Appeals Court: Yes, Suing The Family Of People You Killed In A Car Crash For Defamation Is A SLAPP Suit
This one is from a couple months ago, but I finally had a chance to catch up on some older stories. In late 2023, we wrote about one of the most egregious SLAPP suits we’d ever seen. In a case that seems to defy both law and basic human decency, King Vanga, a Stanford student, got into a car accident that resulted in the deaths of Pamela and Jose Juarez. But that was just the start of a legal saga that would leave any reasonable person scratching their head in disbelief.
You see, Vanga later sued members of the Juarez family for… speaking out angrily about the accident that left their loved ones dead.
Talk about adding insult to injury.
It’s a move so brazen, so devoid of compassion, that it almost defies belief. But believe it, because it happened, and it’s a stark reminder of the ways in which our legal system can be weaponized against the very people it’s meant to protect.
And, thankfully (if too late in the process), it’s also a stark reminder of the importance of a strong anti-SLAPP law, like California’s, that has now righted this wrong. This case is not just an affront to decency, it’s a textbook example of why we need robust anti-SLAPP protections to prevent the legal system from being abused to silence and intimidate victims.
Here’s how the local news reported on the original accident:
The California Highway Patrol says Pam, 56, and Joe, 57, were driving west on Santa Fe Avenue approaching Spaceport Entry in Atwater.
They were just minutes away from their son’s house.
Officials say that’s when 20-year-old King Vanga collided into the back of their car at a high rate of speed.
The Juarez’s spun out and their vehicle caught fire.
Vanga overturned into a fence.
The Juarez’s died at the scene.
Vanga had minor injuries was booked into the Merced County Jail for driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol and vehicular manslaughter.
The police report on the matter suggested that Vanga was driving under the influence:
Vanga later sued the police, claiming he never drinks. And, a later blood test did not show any traces of alcohol in his blood. While this casts some doubt on the initial police assessment, it doesn’t change the tragic outcome of the accident.
Based on the police report and local news reporting, some of Juarez’s extended family sent letters to Stanford, understandably upset and repeating some of the claims in the news and police reports to alert the school to what one of their students was accused of doing. There is no indication that Stanford did anything at all in response.
Yet, somewhere along the way, Vanga requested his student records, found the letters, and then (shockingly) sued some of the family members, claiming that their letters to Stanford were defamatory.
Yes, let’s repeat that for emphasis: this student got into a car accident that left a husband and wife dead… and then when he found out that some of their grieving family members had sent letters with publicly reported details about the accident, he sued them for defamation. It’s hard to imagine a more callous response in the wake of such a tragedy.
That seems like a quintessential SLAPP. And yet… the California court that heard the case did not grant the anti-SLAPP motion. Fortunately, on appeal, a California state appeals court has reversed that. The court rightly found that the letter sent by Priscilla Juarez (a daughter-in-law of the deceased couple) was clearly not defamatory. The court noted that the comments were clearly her opinion based on disclosed facts from sources like the media and the police report.
This is a crucial distinction. If simply repeating already public information in an angry letter or email opened people up to defamation suits, it would have a massive chilling effect on speech, especially speech by crime victims and their families. The appeals court recognized this and rightly concluded that Vanga’s suit was a SLAPP.
Juarez’s pro bono lawyer in all this was Ken White of Popehat fame, who has written up his own thoughts on this mess of a case. It includes that Vanga’s lawyers had effectively demanded that the Juarez family remove any public conversation about Vanga at all:
Mr. Vanga will not pursue a lawsuit against your for defamation if you agree to the following terms:
1. You agree to identify all written statements that you have made that refer to Mr. Vanga (whether you published those statements under your name or anonymously);
2. You agree to remove any online statements that you have published that refer to Mr. Vanga;
3. You agree not to make or publish any disparaging statements about Mr. Vanga in the future, subject to certain required public policy exceptions;
4. You agree not to encourage, assist, or advise others to make or publish disparaging statements about Mr. Vanga in the future, subject to certain required public policy exceptions;
5. You agree not to encourage the criminal prosecution of Mr. Vanga, including by communicating with government officers or protesting at any conference, hearing, or trial involving Mr. Vanga, except as necessary for you to provide evidence, to provide testimony, to assist with a government investigation, or subject to other required public policy exceptions.
Can you imagine? This guy gets into a car accident that kills a beloved couple in your family, and then you get threatened by the guy (and eventually sued) for… talking about what happened.
It’s nuts.
As White notes, this is why anti-SLAPP laws are so important:
On November 19th, 2024, the California Court of Appeal reversed in one of the most strongly-worded anti-SLAPP appellate rulings I’ve seen, linked above. The Court noted that Priscilla Juarez’ letter expressly based her statements on the criminal complaint, statements from law enforcement officers, and press coverage that she had seen, and that she did not suggest she had some personal knowledge or undisclosed basis for the statements. The Court examined the context, concluding that Stanford was unlikely to interpret the letter as asserting facts rather than the victims’ relative’s angry reaction to events in the news. “Accordingly, considering both the language and the context of Defendant’s email, we find the assertions that Plaintiff murdered the decedents, drove while intoxicated, and violated Stanford’s Code of Conduct to be opinions based on disclosed facts. The opinions are therefore actionable only if those facts are false.” (Attached Order at 15.) Moreover, Plaintiff’s claim that the police and witnesses were wrong is irrelevant — the key is that it’s undisputed that the police and witnesses reported those things and Ms. Juarez based her opinions on those reports. The Court found that Vanga had not offered any evidence that he suffered any pain or suffering from another statement, and therefore didn’t carry his anti-SLAPP burden of showing he could prevail.
It’s easy to see why this is important. Under King Vanga’s theory — which the lower court accepted — it would be impossibly dangerous for crime victims to speak to the press — or to anybody. If a defendant in a criminal case can sue alleged victims for making statements based explicitly on police reports and on the charges against the defendant, then criminal defendants can silence their victims by threat of defamation lawsuits. In fact defendants will be able to use the threat of lawsuits to attack witnesses and disrupt their prosecution. The danger is not abstract or a slippery slope. It was directly presented here. King Vanga’s lawyers demanded that, as a price for not being sued, Priscilla Juarez not only stop talking in public about King Vanga, but not “encourage the criminal prosecution of Mr. Vanga, including by communicating with government officers or protesting at any conference, hearing, or trial involving Mr. Vanga.” I remain shocked that an attorney would do such a grotesque thing. I submit that these facts show that the lawsuit was not motivated by any actual harm suffered by Vanga, but was a naked attempt to bully a grieving family into silence through abuse of the legal system.
Allowing lawsuits like this would have a severe chilling effect on the speech of crime victims and their families. It would enable perpetrators to bully victims into silence through legal intimidation.
This case, while egregious, is not an isolated incident. It’s part of a disturbing trend of the legal system being weaponized to silence and harass, which is exactly why strong anti-SLAPP protections are so essential.
Cases like this underscore the vital importance of robust anti-SLAPP protections. Without such laws, those who cause harm can exploit the legal system to compound the suffering of those they’ve already victimized. It’s a perverse outcome that laws like California’s anti-SLAPP statute aim to prevent.