Source: http://mauralarkins.com/GilbertversusSykes.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:45:35+00:00

Document:
v. Jonathan SYKES, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Thomas M. Cecil, Judge. Reversed with directions.
Nolen; Nolen & Associates and Rudy Nolen for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant.
In our youth and celebrity worshipping culture, the benefits and risks of plastic surgery are a hot topic.
exponentially in the past several years.
performed a series of facial cosmetic procedures on Georgette Gilbert in February 2003.
photos), as well as information and advice for those considering plastic surgery.
Web site. Gilbert responded with a special motion to strike the cross-complaint. (Code Civ.
probability of prevailing on his cross-complaint.
FN1. Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
vacate the order with directions to grant Gilbert's motion.
articles on facial plastic surgery."
During an April 2003 post-surgical visit, Sykes told Gilbert the results were "very good and improving."
California (the Regents) in connection with the surgery performed by Sykes.
also lists several malpractice lawsuits that have been filed or are pending against Dr. Sykes.
States, having multiple revisional surgeries, and just researching as much as possible."
under the heading, "Doctors I would be cautious of."
revision surgeries in hopes to get back to how I once looked or at the very least look normal again."
"In late February or early March 2005, ... [Gilbert] established a Web site at www.mysurgerynightmare.
content of communications between [Gilbert] and Dr. Sykes relating to the procedures performed by Dr.
Sykes, and falsely suggests that Dr. Sykes was compensated for the procedures 'under the table.'"
his ex parte application for a temporary restraining order.
link," such that a search for "Jonathan Sykes" would bring up a link to Gilbert's Web site.
Sykes nor the Regents could establish an actionable claim for defamation or any other tort.
the special motion to strike.
from the order denying her special motion to strike as to Sykes.
would, if proved at trial, support a judgment in plaintiff's favor." '" (Dowling v. Zimmerman (2001) 85 Cal.
of demonstrating that the trial court errors of which Gilbert complains caused her no prejudice.
that are made (1) in a public forum and (2) in connection with an issue of public interest. (Wilbanks, at p.
not contribute to the public debate because they only concern Gilbert's interactions with him. He is wrong.
Sykes does not dispute that plastic surgery is a subject of widespread public interest and discussion.
Indeed, a Google ™ search (at <http:// www.google.com/> [as of 1/26/07] ) using the words "pros" "cons"
matter of public interest within the meaning of section 425.16.
defamation must be germane to the plaintiff's participation in the controversy." (Ampex, supra, 128 Cal.
expert witness on the subject and advertised his services in the local media.
concept of a limited purpose public figure.
virtually eliminate all vortex public figure candidates.
would be immune from such claims unless it was shown that their statements were uttered with malice.
themselves into matters of general public discussion or controversy. (See, e.g., Terry, supra, 131 Cal.
App.4th at pp. 1547-1548; Sipple, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 238; Copp, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at pp.
are entitled to constitutional protection.
there is a probability he will prevail on his claims. (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1); Evans v. Unkow (1995) 38 Cal.
evidence." (Tuchscher Development Enterprises, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist. (2003) 106 Cal.App.
impermissible opinion, hearsay, or conclusory are to be disregarded. (See Tuchscher, supra, at pp.
statement of fact that is provably false. (Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990) 497 U.S. 1, 20 [111 L.Ed.
defamation action if they cannot "'reasonably [be] interpreted as stating actual facts' about an individual."
probable merit of a defamation claim based on any of these allegations.
indeed what they purported to be, truth as a defense was established.
The slight discrepancy in time frame does not provide Sykes with an escape hatch from the truth defense.
Sykes's surgery but before other doctors performed their revision surgeries. Because it was, the "gist"
statements, Sykes argues that Gilbert's photos were taken from different angles and on a different scale.
this fact, it did not help prove a prima facie case of defamation.
with respect to Sykes's surgery, they were not defamatory as a matter of law.
over the years and his impressive sounding title. I really wasn't sure what to expect when I met with him.
suggested procedures, I would maintain my looks longer and age better into my late thirties and forties.
Weaving these two passages together, Sykes claims they are libelous because (1) he did not "quickly"
plastic surgeon can claim he lost business because his suggestions were too "quick."
that she did not "need" five procedures.
intended result of his procedures.
unhappy result of the surgery.
communications between [Gilbert] and Dr. Sykes relating to the procedures performed by Dr. Sykes."
This allegation is far too vague and amorphous to support a cause of action for defamation.
were inadequate to support a claim for defamation.
pleaded verbatim, in the complaint.'" (Vogel, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1017, fn. 3, quoting Kahn v.
even come close to the specificity required to state an actionable libel claim. (See Dowling, supra, 85 Cal.
after the surgery, and that he did not tell her it was a "good result," only that she was "healing well."
and improving." Sykes may not impeach his own sworn testimony with contrary self-serving averments.
of showing a probability of prevailing on the merits.
statement was susceptible of an interpretation that Gilbert was referring to him. We disagree.
added.) Sykes failed to carry his burden in either respect.
Sykes engaged in such unethical behavior.
seeks to advance by claiming that one item on the list defamed him.
of action. Even if it could be understood to refer to Sykes, he offered no evidence that it was false.
render meaningless any defense of truth or privilege.'" (Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.
"constitutes a discrete item of misconduct." Not so.
portion of the "Results" page.
are likely to reach a greater number of recipients.
The Sponsored Links allegation does not save the cross-complaint from dismissal under section 425.16.
We concur: ROBIE, Acting P.J., and CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.