Court Gives New Protections to Critics of Development

The state Supreme Court gave critics of development projects increased protection against libel suits Thursday.

The court unanimously denied review of an appellate ruling that said members of the public who make comments during a formal review, authorized by a law that invites public criticism, are immune from libel suits regardless of a speaker’s motives.

The ruling, now binding on trial courts statewide, makes it easier to win early dismissal of such suits. A new state law requires immediate pretrial dismissal of any suit over comments about a public issue, unless the judge finds that the suit will probably succeed.

The law was intended to curb the proliferation of cases known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPP--suits aimed at quelling public criticism by harassing critics and subjecting them to legal expenses.

Thursday’s case involved Keith A. Dixon, a retired anthropology professor at Cal State Long Beach, who mounted a letter-writing campaign against a company evaluating proposed construction projects at archeological sites on the campus.

The letters to a university official accused the company, Scientific Resource Surveys Inc., of incompetence and bias. The company sued Dixon for $570,000, saying his criticism was false and malicious and destroyed its contractual relationship with the university.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Frederick P. Horn refused to dismiss the suit but was overruled last November by the 4th District Court of Appeal. The court said Dixon’s comments were submitted during the university’s review of the projects under the California Environmental Quality Act, a law that invites participation by the public.

That means Dixon had the right to criticize the company and was immune from a libel suit, even if his comments were false and malicious, said Justice Edward J. Wallin in the 3-0 ruling.

“The statutory invitation for public participation bars any inquiry into the motives behind the statements,” Wallin wrote. Under the new anti-SLAPP law, he said, the suit had to be dismissed without a trial because the company could not prove it was likely to win.

The case is Dixon vs. Superior Court, S044325.