Filed 2/25/21 Balsamo v. Traughber CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

DENNIS JAMES BALSAMO,

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v.

BILLY GENE TRAUGHBER, 

et al., 

 Defendants and Appellants. 

2d Civ. No. B299926

(Super. Ct. No. 19CV01747)

(Santa Barbara County)

Respondent Dennis James Balsamo and appellant Billy 

Gene Traughber are competing promotors of professional 

wrestling events in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo 

Counties. Following a business dispute, Balsamo, who is also an 

attorney, filed a complaint for defamation against Traughber, his 

girlfriend, Kari Rockwood-Robinson aka Karen Leigh, and his 

mother, Cindy Bolding (collectively “appellants”). Balsamo 

alleges appellants referred to him as a “thief” and an 

“incompetent attorney” in Facebook postings and in
2

conversations and texts with members of the local wrestling

community. 

Appellants moved to strike Balsamo’s complaint on the 

ground that it is a strategic lawsuit against public participation 

(SLAPP). (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)1 The trial court denied the 

anti-SLAPP motion because it was “not persuaded that this is a 

matter of public interest.” We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Traughber is a professional wrestler. In 2009, he began 

promoting local wrestling events under the name Vendetta Pro 

Wrestling (VPW). Traughber did not register VPW as a fictitious 

business name or formally organize it as a business entity. 

 Traughber had a group of wrestlers who regularly worked 

his events. In 2014, he had a falling out with some of the 

wrestlers, who decided to start a rival wrestling promotion 

company called Cen-Cal Professional Wrestling & 

Entertainment, Inc. (Cen-Cal). The wrestlers, which included 

Balsamo’s son Dominick Balsamo (Dominick), retained Balsamo’s 

firm to incorporate Cen-Cal. The new corporation initially had 

five directors. Balsamo served as a shareholder, officer and 

director. 

The friction between VPW and Cen-Cal was immediate. 

Traughber told wrestlers they could no longer work for him if 

they wrestled for Cen-Cal. Cen-Cal responded by registering

“Vendetta Pro Wrestling” as its fictitious business name and

informing Traughber he no longer had the legal right to use the 

VPW name. 

1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil 

Procedure.
3

The parties temporarily called a truce and worked together 

on several joint shows. The events were promoted as “VPW vs. 

Cen-Cal.” According to Traughber, Balsamo had agreed to return 

the VPW name to him. When that did not occur, Dominick 

assured Traughber it had been transferred and said he would 

follow up with his father. 

Balsamo and Traughber had another falling out over CenCal’s use of a venue VPW regularly used. After Traughber 

complained, Balsamo sent Traughber a cease-and-desist letter 

and advised the venue that Traughber had no right to the VPW 

name. Balsamo threatened the venue with legal action if they 

allowed Traughber’s show to proceed. 

Balsamo provided Traughber with a proposed written 

agreement that would return the VPW name to him if certain 

conditions were met over a nine-month period. Traughber 

refused to sign the agreement. He believed he “would be giving 

[Balsamo] the right to take away from me what I already owned.” 

Balsamo sent cease-and-desist letters to Traughber, his 

venues and sponsors demanding that they stop using the VPW 

name. According to Balsamo, Traughber announced on a public 

Facebook forum that Balsamo “had stolen my trademark and I 

may have to discontinue the use of the VPW name.” Balsamo 

also claims Bolding and Robinson made similar comments on 

Facebook. Cen-Cal subsequently incorporated VPW as a limited 

liability company. 

Balsamo’s complaint alleges “that since January 2019, 

Traughber has repeatedly made many false and defamatory 

statements to third parties, including fans and members of the 

professional wrestling community, that (1.) Plaintiff [Balsamo] 

had stolen from him, specifically the intellectual property known 
4

as VPW; and (2.) casting unsubstantiated defamation regarding 

Plaintiff’s abilities and talents as an attorney.” The complaint 

makes the same general allegations as to Robinson and Bolding. 

In their anti-SLAPP motion, appellants claimed they 

wanted “people in the Central California and larger wrestling 

community to be aware of the fact that . . . Balsamo had 

registered Mr. Traughber’s company name, Vendetta Pro 

Wrestling, and was interfering with Mr. Traughber’s ability to 

use his name, which [he] had owned and used in the professional 

wrestling scene since 2009.” Appellants also declared that any 

statement made about Balsamo “as an attorney was in regards to

[their] opinion that a lawyer who would knowingly steal the 

business name from another person they were competing with is 

a despicable person.” 

Balsamo opposed the anti-SLAPP motion, arguing his 

claims do not arise from a matter of public interest and that even 

if they did, he has satisfied his burden of showing “minimal 

merit” to his claims. He maintains any complaints by appellants 

should be directed to Cen-Cal and not to him personally. The 

trial court denied the motion, concluding the matter is not of 

public interest.

DISCUSSION

Anti-SLAPP Principles and

Standard of Review

The anti-SLAPP statute “authorizes defendants to file a 

special motion to strike ‘[a] cause of action against a person 

arising from’ the petition or speech activities ‘of that person . . . in 

connection with a public issue.’ ( . . . § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).)” 

(Barry v. State Bar of California (2017) 2 Cal.5th 318, 321.) Such 

activities include writings made “in a place open to the public or 
5

[in] a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest” 

(§ 425.16, subd. (e)(3)) and “conduct in furtherance of . . . the

constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public 

issue or an issue of public interest.” (Id., subd. (e)(4).) 

Resolution of an anti-SLAPP motion involves a two-prong 

analysis. “First, the defendant must establish that the 

challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16. 

[Citation.] If the defendant makes the required showing, the 

burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the 

claim by establishing a probability of success.” (Baral v. Schnitt

(2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384.) 

“‘We review de novo a ruling on a special motion to strike 

under section 425.16. [Citation.] Thus, we apply our 

independent judgment, both to the issue of whether the cause of 

action arises from a protected activity and whether the plaintiff 

has shown a probability of prevailing on the claim.’” (South

Sutter, LLC v. LJ Sutter Partners, L.P. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 

634, 657.) The appellant still bears the “‘burden of affirmatively 

demonstrating error.’” (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak

(2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610.)

The Trial Court Properly Denied the Anti-SLAPP Motion

Appellants bear the burden of demonstrating that the 

alleged defamatory statements concern an issue of public 

interest. (§ 425.16, subd. (e)(4); Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope

& Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1116.) “The definition of 

‘public interest’ within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute 

has been broadly construed to include not only governmental

matters, but also private conduct that impacts a broad segment of 

society and/or that affects a community in a manner similar to 

that of a government entity.” (Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism 
6

Club (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 468, 479; Church of Scientology v. 

Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 650-651, overruled on 

another ground as stated in Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer 

Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 63, fn. 5.) The parties agree this 

matter involves private conduct but disagree as to whether it 

impacts a broad segment of society. 

Appellants’ burden is complicated by Balsamo’s failure to 

state a claim for defamation, which must be pled with 

particularity, i.e., each allegedly defamatory statement “must be 

specifically identified, if not pleaded verbatim, in the complaint.” 

(Kahn v. Bower (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1599, 1612, fn. 5; Vogel v. 

Felice (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1017, fn. 3.) The complaint 

broadly alleges that since January 2019, appellants have 

“repeatedly made many false and defamatory statements to third 

parties, including fans and members of the professional wrestling 

community,” that Balsamo is an incompetent attorney and that 

he stole VPW from Traughber. Appellants acknowledge they “are 

still guessing as to which statements [Balsamo] is complaining of 

. . . .” (Emphasis omitted.) 

Our task also is more difficult because the identity of the 

speaker, the identity of the audience and the statement’s 

intended purpose are “relevant . . . in analyzing whether the 

statement was made ‘in furtherance of’ free speech ‘in connection 

with’ a public issue” within the meaning of section 425.16, 

subdivision (e)(4). (FilmOn.com Inc v. DoubleVerify Inc. (2019) 7 

Cal.5th 133, 140, 151-152 [“[T]he inquiry of whether a statement 

contributes to the public debate is one a court can hardly 

undertake without incorporating considerations of context”].) 

That information is not present here. 
7

Nonetheless, Balsamo’s failure to state a viable claim for 

relief does not impact our anti-SLAPP analysis. We must look 

beyond the complaint and decide, based on the evidence 

presented in the motion and opposition, whether Balsamo’s 

claims are based on protected speech or conduct. (Stewart v. 

Rolling Stone LLC (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 664, 679.) 

Appellants’ motion relies on some seemingly random 

Facebook posts (Exhibit 8) and two articles appearing on the 

SoCalUncensored.com and LuchaCentral.com websites. The 

SoCalUncensored.com article (Exhibit 6) was posted by Steve 

Bryant on November 1, 2018, and reiterates, in part, Dominick’s 

view of the parties’ dispute. That view appeared in an earlier 

undated post on Dominick’s Facebook page (Exhibit 3). 

The LuchaCentral.com article, entitled “LUCHA 

CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE: THE FIGHT FOR VENDETTA PRO 

WRESTLING (UPDATED!)” (Exhibit 7) was posted by Eric 

Mutter on May 1, 2019, after this lawsuit was filed. The article 

discusses the parties’ dispute and litigation. It also includes 

Balsamo’s and Dominick’s responses to Mutter’s original article. 

Traughber declined to comment. 

Exhibit 8 includes an undated post from Balsamo on 

Traughber’s Facebook page, which states: “Best carnie show in 

town!! Although is it nice to make money off of another person’s 

disability? But when you want [to] see real wrestling . . . check 

out Cen Cal Pro Wrestling or Planet Luca (owner of Vendetta Pro 

Wrestling).” The exhibit, which appears to be heavily edited, 

includes 22 undated Facebook comments that Traughber asserts 

are samples of the public discourse in response to his post 

claiming that Balsamo had stolen the VPW name. Not only does 

the exhibit omit that post, but it also is unclear whether 
8

Traughber’s Facebook page is accessible to the general public or 

only to his “friends.” 

Although the posting of the two articles suggests some 

public interest in the parties’ dispute, there is no information 

regarding the viewership for either website. Appellants also have 

not attempted to quantify the level of public interest in the local 

wrestling community. Courts typically require such information. 

(See Grenier v. Taylor (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 471, 481-483 

[allegedly libelous Internet postings of interest to a church 

community of 550 to 1,000 members was “large enough to qualify 

as a ‘community’ for purposes of section 425.16”]; Third Laguna 

Hills Mutual v. Joslin (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 366, 376 [crosscomplaint challenging homeowner association’s enforcement of its 

covenants and restrictions against a homeowner did not involve a 

public issue affecting all 6,102 members and residents]; Safari 

Club International v. Rudolph (9th Cir. 2017) 862 F.3d 1113, 

1122 [surreptitious recording of president of wildlife conservation 

organization “implicates public issues because it involved two 

presidents of an organization with 50,000 members”]; see also 

Talega Maintenance Corp. v. Standard Pacific Corp. (2014) 225 

Cal.App.4th 722, 734 [issue of responsibility for payment of 

repairs was of interest to only a narrow sliver of society and thus 

was not a public issue]; Jeppson v. Ley (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 845, 

856 [“There is no issue of public interest when the speaker’s 

words are merely an effort to gather ammunition for another 

round in the speaker’s neighborhood wrangle”].) 

In sum, we cannot conclude on this record that the 

statements attributed to appellants are a matter of public 

interest. The trial court appropriately denied the anti-SLAPP 

motion.
9

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. In the interests of justice, the 

parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J. 

TANGEMAN, J. 
10

Jed Beebe, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Dennis James Balsamo, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and 

Respondent. 

Anthony A. Karian, for Defendants and Appellants.