SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) - Should his appeal fail, failed Congressional candidate Shahid Buttar will have to pay nearly $90,000 in lawyer fees incurred by the San Francisco Chronicle to fight his defamation lawsuit.
Federal judge Edward Chen on April 18 granted Hearst Communications' motion for fees, months after he rejected Buttar's case over 2020 articles in the 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.
Buttar has appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Chen's latest decision applied a fee-shifting provision under the defense used by the Chronicle - the anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (ani-SLAPP) law. Considering claims over the first article and second article were both dismissed without leave to amend, he found the Chronicle entitled to fees it piled up during the entirety of the litigation.
"There is no dispute that Hearst is the prevailing party after the dismissal of the amended complaint disposed of all claims as to the merits with no further leave to amend," Chen wrote.
"And a party who prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to an award of fees..."
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."