SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) - California Democrat Shahid Buttar, an attorney and civil rights advocate, has lost the rest of his defamation lawsuit over 2020 articles in the San Francisco Chronicle that followed sexual harassment allegations.
Buttar, who has attempted to unseat Nancy Pelosi in the last two primary elections for her U.S. House of Representatives post, sued Hearst Communications in 2021 in California federal court. His lawsuit targeted two articles - one on the harassment claims that featured a response by Buttar and another in which several individuals came to Buttar's defense.
A Feb. 16 ruling by Judge Edward Chen tossed his case with prejudice, finding he could not show the Chronicle defamed him with the second article. He'd reached a similar conclusion almost 10 months earlier with regard to the first article.
"What this Court previously explained in its previous order granting Hearst's motion to dismiss, remains true," Chen wrote.
Elizabeth Croydon accused him of sexual harassment in 2020 in an essay on Medium.com. The Chronicle published an article the same day, written by Joe Garofoli, who reached out to Buttar's campaign for a response.
That statement by Buttar was included in the article. The campaign told Garofoli it could put him in contact with people who would vouch for Buttar's character and asked for a follow-up.
After an open letter signed by 17 people was published on another site defending Buttar, the Chronicle published an article titled "Longtime activists defend Pelosi foe Shahid Buttar against sex harassment accusations."
The article quoted the open letter and recounted interviews the Chronicle conducted with three of its signatories - "Indeed, the vast majority of the Follow-Up Article is dedicated to interviewing and quoting those supporting Mr. Buttar," the ruling says.
Still, Buttar and his campaign committee sued Hearst, claiming the follow portrayed those who supported Buttar as his friends instead of independent political activists. They also claimed it should have contained an alleged long history of false accusations by Croydon against activists.
Chen wrote the individuals supporting Buttar in the follow article were accurately identified by their backgrounds and professions and that omitting any alleged false accusations wasn't sufficient to state a claim for defamation, as "it is unlikely that unrelated incidents undercut the veracity of the article's contents."
Given a chance to file an amended complaint after last year's ruling, Buttar failed to add any new evidence, Chen wrote.
"SBCC contends Hearst relied on a source known to be unreliable or failed to investigate in light of a source's known lack of reliability," Chen wrote. "While it is true that 'actual malice can be proved by circumstantial evidence, such as 'reliance upon sources known to be unreliable or... failure to investigate,' the plaintiff must nonetheless prove that 'the publisher himself had serious doubts regarding the truth of his publication.'"