Monday, May 11, 2026
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Story in Trade Journal Is Sufficiently ‘Public’ for SLAPP Law
Opinion Says Libel Claims Rightly Struck Against Airline-Insiders Publication Over Article Concerning Inquiry Into How Small Carrier Logged Rookie Hours Because Touches on Safety; Online Distribution, Not Audience, Governs
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
Div. One of the First District Court of Appeal has held that a trial judge rightly granted anti-SLAPP motions filed by a journalist and an airline-insiders trade publication in a lawsuit filed by a small, regional carrier accusing them of libel over a story discussing a regulatory investigation into how the company logs flight hours for new pilots, rejecting the view that the purportedly esoteric topic and the intended audience are too limited to trigger the “public interest.”
In Thursday’s unpublished opinion, the court declared that, because the article touched on airline safety and was released on the journal’s website, it was sufficiently “public” for purposes of California’s anti-SLAPP statute, found at Code of Civil Procedure §425.16.
That section 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.”
Subdivision (e)(4) specifies that protected speech includes “any…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.”
News Story
Seeking the protection of §425.16 were Colleen Mondor, a pilot and journalist who authored a September 2022 story entitled “SIC Logging Is Focus of FAA Investigation into Boutique Air,” and AIN Media Group Inc., the publisher of the airline industry trade journal Aviation International News, which ran the story in both its print and online editions.
According to Mondor, under regulations in effect at the time, so-called “second-in-command” (referred to in the article as “SIC”) pilots on Boutique Air Inc.’s propeller planes were only permitted to log time for purposes of promotion to “captain” status if the company possessed a Pilot Development Program approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), and that “it appears that Boutique did not have the requisite approvals.”
The rules purportedly require certain airlines to disqualify time during which autopilot features are engaged.
She went on to highlight operational issues, saying:
“Cancellations and delays were widespread in the company’s route structure, and between 2018 and 2022 Boutique experienced more than 150 gate returns, air returns, diversions, aborted takeoffs, FAA-designated incidents, and events. In the same period, there were 30 in-flight emergency declarations for reasons ranging from 7 faulty landing gear indications to electrical failures to loss of engine power.”
Complaint Filed
The San Francisco-based Boutique Air, which offers flights in unpopulated areas across the country under the federal government’s Essential Air Services program, filed a complaint against Mondor and AIN in June 2024, asserting libel and other causes of action relating to allegations that the story contained false information that caused the company to lose routes and suffer financial strain.
In October 2024, then-San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Ulmer Jr. (now retired) granted both defendants’ special motions to strike under §425.16, saying that the challenged statements qualify as protected activity because they concern airline safety, and Boutique had failed to show a probability of prevailing on the merits.
Acting Presiding Justice Kathleen M. Banke authored Thursday’s opinion, joined in by Justices Monique Langhorne Wilson and Charles A. Smiley, affirming the orders in a consolidated decision.
Banke cited the 2019 California Supreme Court decision in FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc., which explains that “a court must consider the context as well as the content of a statement in determining whether that statement furthers the exercise of constitutional speech rights in connection with a matter of public interest” and cautions that speech is rarely about only one topic.
Taken in Context
She said that jurisprudence that followed the high court decision clarifies that a court must first consider whether the challenged speech, when taken in context, could reasonably be understood to implicate a public interest even if it also involves a matter of only private importance. Then the analysis turns on the “closeness” between the statements and the asserted topic of wide concern.
Turning to the first question, she opined:
“Each of the statements pertain[s] to the performance of a national airline, potentially affecting members of the flying public, as well as pilots, local airports, and other airlines….Moreover, the genesis of Mondor’s article was an ongoing FAA investigation into Boutique’s compliance with federal regulations—also unquestionably a matter of public interest….Thus, even if the article was also ‘about’ the improper logging of flight hours by various individual pilots, the challenged statements additionally pertained to public issues….”
Noting that Boutique’s challenge was focused primarily on “the second step of the prong-one analysis,” she commented:
“[A]ccording to Boutique, the ‘context’ of the article is best illustrated by its headline…Thus, as Boutique sees it, the article discusses an FAA investigation into a generally uninteresting regulatory issue and is pitched at a narrow slice of readers such as current and former Boutique pilots, or other pilots of [similar] aircraft. It points out…‘[t]here is nothing in the record to support any finding that the Article was ever seen by the greater flying public.’ ”
Constricted View
Rejecting this characterization, she reasoned:
“Boutique’s constricted view of the purpose of Mondor’s article disregards the Supreme Court’s caution that speech is rarely about any single issue….While we agree the article discusses the FAA investigation into Boutique’s logging of Second in Command flight hours, it does so as a starting point for a deeper dive into Boutique’s performance generally…and includes reporting on the airline’s overall safety record….We have no trouble concluding these statements amounted to participation in, or furtherance of, discourse on matters of public interest.”
Banke added:
“Boutique’s limited-audience argument also disregards that the article was posted online and therefore was, and remains, available to the general public….Speech that has been found to fall outside the protection of the anti-SLAPP statutes, in contrast, often has been distributed far more narrowly.”
Saying that “Boutique has not carried its burden to show a probability of success on any of the allegedly libelous statements,” she remarked that some of the purportedly false statements “are plainly not incorrect” and others express only opinions.
The case is Boutique Air Inc. v. Mondor, A172026.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company