Tuesday, April 17, 2018
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Libel Action Brought by Real Estate Salesperson Who Runs ‘Miss Seal Beach’ Beauty Pageant Not a SLAPP
Opinion Says ‘Public Interest’ Is Lacking in Shoplifting Convictions and Administrative Discipline of Individual Who Is Not Involved in a Current Controversy and Is Not a Public Figure
By a MetNews Staff Writer
There is no public interest in the shoplifting convictions of a realtor who heads the “Miss Seal Beach Pageant” or in disciplinary action against her by the Bureau of Real Estate, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held in affirming the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion.
Justice David A. Thompson of Div. Three wrote the unpublished opinion, filed Thursday, rebuffing contentions of the defendant in a libel action, Seal Beach Planning Commissioner Robert Aguilar Jr. He was sued by real estate salesperson Rosario Antoinette Perez-Ritchie, who commonly goes by the name Rosie Ritchie.
Aguilar, who received a law degree from Pacific Coast University but is not a member of the State Bar, sent a 2016 email, as a Facebook message, to Lisa Landau, who works with Richie at Re/Max in its Seal Beach office.
Ritchie is credited with having founded a “No Bully” program at Los Alamitos High School and promotes the cause on the Miss Seal Beach website. Aguilar’s email declares it to be “ironic” that the pageant “is run by one of the biggest bullies and liars in town.”
|
|
|
Rosie Ritchie, left, is seen with Lisa Landau in an ad for the Seal Beach office of Re/Max on the Miss Seal Beach website. |
She had been named “Seal Beach Chamber of Commerce Business Woman of the Year.” The email comments:
“The Female business woman of the year doesn’t even have a valid license to sell real estate because it was revoked in May AGAIN! Seal Beach Chamber of Commerce Business Woman of the Year. 2 shoplifting convictions which wouldn’t be acceptable to merchants in the chamber who battle shoplifters every day, AND 70 yes 7-0 counts of insurance fraud?”
Anyone reading that message, Ritchie contended in her complaint filed in Orange Superior Court, would infer that she was “a felon selling real estate without a license.”
Two Convictions
Ritchie did suffer a 2002 shoplifting conviction based on her theft of a blouse and a top from Macy’s Department Store. As the result of that conviction, she was granted only a restricted real estate license in 2004.
In 2014, she again committed shoplifting, stealing undergarments and a robe from a Kohl’s store. On May 11, 2016, her real estate license was revoked with leave to apply anew for a restricted license which was to be suspended for 30 days following its issuance.
She had agreed to plead guilty to a single count of insurance fraud, but the case was dismissed upon her payment of $50,000.
Not Protected Speech
Agreeing with Orange Superior Court Judge Craig L. Griffin, who denied Aguilar’s special motion to strike, Thompson said Aguilar’s speech was not “in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest” or otherwise satisfy the requisites of the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure §425.16. Thompson wrote:
“Defendant contends the public and law enforcement have an interest in a felon selling real estate without a license. But there is no evidence of any such interest. Defendant did not notify law enforcement and points to nothing in the record that felony charges are currently or were then pending.”
Thompson noted that Aguilar admitted in a declaration that he had no knowledge of Ritchie ever selling real estate without a license or being convicted of a felony.
The defendant argued that the revocation of Ritchie’s license was “per se a matter of public interest.” The justice responded that the administrative action was “a fait accompli at the time defendant sent defendant’s e-mails,” and that “even if the public at one time had an interest, it would have been only a limited community, and at the time of defendant’s e-mails, there was no ongoing controversy requiring public participation.”
Raises Question
Aguilar maintained that the public has an interest in why Ritchie’s insurance fraud did not subject her to discipline by the Bureau of Real Estate.
“This is pure speculation and a seeming attempt by defendant to manufacture public interest,” Thompson said. “This plea was old news, years’ old, and there is no evidence of any ongoing controversy.”
He continued:
“Nor is there any evidence of public interest or an ongoing controversy regarding the Seal Beach Chamber of Commerce naming plaintiff as its businesswoman of the year, even given what defendant characterizes as plaintiff’s ‘recent criminal history and real estate license revocation.’…Defendant’s opinion that the Seal Beach ‘Chamber of Commerce is one of the most influential organizations in town” does not make its businesswoman of the year award a matter of public interest under section 425.16.”
‘Public Figure’
Aguilar asserted that there is public interest in Ritchie based on her status as a public figure. Rejecting the contention, Thompson said:
“[A]s director of Miss Seal Beach, plaintiff did not have particular power, prominence or influence in society at large. Nor is there any evidence plaintiff put herself at the front of a public controversy to wield influence on its outcome.”
Aguilar, a former film and television writer and director, argued that by virtue of her licensing by the Bureau of Real Estate, Ritchie “opened the door to ‘public attention or media coverage. ’ ” Thompson declared:
“If we accepted this theory every licensed person would become a public figure. That is well beyond the limits of what puts someone in the public eye.”
He continued:
“Likewise, plaintiff did not become a public figure because she put an ad for her real estate business on the Miss Seal Beach Web site. That a Web site may be ‘part of today’s town square’ does not mean using one makes a person a public figure.”
Thompson said that a 2011 newspaper article reporting that Ritchie would “resurrect” the pageant likewise “does not make her a public figure for purposes of this action.”
|
|
|
Above is Keresey Dillon, Miss Seal Beach of 2017. Whether the contest will continue appears uncertain. |
Whether future pageants will be held appears uncertain. A Miss Seal Beach contest has not been held this year and the Facebook page for the event says:
“Miss Seal Beach does not have any upcoming events.”
The case is Perez-Ritchie v. Aguilar, G055066.
Irvine attorney D. Michael Bush represented Aguilar and Long Beach practitioner R. Duane Westrup was counsel on appeal for Ritchie.
Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company