Burmeister v. Saldich

Background

Chad Burmeister sued Alan Saldich and other defendants over a LinkedIn post published on January 7, 2021. The post said that Burmeister, described as a former colleague, had “participated in the seditious takeover” of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Saldich linked to a news report that included a video stating that Burmeister had claimed to be the “First guy to storm the capital” in a Facebook post. The report also showed other social-media posts by Burmeister referring to a coming “rebellion” and “storm.”

Burmeister alleged that the statements were materially false. He said that he attended the Stop the Steal Rally but did not enter the Capitol, did not claim that he entered it, and was never investigated by law enforcement. He alleged that the post harmed his reputation and career, including causing a colleague to cancel a $250,000 order with his company. He asserted state-law claims for libel, trade libel, and false-light invasion of privacy. His claims also included allegations against Corelight based on Saldich’s post.

Motion and legal standards

Defendants moved to strike the complaint under California’s anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation law, or anti-SLAPP statute, and alternatively moved to dismiss. An anti-SLAPP motion can target claims arising from protected speech about a public issue unless the plaintiff shows a probability of prevailing. Burmeister did not dispute that the LinkedIn post was made in a public forum and concerned a public issue, so the court addressed only whether he showed a probability of prevailing.

Because Defendants challenged the legal sufficiency of the claims, the court applied the standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court considered whether the complaint alleged enough facts to make relief plausible, while accepting well-pleaded factual allegations as true.

Defamation claim

The court applied California law because Defendants had not shown that Colorado’s defamation law materially differed from California’s law. Under California law, defamation requires a publication that is false, defamatory, unprivileged, and naturally injurious or specially damaging. For statements about matters of public concern, the plaintiff must plead and prove falsity. The court evaluates the statement’s overall “gist” or “sting,” rather than requiring literal accuracy in every detail.

The court held that Saldich’s statement that Burmeister “participated” in the Capitol takeover was substantially true. The court relied on Burmeister’s admission that he attended the rally, publicly posted a photograph with someone who claimed to be the “first guy to storm the capital,” and had posted references to a coming “rebellion” and “storm.” The court concluded that an average reader could reasonably understand “participated” to include those actions, even if the statement was not technically accurate in every semantic detail.

The court also stated that Saldich did not accuse Burmeister of entering the Capitol or being investigated for crimes. The court noted that the linked news report itself included Burmeister’s statements that he did not enter the Capitol and did not break any laws. It concluded that the “gist” or “sting” of Saldich’s statement was substantially true.

Claims based on the linked news report

The court held that issue preclusion barred Burmeister’s claims based on the linked news report. Issue preclusion prevents a party from relitigating an issue of fact or law that was actually litigated and resolved in a valid prior judgment. The court found that all four applicable Colorado-law requirements were satisfied: the earlier Colorado judgment was final, the issue was identical, Burmeister had a full and fair opportunity to litigate it, and he was a party to the earlier proceeding.

The court therefore ruled that Burmeister could not relitigate whether statements in the news report saying he had claimed or bragged about storming the Capitol were substantially true. His allegations based on Saldich’s link to that report could not proceed.

Other claims and disposition

The court held that the false-light and trade-libel claims failed because they were based on the same statements as the defamation claim. The court explained that false light stands or falls with the defamation requirements. It also held that the trade-libel claim failed because the complaint did not allege that Defendants made false statements about the quality of Burmeister’s products or services. The claim against Corelight failed because it was based only on Saldich’s post.

The court found that Burmeister’s claims had an insufficient legal basis and that allowing amendment would be futile because the findings were based on facts and admissions in the complaint. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Defendants’ motion to strike. The complaint was stricken, the case was dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk was directed to enter judgment for Defendants. After judgment, Defendants may file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, which will be referred to a magistrate judge.