Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Leadership of Democratic Party Unit Isn’t a ‘Public Issue’
Opinion Says Anti-SLAPP Motion Was Properly Denied
By a MetNews Staff Writer
An anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied in an action by a man who, under fire based on his allegedly disruptive actions, resigned as first vice chair of a statewide political organization to avert being removed, Div. One of the First District Court of Appeal declared yesterday.
Justice William Dato authored the unpublished opinion.
At the center of the lawsuit is a Sept, 29, 2019 email signed by defendant/appellant Joshua Cameron and others urging the “immediate suspension” of Robert Leahy as first vice president of the Veterans Caucus of the California Democratic Party (“CDP”) and “the initiation of actions to permanently remove him from the executive board and the caucus itself.”
The email contained a link which led to a letter alleging that Leahy frequently attempted “to exercise power far in excess of his position and causing needless conflict whenever the caucus board attempts to conduct business” which was “damaging the reputation and credibility of the caucus and causing some of its members to feel threatened.”
Cameron was, at the time, advisor to the caucus’s chair on “parliamentary matters.”
San Diego Superior Court Judge Blaine K. Bowman denied Cameron’s special motion to strike pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure §425.16. He found that the lawsuit—alleging civil conspiracy, libel and slander—does not meet the criteria of the “catch-all” provision as arising from “conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.”
Argument on Appeal
Cameron argued on appeal:
“As the Superior Court judicially noticed, the CDP is the largest political party in the state….It should therefore be recognized that the CDP is in the public eye. The CDP’s Veterans Caucus should also be recognized as being in the public eye, as it seeks to influence legislation through lobbying while also maintaining a public presence through social media, branding, and messaging….As the email, which is the basis for all claims against Cameron, concerns both the Veterans Caucus and the CDP and both are in the public eye, Cameron’s activity should be seen as relating to a public issue.”
The appellant pointed to the 2003 Court of Appeal opinion from the First District’s Div. Two in Rivero v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO. The court observed that in cases where a “public issue” was found “the subject statements either concerned a person or entity in the public eye…conduct that could directly affect a large number of people beyond the direct participants…or a topic of widespread, public interest.”
Cameron asserted:
“The Superior Court erred in viewing the issue as ‘being largely about the actions of one man and his connection to the inner workings of the Veteran’s Caucus.’,,, The issue was actually about Leahy’s suitability for leadership within the California Democratic Party….Had the Superior Court recognized that as the issue it should have found that Cameron’s activity met all three categories as articulated in Rivero.”
Dato’s Opinion
Dato disagreed. He wrote:
“Here, it is undisputed that the September 2019 e-mail did not concern a person in the public eye—Leahy is a private individual—or directly affect a large number of people beyond the direct participants. But Cameron maintains the e-mail concerned an entity in the public eye—the CDP—and a topic of widespread public interest—CDP leadership. On the latter point.”
The justice went on to say:
“In our view, ‘a reasonable, objective observer’ reading [the] e-mail and the attached letter would not conclude they concern the leadership of the CDP….These materials clearly relate to Leahy and his fitness for serving on the executive board of the Veterans Caucus, or otherwise participating in the Caucus as a general member. And while the Caucus is ‘a constituent part’ of the CDP—insofar as it is governed by CDP decisions and cannot take official positions independent of or contrary to the CDP—the organizations have distinct leadership structures. There is no suggestion that by assuming the First Vice Chair position within the Caucus, Leahy became an executive board member, officer, director, or general member of the Democratic State Central Committee (DSCC), the governing body of the CDP. The e-mail and letter do not discuss anyone serving in a DSCC leadership role or any action taken by the CDP. Contrary to Cameron’s suggestion, the mere fact that the letter ends with a request for the CDP to ‘endorse’ the decision to suspend and remove Leahy does not transform its contents into a discussion of CDP leadership.”
Discussion Wasn’t Urged
He added:
“More to the point, even assuming the e-mail and letter implicated the public issue of CDP leadership, Cameron fails to demonstrate these materials furthered a specific public conversation on that topic. Indeed, the record is unclear as to who exactly received the e-mail….If it was sent to members of the Veterans Caucus, the e-mail simply informed the members of the signatories’ decision to suspend and remove Leahy, and the reasons for that decision; it did not refer to any ongoing discussion among the members on the subject, nor did it invite any input from the members on the decision.”
The case is Leahy v. Cameron, D083623.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company