The attorney for San Francisco Science Fiction Conventions, Inc., defendant in Jon Del Arroz’ defamation suit, filed a motion on February 17 requesting summary judgment in hope of getting the case dismissed without trial.
San Francisco Science Fiction Convention Inc. is the parent corporation of Worldcon 76, held in San Jose. Del Arroz sued SFSFC in 2018 after the Worldcon 76 committee announced he would not be allowed to attend the convention (“Del Arroz Files Suit Against Worldcon 76”; “We have taken this step because he has made it clear that he fully intends to break our code of conduct….”)
In February 2019, the court tossed four of the five causes of action in Del Arroz’s lawsuit against Worldcon 76’s parent corporation. The case continues on the fifth complaint, defamation.
Santa Clara (CA) Superior Court Judge Socrates P. Manoukian has set a hearing on the motion for summary judgment on May 11. If the motion is not granted, the case is scheduled for a jury trial beginning June 14.
Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(c), a motion for summary judgment “shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
The introduction to SFSFC, Inc.’s motion states:
…Plaintiff is a science fiction author who has built his writing career on a marketing strategy that involves pitting himself against other professionals in the science fiction industry in order to increase his visibility in the media and on social media sites. This lawsuit is simply an extension of these tactics, this time with SFSFC as yet another victim of Plaintiff’s abusive behavior – the same behavior which prompted SFSFC to prohibit Plaintiff’s attendance at the Convention in the first place. Plaintiff has, throughout this litigation, used the lawsuit as a catalyst to self-promote and garner attention, which has increased his notoriety, and his book sales.
As set forth herein, Plaintiff will not be able to prove the essential elements and, thus, his defamation claim fails for any of the following reasons: (1) the statement is not defamatory; (2) calling someone a racist or a bully is a non-actionable expression of opinion, rhetoric or hyperbole; (3) the statement falls under the common interest privilege; (4) Plaintiff cannot prove actual malice; and (5) Plaintiff cannot prove special damages. Because no triable issue of material fact exists to salvage Plaintiff’s claim, summary judgment is warranted….