Thursday, July 23, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Woman’s Online Ridicule of Former Spouse Not ‘Protected’
Justices Reject Contention That Case Law Establishes That Commentary Is Subject to Anti-SLAPP Motion Where It Merely Relates to a Matter of Public Interest; Opinion Says It Must Be Prone to Prompt Discussion of Topic
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Fifth District Court of Appeal, affirming an order denying a special motion to strike brought by a woman who is being sued by her ex-husband to halt her derisive Facebook posts, has rejected the contention that under case law, discussions of personal matters that have a link to topics of public interest are necessarily protected speech for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute.
Although allegations by defendant Melani Scribner relate to domestic violence, Justice Mark W. Snauffer said in an unpublished opinion filed Tuesday, her allegations against ex-husband Robert McGuire do not promote a public discussion of the topic, and are therefore not protected under the seminal prong of the statute, Code of Civil Procedure §425.16.
The protection extends to “any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue” including comments in “a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.”
Snauffer declared that Scribner “has failed to demonstrate that her activity was in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.”
Allegations Against Plaintiff
Allegations by Scribner were apparently posted in tandem with those of a now-befriended woman she describes in her brief on appeal as having been her then-husband’s “mistress” or “paramour” and whom McGuire labels, in his own posts, as his erstwhile “abuser.” Among accusations by Scribner are that her former spouse is a narcissist who is posing as a victim of that third party.
Appealing from an order by Fresno Superior Court Judge Glenda Allen-Hill denying her anti-SLAPP motion, Scribner said in her brief, prepared by attorney Hadi-Ty Seyedin Kharazi of San Luis Obispo County’s City of Arroyo Grande:
“Several California Court decisions have concluded that the proper inquiry is whether the broad topic of defendant’s conduct, not the plaintiff, is connected to a public issue or an issue of public interest.”
2002 Case
The brief points to the 2002 Court of Appeal opinion from the Fourth District’s Div. Two in M.G. v. Time Warner. In that case, Sports Illustrated and HBO used a photo of a Little League manager who had pled guilty to five counts of sexually abusing players.
Depicted in the photo was a group of players—not necessarily victims—and coaches. Eight players and two coaches who appeared in the photo sued for invasion of privacy, and the defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion.
Although the motion was denied, and the appeals court affirmed (based the plaintiff showing minimal merit), Scribner made note of the case because “the court looked at the ‘broad topic’ of defendants’ publication.”
It said in M.G.:
“Although plaintiffs try to characterize the ‘public issue’ involved as being limited to the narrow question of the identity of the molestation victims, that definition is too restrictive. The broad topic of the article and the program was not whether a particular child was molested but rather the general topic of child molestation in youth sports, an issue which, like domestic violence, is significant and of public interest.”
Snauffer, in declaring the case to be inapposite, quoted from the next sentence in the 2002 opinion:
“The Time Warner defendants, in publishing and broadcasting on the serious topic of child molestation, exercised orally and in writing their right of free speech concerning an issue of public interest in a public forum.”
The jurist said:
“In contrast, here there is no evidence that Melani wrote an article of any kind, and…she discussed only her personal experiences with Robert.”
2005 Decision
Scribner also cited the 2005 Third District Court of Appeal decision in Terry v. Davis Community Church. There, two former youth group leaders sued over a church’s report of an inappropriate sexual relationship with a minor, and appealed from the granting of an anti-SLAPP motion and the consequent judgment for the defendants.
The appeals court, in affirming the judgment, said:
“Here, the broad topic of the report and the meetings was the protection of children in church youth programs, which is an issue of public interest.”
Snauffer quoted the opinion as saying that the report “recommended among other things that the Church should update its sexual harassment policy, clarify appropriate boundaries for interpersonal conduct, involve members of the youth group and their parents in the selection of new youth leaders, and provide immediate support to youth group members and their families,” and wrote:
“Here, Melani discussed only her personal experiences with Robert. There is no evidence before us suggesting that the broad topic of her communications was protecting others from domestic violence.”
2011 Opinion
The appellant drew attention to the 2011 opinion from Div. Four of this district’s Court of Appeal in Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. That decision dealt with an action against a broadcaster and a television writer for defamation and false light based on the mistaken use in the show “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation” of the names of the plaintiffs, husband-and-wife real estate agents who were not involved in actual events depicted.
Reversing the denial by then-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Solner of an anti-SLAPP motion, then-Court of Appeal Justice Nora Manella said:
“We believe the statutory language compels us to focus on the conduct of the defendants and to inquire whether that conduct furthered such defendants’ exercise of their free speech rights concerning a matter of public interest. We find no requirement in the anti- SLAPP statute that the plaintiff’s persona be a matter of public interest.”
Snauffer’s opinion did not include a discussion of that case.
Appellant’s Argument
The brief crafted by Kharazi argues:
“Like M.G., Terry, and Tamkin, Melani’s posts discussed overcoming an abusive relationship, surviving spousal mental, physical, and financial abuse, living through the nightmarish life with her children and learning how to overcome it….Although none of the posts referred to Rob, and assuming arguendo they were about Rob, the issues raised by Melani in her posts were of public interest.”
It goes on to say:
“Domestic violence is a significant concern nationwide. Between 2014-2024, in California, alone, there were over 160,000 reported cases of domestic abuse each year. It is reasonable to assume that many other domestic violence events were unreported, because like this case, the abusive partner is often oppressive, armed, has financial or other control over the other partner, some or all of which are similar to experiences Melani described in her declaration which were never refuted by Rob in his opposition….The record before the Court provides unrefuted evidence that Rob was an abusive spouse, whose conduct must be exposed and his DV petition is designed to silence Melani and others.”
Snauffer’s Response
Snauffer quoted the Third District Court of Appeal’s 2003 opinion in Weinberg v. Feisel as saying that a “matter of public interest should be something of concern to a substantial number of people” and that “a matter of concern to the speaker and a relatively small, specific audience is not a matter of public interest.”
Applying Weinberg, he said that “based on the record before us, Scribner’s “activity on Facebook involved her personal experiences with Robert,” continuing:
“However, the record does not show, nor does Melani adequately explain, how her experiences with domestic violence are a ‘concern to a substantial number of people.’ And while she does assert, in a conclusory fashion, that she was sharing her experiences to help or advocate for survivors of domestic abuse, nothing on the face of the communications supports this assertion.”
The case is Marriage of McGuire, F090217.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company