Todd v. Lovecruft

Background

Peter Todd brought a state-law defamation claim against Isis Agora Lovecruft based on four Twitter statements made in February 2019. The statements accused Todd of sexual misconduct involving Lovecruft and other people. Todd alleged that the statements were false, harmed his reputation, and caused him to lose professional opportunities. He sought damages and an order requiring Lovecruft to remove the statements.

Lovecruft filed a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. Anti-SLAPP procedures allow early dismissal of claims based on protected speech. The court applied the statute’s two-step framework: first, whether the challenged statements involved protected activity; and second, whether Todd showed a reasonable probability of succeeding on his defamation claim.

The parties waived discovery and asked the court to decide both the legal and factual challenges in one order. The court also considered an anonymous declaration from Jane Doe. It held that the declaration was competent evidence because Doe’s identity was filed under seal and she signed the declaration under penalty of perjury. The court did not consider the challenged exhibits from Lovecruft’s declaration and did not consider the Wilcox declaration in deciding the motion.

Protected Activity

The court held that all four statements were made in a public forum because they appeared on Lovecruft’s public Twitter feed. It also held that the statements concerned a matter of public interest: allegations of sexual assault and sexual misconduct involving people in overlapping professional communities. The court emphasized that this finding did not decide whether the statements were true or defamatory.

Defamation Analysis

The court found that all four statements were reasonably capable of conveying a defamatory meaning. It treated the first statement as defamation per se because it could be understood as accusing Todd of rape or sexual assault. The second statement was not defamation per se because the earlier tweet was not ordinarily read together with it, but it could constitute defamation per quod when read in context. Defamation per quod requires proof of specifically pleaded economic losses.

The third statement explicitly called Todd a rapist and could constitute defamation per se. The fourth statement, read together with another user’s question asking whether Todd was a rapist, also could constitute defamation per se.

For statements accusing Todd of misconduct against another person, the court held that Todd did not provide sufficient evidence that Doe’s account was false or that Lovecruft failed to use reasonable care, much less that Lovecruft knew the account was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth. The court therefore granted the motion as to those accusations.

For statements accusing Todd of misconduct against Lovecruft, Todd provided a detailed denial of Lovecruft’s account of their encounter. Because the court could not weigh credibility or resolve conflicting factual accounts at this stage, it held that Todd had made the required initial showing regarding Lovecruft’s state of mind.

The court nevertheless granted the motion as to the second statement because Todd did not plead or support special damages with sufficient precision. Special damages are specific economic losses required for a defamation-per-quod claim. The court denied the motion as to the fourth statement because it was defamation per se, which does not require proof of special damages.

Disposition

The court granted Lovecruft’s motion to strike as to all four statements insofar as they accused Todd of sexual misconduct against someone other than Lovecruft. It also granted the motion as to the second statement insofar as it involved Lovecruft’s personal accusation against Todd. The court denied the motion as to the fourth statement insofar as it involved Lovecruft’s personal accusation against Todd.

The court struck the identified portions of Todd’s complaint without leave to amend. The remaining defamation claim concerning the fourth statement’s accusation involving Lovecruft could proceed.