An Anti-SLAPP Victory

I write about my own cases and clients only rarely. Publicity is often not in my clients’ best interests and this isn’t a platform to promote my professional work. My firm has nothing to do with my online activities.

But sometimes one of my cases is such an important illustration of the First Amendment issues that I write about that describing it seems imperative. This is such a case. It involves the most purely evil and abusive SLAPP suit I have ever seen. We just won it for the client on appeal. The question presented was this: if you are charged with killing two people in a car crash, can you sue the family members of the dead victims for defamation when they write letters about the alleged crime based explicitly upon the criminal complaint and news coverage?

King Vanga’s Despicable Lawsuit

You can read the Court of Appeal decision here:

The Plaintiff is King Vanga, who at the time relevant here was a student at Stanford University, my alma mater. On June 25, 2021, he was involved in a car crash that resulted in the deaths of Jose and Pamela Juarez. They were survived by six children and fifteen grandchildren. The Merced County District Attorney’s Office filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Vanga for charges including gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, resisting an officer, and battery on a police officer. Several local news outlets reported on the accident.

Some of Jose and Pamela Juarez’ relatives — including our client, their daughter-in-law Priscilla Juarez — wrote letters to Stanford University. They discussed information they’d learned from the criminal compliant, conversations with law enforcement officers, and news stories, and suggested that the university should take action against Vanga. As far as I can tell Stanford never took any action.

Subsequently, Vanga threatened to sue law enforcement officers, claiming that they had violated his civil rights in arresting him. He also revealed that the prosecution’s blood tests showed that he was not under the influence of alcohol as accused and as reported in the news, and claimed the officers lied about it. Vanga later made a request to Stanford under the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act and obtained copies of the Juarez family’s letters to Stanford.

Vanga then sued the family members who sent letters to Stanford, including our client Priscilla Juarez. That is to say, he sued the family of the people killed in the accident for writing letters talking about the criminal charges brought against him as a result of the accident. He claimed Priscilla Juarez defamed him by saying that he “has violated and tainted Stanford’s Code of Conduct values, to the most extreme measure,” by using the term “murder” to describe what he did to her in-laws, for repeating things that law enforcement officers reported about Vanga’s conduct during his arrest, and for asserting he had committed a crime and should be held responsible.

After suing these family members, Vanga’s lawyers attempted to use the lawsuit to stop them from posting on social media about Vanga and encouraging Vanga’s prosecution. That may not meet the definition of either criminal or civil extortion, but in my view it is morally extortionate and contemptible. Vanga’s attorney made the following offer to our client:

 Mr. Vanga will not pursue a lawsuit against your for defamation if you agree to the following terms:

Priscilla Juarez is a stay-at-home mom. Like the vast majority of Americans, she can’t afford to hire lawyers and pay the costs of defending herself on a bogus defamation claim. Defending such a case would cost many tens of thousands of dollars. But she wasn’t going to stop fighting for her in-laws and supporting her husband, their son. So she said no. We agreed to represent her pro bono, meaning we’d only get paid if we won the anti-SLAPP.

Assisted by my exceptionally talented associate Nick Ramirez, I filed an anti-SLAPP motion. Our main argument was that Priscilla Juarez’ letter to Stanford was a statement of opinion based on disclosed facts — namely the criminal complaint and news coverage. We also argued that Vanga had not established how he was damaged by the letter because it was sent only to Stanford, and Stanford took no action. The trial court denied the motion, asserting that some of the statements could be taken as assertions of fact, and therefore could possibly be defamatory.

The Court of Appeal Win

On November 19th, 2024, the California Court of Appeal reversed in one of the most strongly-worded anti-SLAPP appellate rulings I’ve seen, linked above. The Court noted that Priscilla Juarez’ letter expressly based her statements on the criminal complaint, statements from law enforcement officers, and press coverage that she had seen, and that she did not suggest she had some personal knowledge or undisclosed basis for the statements. The Court examined the context, concluding that Stanford was unlikely to interpret the letter as asserting facts rather than the victims’ relative’s angry reaction to events in the news. “Accordingly, considering both the language and the context of Defendant’s email, we find the assertions that Plaintiff murdered the decedents, drove while intoxicated, and violated Stanford’s Code of Conduct to be opinions based on disclosed facts. The opinions are therefore actionable only if those facts are false.” (Attached Order at 15.) Moreover, Plaintiff’s claim that the police and witnesses were wrong is irrelevant — the key is that it’s undisputed that the police and witnesses reported those things and Ms. Juarez based her opinions on those reports. The Court found that Vanga had not offered any evidence that he suffered any pain or suffering from another statement, and therefore didn’t carry his anti-SLAPP burden of showing he could prevail.

It’s easy to see why this is important. Under King Vanga’s theory — which the lower court accepted — it would be impossibly dangerous for crime victims to speak to the press — or to anybody. If a defendant in a criminal case can sue alleged victims for making statements based explicitly on police reports and on the charges against the defendant, then criminal defendants can silence their victims by threat of defamation lawsuits. In fact defendants will be able to use the threat of lawsuits to attack witnesses and disrupt their prosecution. The danger is not abstract or a slippery slope. It was directly presented here. King Vanga’s lawyers demanded that, as a price for not being sued, Priscilla Juarez not only stop talking in public about King Vanga, but not “encourage the criminal prosecution of Mr. Vanga, including by communicating with government officers or protesting at any conference, hearing, or trial involving Mr. Vanga.” I remain shocked that an attorney would do such a grotesque thing. I submit that these facts show that the lawsuit was not motivated by any actual harm suffered by Vanga, but was a naked attempt to bully a grieving family into silence through abuse of the legal system.

Next, we seek our fees. I’m grateful to my able associate Nick Ramirez, who did a great job on the trial court and appellate briefs, and to Ms. Juarez for her bravery. This is why anti-SLAPP statutes are important.

Postscript: I note that the Stanford Daily has steadfastly refused to cover this case about one of Stanford’s own students.