Friday, August 7, 2026
Page 4
Court of Appeal:
Defamation Claim Over Alumni Group Chat Survives Scrutiny
Opinion Says Anti-SLAPP Motion Rightly Denied as to Claims That Defendant Spread Lies in Online Forum After Plaintiff Was Elected President of High School Graduates Association
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Two of this district’s Court of Appeal yesterday affirmed the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion in a defamation case over accusations, posted in an online forum dedicated to members of an association of Southern California graduates of a South Korean girls’ high school, that the then-newly elected president of the group had been removed over embezzlement allegations.
After the allegedly false rumors spread to the umbrella organization in Seoul and were repeated in a December 2024 story by The Korea Times, the plaintiff, Soon Bok Choi, who was elected president of the alumni association in 2023, filed a complaint against the defendant, Hae Sook Song, in April 2025.
Acting Presiding Justice Victoria M. Chavez authored Wednesday’s unpublished opinion, saying that the plaintiff met her burden of establishing a probability of prevailing on her defamation claim, rejecting the defendant’s assertion that the statements were protected by the common interest privilege found at Civil Code §47(c).
That section protects good faith communications “to a person interested…by one who is also interested” if the parties share an organizational tie and the request for information is related to the relationship between the parties.
The jurist acknowledged that the challenged statements were “made on a privileged occasion” but said that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of malice to overcome the shield to liability. She was similarly unpersuaded by assertions that the officer had not met her burden to show harm, remarking:
“Respondent attested that the accusations she was a ‘thief’ and a ‘removed president’ harmed her 50-year career in the Korean American medical field….Respondent attested her children and grandchildren were shamed.”
Allegations in Complaint
In her pleading, Choi asserted that Song made the remarks, together with an unsuccessful candidate for her position, Jungsoon Park, on the online messaging forum for the Sudo Girls’ High School Southern California Alumni Association, which boasts more than 250 members. The two posted a message accusing the plaintiff of embezzling $10,000 in dues and other funds belonging to the organization.
After participating in an unrecognized members’ meeting that falsely announced that Choi had been dismissed from office, Song began referring to Choi as a “thief” and “removed president.”
On July 16 of last year, then-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maurice A Leiter (now retired) denied the defendant’s motion under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure §425.16, which provides:
“A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech…in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”
Leiter reasoned that the alleged defamatory statements are protected under the section because they concern an elected official’s fitness to serve and that the KakaoTalk platform used for the group chat was a sufficiently “public” forum. However, he ruled that the plaintiff had established a probability of prevailing on her claim because the statements are falsifiable and she had made a prima facie case of falsehood and that the defendant acted with malice.
Statements of Fact
As to Song’s assertion that Choi cannot prevail on her defamation claim because the remarks are opinions and not statements of fact, Chavez responded:
“Appellant directed statements to over 250 members by posting them in the association’s KakaoTalk group chat. Given appellant’s experience in the organization and the audience to whom the statements were directed, a reasonable trier of fact could find the published messages involve a provably false factual assertion….Indeed, respondent provided evidence that…the Korean headquarters chapter president…personally contacted respondent to ask if the embezzlement charges were true. While appellant characterizes the statements as merely expressions of concern, the evidence presented is sufficient for a prima facie showing of facts.”
Addressing the defendant’s assertion of the common interest privilege, she opined:
“Here, appellant shows the alleged defamatory statements were made on a privileged occasion. The statements were made to fellow members who share a common organizational interest in the association. Respondent does not dispute the statements were made on a privileged occasion.”
Reckless Disregard
However, she continued:
“These facts demonstrate appellant’s anger and hostility towards respondent and a reckless disregard of the truth. Appellant not only ignored objective records challenging her statements, but she also thereafter made even stronger accusations of embezzlement against respondent….Appellant also ignored the association’s formal warning to stop posting on KakaoTalk….These facts are not merely ‘generalized claims of hostility’ as appellant argues. The evidence clearly is sufficient to show appellant was personally motivated to harm respondent and recklessly disregarded whether her statements were false.”
She noted that it was undisputed that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was sufficient to show that “the alleged defamatory statements constitute defamation per se,” and commented that, “[s]ince damage to reputation is conclusively presumed in a defamation per se analysis, respondent need not show actual damages.” The justice added:
“Nevertheless, respondent provided sufficient evidence demonstrating reputational harm. An article appeared in The Korea Times on December 24, 2024, reporting respondent had been impeached and appellant would assume the office. Many alumni saw the news and contacted respondent in shock….These are not conclusory assertions as appellant argues, as the evidence is sufficient for a prima facie showing of reputational harm.”
The case is Choi v. Song, B349485.
Dana M. Moon of the Los Angeles-based Moon & Dorsett PC represented Choi, and Brea solo practitioner Henry M. Lee acted for Song.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company