Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01576/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01576-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Sex Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HALEMA BUZAYAN, as an No. 2:06-CV-1576-MCE-DAD

individual; DR. BUZAYAN

MOHAMED BUZAYAN, an individual;

NAJAT ABDALLA DARRAT, an 

individual; MOHAMED BUZAYAN, by

and through DR. BUZAYAN MOHAMED

BUZAYAN, as Guardian Ad Litem

for a minor; YOUSEF BUZAYAN,by

and through DR. BUZAYAN MOHAMED

BUZAYAN, as Guardian Ad Litem 

for a minor; ALI BUZAYAN, by and

through DR. BUZAYAN MOHAMED

BUZAYAN, as Guardian Ad Litem 

for a minor,

Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

v.

CITY OF DAVIS POLICE

DEPARTMENT; THE CITY OF DAVIS;

JAMES HYDE, individually and

in his capacity as Chief of

Police of the City of Davis

Police Department; STEVEN

PIERCE, individually and in

his official capacity with the

City of Davis Police

Department; PHENG LY, 

individually and in his

capacity as an officer of the

City of Davis Police

Department; GINA ANDERSON,

individually and as Seargant

of the City of Davis Police

Case 2:06-cv-01576-MCE-DAD Document 73 Filed 06/25/07 Page 1 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 SLAPP is an acronym denoting a so-called “Strategic 1

Lawsuit Against Public Participation”.

2

Department; DAVID HENDERSON,

individually and in his

capacity as District Attorney

for the YOLO COUNTY OFFICE OF

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY;

PATRICIA FONG, individually

and in her capacity as Deputy

District Attorney for the YOLO

COUNTY OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT

ATTORNEY; DEBBIE DAVIS, as an

individual; DAVIS ENTERPRISE

NEWSPAPER; and LAUREN KEENE,

as an individual,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Through the present action, Halema Buzayan and the Buzayan

family (“Plaintiffs”) allege that the Davis Enterprise, Debbie

Davis, and Lauren Keene (“Defendants”) have caused them harm by

publishing private information. Specifically, Plaintiffs have

sued said Defendants for intentional infliction of emotional

distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, invasion of

privacy, failure to protect private information, defamation, and

respondeat superior. These are all state law claims which

supplement the federally-based claims brought against other

defendants for violations of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to

the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Presently before the Court is the Defendants’ Special Motion

to Strike pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code § 425.16,

California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The Plaintiffs did not oppose 1

the Defendants’ Motion to Strike with respect to the defamation

claim and that claim is dismissed. For the reasons set forth

below, the remainder of Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.

Case 2:06-cv-01576-MCE-DAD Document 73 Filed 06/25/07 Page 2 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

BACKGROUND

 On June 7, 2005, an incident took place in a parking lot in

Davis, California, wherein a Toyota Highlander allegedly hit a

parked car. The Highlander was traced to the Buzayan family and

led to a police investigation of the incident. After conducting

interviews with various members of the Buzayan family, the Davis

Police Department arrested 16-year-old Halema Buzayan on

suspicion of a hit and run misdemeanor. Prior to her arrest, the

Buzayan family paid for the damages done to the other car, while

maintaining that they were not at fault for the incident.

On April 17, 2006, the Yolo County Superior Court dismissed

the charges against Ms. Buzayan. On April 28, 2006, the Davis

Enterprise published an article written by Lauren Keene entitled

“Audio of Hit and Run Arrest Revealing.” The article describes

the incident which led to Ms. Buzayan’s arrest, the contact

between the police officer and Ms. Buzayan, the arrest itself,

the fact that Ms. Buzayan’s case was dismissed by the Yolo County

Superior Court, and the fact that Plaintiffs were planning on

filing a civil lawsuit against the Davis Police Department. 

Additionally, the Davis Enterprise made available on its

website the audio tapes of the police investigation. The tapes

were made by Davis police officer Pheng Ly, and include: 1) his

initial interview with the victim of the hit and run, Ms. Wonhof; 

2) interviews with Mr. and Mrs. Buzayan taken on the day of the

incident; 3) the arrest of Halema Buzayan on June 13, 2005, at

the Buzayan residence; and 4) his questioning of Ms. Buzayan at

the Davis police station. 

Case 2:06-cv-01576-MCE-DAD Document 73 Filed 06/25/07 Page 3 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

The audio tapes were given to the Davis Enterprise by the

Yolo County District Attorney’s Office. Included in the audio

tapes were references to Plaintiffs’ home telephone number,

address, and other allegedly private information.

According to Defendants, the attorney for the Plaintiffs

contacted Debbie Davis on May 1, 2006, to point out that private

information was included in the audio tapes. The Defendants then

redacted the information and re-posted the tapes on the website

on May 5, 2006.

On July 14, 2006, Ms. Buzayan, through her father as

Guardian Ad Litem, filed suit against the City of Davis Police

Department and individual Police Department employees for

seventeen causes of action. The Defendants filed a Partial

Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7) and a Partial

Motion to Strike under Rule 12(f) and California Code of Civil

Procedure § 425.16. Since Ms. Buzayan had reached the age of

majority prior to filing the suit, the Court granted Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7), and granted Plaintiff

leave to amend the complaint. 

On November 3, 2006, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint

which substituted Ms. Buzayan as an individual, and added the

additional members of the Buzayan family as Plaintiffs. The First

Amended Complaint also added the Davis Enterprise, Debbie Davis,

Lauren Keene, the City of Davis, and individuals from the Yolo

County Office of the District Attorney as Defendants, and

included additional causes of action. 

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01576-MCE-DAD Document 73 Filed 06/25/07 Page 4 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

The Davis Enterprise, Debbie Davis, and Lauren Keene filed

their Special Motion to Strike on February 2, 2007. Oral argument

on this Motion was held on April 16, 2007.

STANDARD

California’s Anti-SLAPP law is aimed at curtailing civil

actions designed to deter private citizens from exercising their

rights of free speech. United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed

Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963, 970 (9th Cir. 1999). The

Ninth Circuit permits the use of anti-SLAPP motions in federal

court on state law claims like those asserted herein against the

moving Defendants. Id. at 973.

The court engages in a two-step process when ruling on a

special motion to strike. Equilon Enters. v. Consumer Cause,

Inc., 29 Cal. 4th 53, 67 (Cal. 2002). The first step is to

determine that the defendant’s act upon which the complaint is

based was done “in furtherance of the person’s right of petition

or free speech...in connection with a public issue...” Cal. Civ.

Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1); Equilon Enters., 20 Cal. 4th at 67.

This is defined in § 425.16(e) as:

(1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a

legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other

official proceeding authorized by law; (2) any written or

oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue

under consideration or review by a legislative, executive,

or judicial body, or any other official proceeding

authorized by law; (3) any written or oral statement or

writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum

in connection with an issue of public interest; (4) or any

other 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.

Case 2:06-cv-01576-MCE-DAD Document 73 Filed 06/25/07 Page 5 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Once a defendant shows that his or her conduct is covered

under the anti-SLAPP statute, the second step is to determine if

the plaintiff has a probability of prevailing on the underlying

claim. Equilon Enters., 20 Cal. 4th at 67. The court may examine

“pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the

facts upon which the liability or defense is based.” Cal. Civil

Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(2).

ANALYSIS

1. Defendants’ Conduct as Protected Speech

In an anti-SLAPP suit, the burden is on the defendant to

show that the allegedly harmful conduct in which they engaged is

protected under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16.

Braun v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 52 Cal. App. 4th 1036, 1042-43

(Cal. Ct. App. 1997). “A defendant meets this burden by

demonstrating that the act underlying the plaintiff’s cause fits

one of the categories spelled out in [§ 425.16(e)].” Id. The

defendant need not show that the purpose of the plaintiff’s

complaint is to chill the defendant’s exercise of constitutional

speech. Equilon Enters., 20 Cal. 4th at 57.

The Plaintiffs alleged in their Complaint that the newspaper

article entitled “Audio of Hit and Run Arrest Revealing,” as well

as later articles published in the Davis Enterprise, contained

false and misleading accusations against the Buzayan family. 

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01576-MCE-DAD Document 73 Filed 06/25/07 Page 6 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Additionally, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated

Plaintiffs’ privacy rights by posting audio tapes on the Davis

Enterprise website which gave out confidential information, such

as the Plaintiffs’ home address and telephone numbers.

In their Opposition to the Motion to Strike, the Plaintiffs

limit the suit to harm caused by the allegedly unlawful

disclosure of private information, which was contained in the

audio tapes released on the Davis Enterprise website and in the

reporting of the juvenile proceedings.

As mentioned above, California Civil Procedure Code

§ 425.16(e)(4) protects conduct done in furtherance of the right

of free speech in connection with a public issue. Although not

defined in the anti-SLAPP statute, a matter of public interest is

one that is “something of concern to a substantial number of

people.” Weinberg v. Feisel, 110 Cal. App. 4th 1122, 1132

(Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss

Builders, 472 U.S. 749, 762 (1985)). Here, Ms. Buzayan’s arrest

led to public criticism of the Davis Police Department and calls

for additional police oversight. Additionally, public protests

were held (which included Ms. Buzayan’s family) in support of Ms.

Buzayan. Indeed, the Davis Enterprise, before being named as a

Defendant, called the Buzayan case the top story of the year.

Consequently, the news reporting done by the Defendants is

protected under the anti-SLAPP statute.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01576-MCE-DAD Document 73 Filed 06/25/07 Page 7 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

2. Merits of Plaintiffs’ Claims

Since Defendants’ acts are protected under the anti-SLAPP

statute, the Plaintiffs now have the burden of demonstrating a

probability of prevailing on the claims. Equilon Enters.,

20 Cal. 4th at 67. The claims at issue here are intentional

infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of

emotional distress, respondeat superior, invasion of privacy, and

failure to protect private information.

A. Invasion of Privacy

The California Supreme Court has held that “an invasion of

privacy claim based on allegations of harm caused by a media

defendant’s publication of facts obtained from public official

records of a criminal proceeding is barred by the First Amendment

to the United States Constitution.” Gates v. Discovery Comms’ns,

Inc., 34 Cal. 4th 679, 696 (Cal. 2004). Additionally, in Florida

Star v. B.J.F, the United States Supreme Court held “that where a

newspaper publishes truthful information which it has lawfully

obtained, punishment may lawfully be imposed, if at all, only

when narrowly tailored to a state interest of the highest order.”

491 U.S. 524, 541 (1989). Indeed, in the line of Supreme Court

cases examining the conflict between the right to privacy and the

right of free press, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in

favor of free press. Florida Star, 491 U.S. at 530.

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01576-MCE-DAD Document 73 Filed 06/25/07 Page 8 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

In this case, the Plaintiffs acknowledged in both their

complaint and their Opposition to the Motion to Strike that the

Defendants received the audio tapes from the Yolo County District

Attorney’s Office. The District Attorney’s Office released the

tapes after the Yolo County Superior Court dismissed the case

against Ms. Buzayan. There is no allegation that the Defendants

acted improperly in any way in obtaining the information or the

tapes. 

Additionally, Ms. Buzayan’s arrest was a major story in the

City of Davis. Her arrest led to accusations of racial and

religious bias within the Davis Police Department and to the

resignation of Police Chief James Hyde. When Defendants put the

audio tapes on their website, they wanted the public to listen

and decide for themselves whether anything inappropriate had

occurred.

In Florida Star, the Supreme Court dealt with a news story

which, contrary to Florida law, had identified the name of a rape

victim. 491 U.S. 524. In upholding the right of the press to

publish the name, which the defendants had lawfully obtained from

police reports, the Court noted that “the article generally, as

opposed to the specific identity contained within it, involved a

matter of paramount public import: the commission, and

investigation, of a violent crime which had been reported to

authorities.” Florida Star, 491 U.S. at 536-537. Similarly, the

story here was about the police and their behavior. The general

subject matter was important to the residents of the City of

Davis as evidenced by the public outcry surrounding Ms. Buzayan’s

arrest. 

Case 2:06-cv-01576-MCE-DAD Document 73 Filed 06/25/07 Page 9 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

In light of the fact that the Defendants lawfully obtained

the audio tapes and were reporting on a newsworthy story, the

Plaintiffs cannot prevail on an invasion of privacy claim.

B. Failure to Protect Private Information

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants released private

information in violation of California Civil Code § 1798.53,

which provides, in pertinent part, “Any person...who

intentionally discloses information, not otherwise public, which

they know or should reasonably know was obtained from personal

information maintained by a state agency...shall be subject to a

civil action, for invasion of privacy...” The statute protects

individuals from the dissemination of private information that is

maintained by government agencies. Alim v. Superior Court, 185

Cal. App. 3d 144, 149 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). 

Since claims brought under California Civil Code § 1798.53

are for invasion of privacy, defenses to invasion of privacy

actions are also available for alleged violations of § 1798.53.

Alim, 185 Cal. App. 3d at 150. This includes “the special

defenses that pertain to the press.” Id. As noted above, the

actions of Defendants in the constitutional invasion of privacy

claim are protected by the First Amendment. Likewise, the

Defendants are protected from the claims brought pursuant to

§ 1798.53. Therefore, Plaintiffs cannot prevail on this claim. 

///

///

/// 

Case 2:06-cv-01576-MCE-DAD Document 73 Filed 06/25/07 Page 10 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

C. Remaining Claims

The Plaintiffs’ remaining claims are for intentional

infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of

emotional distress, and respondeat superior. The two emotional

distress claims are premised on the Defendant’s alleged invasion

of privacy. The respondeat superior claim is not fleshed out in

the pleadings but would also require a finding that Defendants

had acted inappropriately in their reporting of the Plaintiff’s

allegedly private information. Since the Defendants are protected

from the invasion of privacy claims, the Plaintiffs cannot

prevail on their remaining claims.

3. Attorney’s Fees

California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(c) provides that

“a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be

entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs.” Thus,

the Defendants may submit an application for their attorney’s

fees and costs under § 425.16(c).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants Motion to Strike

is GRANTED.

Dated: June 22, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01576-MCE-DAD Document 73 Filed 06/25/07 Page 11 of 11