When It Comes To Defamation, Bank Needs Thicker Skin.

Former vice-president of a bank published 21 allegedly defamatory statements in the “Rants and Raves” section on Craigslist.  One of the postings was:  “Being a stockholder of this screwed up Bank, this year there was no dividend paid.  The bitch CEO that runs this Bank thinks that the Bank is her [personal] Bank to do with it as she pleases.  Time to replace her and her worthless son.”  The former employee moved to strike the bank’s defamation complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute [Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16], which the trial court denied after finding the statements were not protected speech and that the bank had shown a probability it would prevail on the merits.  The Court of Appeal reversed, stating the former employee met his burden of showing the defamation action “arose from an act in furtherance of his constitutional right of free speech in connection with ‘an issue of public interest.’”  Summit Bank v. Robert Rogers  (Cal. App. First Dist., Div. 4; May 29, 2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 669, [142 Cal.Rptr.3d 40].