Page 1
Court of Appeal:
C.A. Restores Defamation Suit by Ousted Angels Employee
Panel Says Anti-SLAPP Motion Improperly Granted Because Evidence Shows Probability of Prevailing on Merits
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ordered reinstatement of a defamation/false light action against Major League Baseball and the Los Angeles Angels, holding that the plaintiff, an employee of nearly 40 years, can probably establish the falsity of statements, made in connection with his firing, that he supplied players with an “illegal substance.”
Retired Orange Superior Court Judge Geoffrey T. Glass erred in granting the defendants’ special motion to dismiss, the appeals court held in an unpublished opinion filed Wednesday, because the second prong of the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure §425.16—probability of prevailing on the merits—had been established by plaintiff, Brian “Bubba” Harkins.
He had been the attendant of the clubhouse for visiting players. Major League Baseball, in a memo to the Angels, accused Harkins of supplying visiting players with what it called “Go Go Juice”—a term the plaintiff said he had not heard before the time he was fired.
He called the substance “sticky stuff.”
It was a mixture of rosin and pine tar. It was applied by players on their hands to get a better grip on baseballs.
Allegations against Harkins in the memo came to the attention of the news media and accounts of his having supposedly aided visiting players by supplying “illegal substances” gained wide attention.
C.A. Opinion
Orange Superior Court Judge Linda Marks, sitting on assignment to the appeals court, said:
“The ‘illegal substances’ statements claimed plaintiff had been making, distributing, and/or selling an “illegal substance.” Plaintiff presented evidence the sticky stuff he produced was made from substances (rosin and pine tar) which are found on every professional baseball field—clubhouses, pitcher mounds, and bullpens included. Additional evidence showed: it was used for decades by many pitchers throughout the league; the use of rosin and pine tar by pitchers was pervasive and encouraged by coaches and players alike; team managers, umpires and Major League Baseball officials were aware of such use; and only on ‘extremely rare occasions,’ in the last four decades, did an umpire eject a pitcher from a game for use of pine tar with each instance being preceded by an objection from an opposing team manager. This evidence tends to show the sticky stuff was not ‘illegal.’ ”
The defendants maintained that Harkins violated Major Baseball League Rule 3.01 which provides:
“No player shall intentionally discolor or damage the ball by rubbing it with soil, rosin, paraffin, licorice, sand-paper, emery-paper or other foreign substance.”
Marks wrote:
“The language of this rule expressly targets the conduct of a player, prohibiting a player from doing certain things with the listed substances. It does not prohibit the existence or use of the substances other than using them to intentionally damage or discolor the ball. Thus, it does not demonstrate the truth of the ‘illegal substance’ statements.”
Second Rule Cited
The defendants also cited Rule 602(c) which says:
“The pitcher shall not:
“….
“(4) apply a foreign substance of any kind to the ball;
“(5) deface the ball in any manner; or
“(6) deliver… what is called the ‘shine’ ball, ‘spit’ ball, ‘mud’ ball or ‘emery’ ball….
“(7) Have on his person, or in his possession, any foreign substance.”
The visiting jurist remarked:
“This rule focuses on the conduct of pitchers. The plain language does not indicate it applies to anyone else, and it does not state any substance is entirely prohibited from the game.”
Violation of Policy
Major League Baseball and the Angels also relied on an uncodified policy against use of “foreign substances” by players.
“Given the evidence showing rosin and pine tar were used pervasively throughout the league and available to players at every field notwithstanding knowledge of them by those charged with enforcing the rules, there is room to argue the sticky stuff was not a foreign substance,” Marks said.
She added that, in any event, there was no evidence of such a policy having existed.
There was apparent falsity in the allegation that Harkins had committed “treason” by giving the sticky stuff to visiting players, Marks commented, because the evidence showed he supplied it, also, to home team players.
News Coverage
The alleged harm to Harkins stemmed from the nation-wide news coverage of the termination of his employment. Marks pointed to these headlines:
“Source: Angels fire employee for supplying ball-doctoring substances”; “Reports: Angels fire visiting clubhouse manager for helping opponents illegally doctor baseballs”; “Sources: Angels fire visiting clubhouse manager for aiding opposing pitchers”; “Angels reportedly fire employee for providing pitchers with illegal substances to put on baseballs”; “Angels’ visiting clubbie fired for ball-doctoring”; and “Fired Angels employee Bubba Harkins sold ‘Go clubbier Juice’ that pitchers put on baseballs.”
The defendants argued that they are not responsible for what the news media reported because they did not publicly release the memo from Major League Baseball to the Angeles which precipitated the firing:
Marks indicated agreement with Harkins that there was enough circumstantial evidence typing the defendants to the news reports for the case to go forward, explaining:
“Most of the news articles were published no more than two to three days after plaintiffs termination. They detail the reasons for his firing and use the same language allegedly used by the Angels and Major League Baseball to describe what they believed plaintiff had been doing. At least one even refers to the sticky stuff as ‘Go Go Juice,’ a term which plaintiff stated he never used and never heard prior to the meeting at which he was terminated. Because plaintiff stated he did not speak publicly about his termination, a reasonable inference may be drawn that the media’s anonymous sources were one or more persons from Major League Baseball and/or the Angels with intimate knowledge of the situation. This is corroborated by some of the articles which expressly refer to the sources as people ‘familiar with the decision,’ ‘with knowledge of the situation,’ or ‘with knowledge of the matter ....’ ”
The case is Harkins v. Major League Baseball, G059949.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company