A California state appeals panel will let a former Congressional candidate resume a defamation lawsuit against U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters after the incumbent wouldn’t recant assertions the defendant had a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. Navy.
Joe Collins sought Waters’ congressional seat in 2020. Collins is a Republican, and Waters, a Democrat, has served in Congress since 1991. Both are Black.
Collins brought his defamation suit during the campaign after he said he showed her documents disproving her claims about his discharge status. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yolanda Orozco granted Waters a special motion to strike Collins’ suit, which prompted an appeal to the California Second District Appellate Court.
Justice John Wiley wrote the panel’s opinion, issued May 10; Justices Elizabeth Grimes and Victor Viramontes concurred.
According to the opinion, Collins posted a document to his 43rd Congressional District campaign website on Aug. 18, 2020, asserting his Naval discharge was honorable. But in print and radio ads that started that month and ran through November, Waters’ campaign stated the opposite. Collins’ lawsuit, filed Sept. 30, 2020, included “a screenshot of his Facebook posting of his discharge document,” Wiley wrote, which is “the focus of this suit.”
The panel said the parties refer to the document as a DD-214. Titled “Certificate of release of discharge from active duty,” it lists the separation type as “discharged” and the service character — circled in red before posting — as “under honorable conditions (general).” Lower on that page, after the heading “narrative reading reason for separation” is the phrase “misconduct (serious offense).”
Court records show Collins served notice of his complaint to Waters at her district office in Los Angeles and her Capitol Hill address along with a letter demanding retraction. In her motion to strike Collins’ lawsuit, Waters summarized the findings of staff research from when Collins entered the race, which included his lawsuit disputing child support obligations and another, from 2017, in which he sued the Navy for breaching the terms of use of his campaign website and requested an upgrade to his discharge status.
The federal district court ruling on the latter litigation came Aug. 8, 2018, the panel noted, including the phrase “this action arises out of events related to (Collins’) dishonorable discharge from the Navy.” But in May 2021 — after Judge Orozco dismissed Collins’ complaint and after his appeal — “the federal district court, on its own motion, modified its decision to change this sentence and to remove what it termed the ‘inaccurate’ description of Collins’ discharge as ‘dishonorable,’ “ Wiley wrote. “The amended May 2021 decision simply refers to Collins’ separation as a ‘discharge.’ ”
Waters made further arguments concerning her reasons to believe Collins’ discharge was dishonorable, but Collins said he “provided Waters with five more documents from the Navy showing his discharge status had not been dishonorable,” while trying to defeat her attempt to portray his complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
The panel said Judge Orozco dismissed the complaint because there was insufficient poof of actual malice on Waters’ part, but Wiley explained that ruling was in error because the at the early stage of litigation, the correct path is taking alleged in the plaintiffs’ favor.
“Reckless disregard for the truth can create liability for defamation,” Wiley wrote. “When you face powerful documentary evidence your accusation is false, when checking is easy, and when you skip the checking but keep accusing, a jury could conclude you have crossed the line. It was error to end this suit at this early stage, for Collins established the minimal case needed to defeat Waters’ special motion to strike.”
Should the case proceed to trial, the panel continued, Collins could well lose, but that potential outcome isn’t sufficient to warrant dismissal. The panel also noted a reasonable jury could infer Waters’ decision to repeat her accusations without looking into Collins’ documents constituted “a purposeful effort to maintain plausible deniability” that would make it impossible for Waters to claim subjective lack of guilt.
“State anti-SLAPP law sets procedural rules about how courts view the factual record,” Wiley wrote. “We must accept the plaintiff’s proof, we do not resolve conflicts in the evidence, and we cannot settle credibility contests.”
The panel reversed Judge Orozco’s ruling and remanded the complaint for further proceedings. It also struck Orozco’s ruling ordering Collins to pay for Waters’ legal fees.
Collins is represented by the Law Offices of Donna Bullock.
Waters is represented by Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow.