February 11, 2012

Perry v. Topping

NOTE: The information and commentary contained in this database entry are based on court filings and other informational sources that may contain unproven allegations made by the parties. The truthfulness and accuracy of such information is likely to be in dispute. Information contained in this entry is current as of the last event mentioned in the "Description" section below; additional proceedings might have taken place in this matter since this event.

Posted August 18th, 2008 by CMLP Staff

Summary

Threat Type: Lawsuit	Date: 08/07/2006
Status: Concluded	Location: California
Disposition: Withdrawn	Verdict/Settlement Amount: n/a
Legal Claims: Defamation; Publication of Private Facts
Los Angeles citizen James Perry sued Tom Topping for libel and invasion of privacy after Topping published an article stating that the Los Angeles City Attorney had determined that Perry had violated various conflict of interest laws while serving as a... read full description

Parties

Party Issuing Legal Threat:	Party Receiving Legal Threat:
James L. Perry	Tom Topping, dba Boulevard Sentinel, Topping Publishing, and Boulevard Sentinel.com
Type of Party:	Type of Party:
Individual	Individual
Location of Party:	Location of Party:
California	California
Legal Counsel:	Legal Counsel:
Pro se (trial level); Joshua N. Levine (Dongell Lawrence Finney Claypool) (on appeal)	Camilo Echavarria (Davis Wright Tremaine) (trial level); Pro se (on appeal)

Description

Los Angeles citizen James Perry sued Tom Topping for libel and invasion of privacy after Topping published an article stating that the Los Angeles City Attorney had determined that Perry had violated various conflict of interest laws while serving as a member of the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council. Topping publishes the Boulevard Sentinel newsletter and website.

Soon after filing his complaint in California state court, Perry moved to withdraw his claims because he was too ill to litigate his own case. A few days later, Topping moved to strike Perry's claims under California's anti-SLAPP laws. The court granted Perry's motion to withdraw his claims, rendering Topping's motion moot.

Topping then moved for an award of attorney's fees, claiming that he was entitled to them as a prevailing party under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court denied Topping's motion, ruling that because Perry voluntarily withdrew the suit before Topping's motion to strike, Topping did not prevail as required by the statute.

Topping appealed, but the California Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling. Topping then appealed to the California Supreme Court, but the Court declined to consider the case.

Topping loses Supreme Court review

Submitted by Guest (not verified) on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 03:41.

Defendant Topping also appealled the Appellate Court ruling against him to the California Supreme Court. His petition for review was rejected by the Supreme Court.

As a correction to the report posted August 18th, 2008 by Matt C. Sanchez, Plaintiff Perry is not an attorney.

Thanks

Submitted by Matthew C. Sanchez on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 12:50.

Updated. Thanks for the info.

Copyright 2007-11 Citizen Media Law Project and respective authors. Except where otherwise noted,
content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License: Details.
Use of this site is pursuant to our Terms of Use and Privacy Notice.

Perry v. Topping

Topping loses Supreme Court review

Thanks

Database Resources

Browse by Subject

Recently Updated Threat Entries

Navigation

Perry v. Topping

Topping loses Supreme Court review

Thanks

Database Resources

Browse by Subject

Citizen Media Law Briefs

Recently Updated Threat Entries

Navigation