Local developer William Kraner claims Dennis Cauchon, Granville, defamed him and interfered with a business contract. Kraner's suit, filed in Franklin County, alleges Cauchon made false and defamatory statements about him and he wants $1.5 million and some public apologies.
All of this was reported by the Advocate, along with down-loadable files of the legal complaint and other documents at this link.
An interesting comment was posted in the newspaper's forum that adds dimension to the Advocate report. Here is is:
"Having had one of these hung on me when working on housing issues in Indianapolis, my sympathies are entirely with Mr. Cauchon. Even with free legal support from Indiana University law professors, it took three and a half years and all our time and attention as a neighborhood association to get the charges dismissed with prejudice (meaning they were groundless and could not be refiled in any form). Interference with contract and defamation of character will never be proven in this case, as Mr. Kraner's actions as a public figure were discussed in a public way, and personal animus and intent isn't even on the table.
"But Mr. Kraner can easily afford to have a staffer manage this case for the next few years, while Mr. Cauchon's kitchen table will have to shift focus to getting this SLAPP dismissed, which is the entire point. Meanwhile, Mr. Kraner could donate $10,000 to support the city of Newark's effort to attract the Crew facility if he wanted a public gesture proving his good will. Instead, he sues.
"Read the wikipedia link."
Following that link to Wikipedi will take you to an essay about Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). I didn't know there was such a thing, though I myself had been so victimized many years ago.
The following are two segments from the Wikipedia article that reduce this subject to its basics. The first is the definition of a "SLAPP;" the second is the legal remedy provided to Californians, one that should be enacted by every state. (Hey Jay Hottinger, where are you?) Readers are encouraged to visit the on-line article because it has many interesting and important links.
"A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") was originally defined as a lawsuit involving communications made to influence a governmental action or outcome, which resulted in a civil complaint or counterclaim filed against nongovernment individuals or organizations on a substantive issue of some public interest or social significance. ... It has been defined more broadly by some to include suits arising from speech in connection with a public issue. ... This form of litigation is frequently filed by organizations or individuals to intimidate and silence critics or opponents by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense so that they abandon their criticism or opposition. The acronym was coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring."
"The U.S. state of California enacted Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 in 1992, a statute intended to prevent the misuse of litigation in SLAPP suits. It provides for a special motion which a defendant can file at the outset of a lawsuit to strike a complaint where the complaint arises from conduct that falls within the rights of petition or free speech. The statute expressly applies to any writing or speech made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, but there is no requirement that the writing or speech be promulgated directly to the official body. It also applies to speech in a public forum about an issue of public interest and to any other petition or speech conduct about an issue of public interest.
"The filing of an anti-SLAPP motion prevents the plaintiff from amending the complaint and stays all discovery. If the special motion is denied, the filing of an appeal immediately stays the trial court proceedings as to each challenged cause of action. Defendants prevailing on an anti-SLAPP motion (including any subsequent appeal) are entitled to a mandatory award of reasonable attorney’s fees. More than 200 published court opinions have interpreted and applied California's anti-SLAPP law.
"California's Code of Civil Procedure § 425.17 corrects abuse of the anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425.16). Signed into law on September 6, 2003, this statute prohibits anti-SLAPP motions in response to certain public interest lawsuits and class actions, and actions that arise from commercial statements or conduct. Section 425.18, signed into law on October 6, 2005, was enacted to facilitate SLAPP victims in recovering their damages through a SLAPPback (malicious prosecution action) against the SLAPP filers and their attorneys after the underlying SLAPP has been dismissed."
