why are they getting more rights than we are?” he said. “Why is that an acceptable thing?”

Glenn’s defamation suit seeks $5,000 in damages in small-claims court, although he has said he would drop the matter if Dixon took back her words and offered an apology. He maintains that stance.

“This is a David and Goliath story, and all David wants is an apology and retraction,” he said.

Staff writer Hannah Fry contributed to this report.

[email protected]

Twitter: @Daily_PilotHD