Opinion ID: 739603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: McGraw's State Law Claims

Text: 9 McGraw also has asserted supplemental state law claims. The district court correctly rejected these claims as lacking merit. McGraw has not made a showing sufficient to overcome the qualified privilege that California law confers on the communications at issue in this case. See Cal.Civ.Code § 47(c). Zimmerman limited her disclosures of McGraw's alleged misconduct to fellow employees with a common interest. See Deaile v. General Tel. Co., 40 Cal.App.3d 841, 846, 115 Cal.Rptr. 582, 585 (Ct.App.1974) (allegedly defamatory communications to fellow employees were protected by § 47 privilege). 1 California's qualified privilege for communications to interested persons bars McGraw's state law claims. 10 McGraw's attempts to overcome the § 47 privilege with a showing that Zimmerman acted with malice fall short of the proof necessary to survive summary judgment. McGraw, on the record before this court, simply cannot show that Zimmerman's disclosure of McGraw's alleged misconduct was motivated by hatred or ill will. Dorn v. Mendelzon, 196 Cal.App.3d 933, 945, 242 Cal.Rptr. 259, 265 (Ct.App.1987). Nor can McGraw establish that Zimmerman lacked reasonable grounds for belief in the truth of the publication. Id. That the District Attorney's office chose not to pursue criminal charges neither demonstrates that the charges were false nor indicates that Zimmerman knew them to be false. 11 Finally, we note that the harm McGraw alleges appears to be largely self-inflicted. Under the California Tort Claims Act, the County Board of Supervisors had to treat his demand letter as a claim against the County. As such it was a public document and available to all. Counsel could have avoided any widespread dissemination by carefully drafting his demand letter in a way that avoided recitation of the specifics of the allegations against McGraw. 12 The decision of the district court granting defendants summary judgment on McGraw's state law claims is AFFIRMED. In light of the foregoing, Appellants' motion to strike is denied as moot.