Larry Seaquist v. Michelle Caldier , 438 P.3d 606 ( 2019 )

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
April 9, 2019
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
LARRY SEAQUIST and CARLA SEAQUIST, No. 50816-8-II
and the marital community comprised thereof,
Appellants,
v.
MICHELLE CALDIER, a single person, PUBLISHED OPINION
Respondent.
WORSWICK, J. — In 2014, Larry Seaquist and Michelle Caldier were competing for 26th
District State Representative. Larry and Carla Seaquist allege that Caldier defamed Seaquist and
placed him in a false light through political campaign materials and in an interview. Caldier
moved for summary judgment dismissing the Seaquists’ claims. The Seaquists appeal the trial
court’s order granting Caldier’s motion for summary judgment dismissal of both claims.
Although some of Caldier’s statements were unquestionably misleading and ignoble, the
Seaquists have not established a prima facie case of defamation or false light by evidence of
convincing clarity. Therefore, we affirm.
FACTS
I. FACTUAL HISTORY
In 2014, Caldier challenged Seaquist for his 26th District State Representative position.
On August 29, 2014, after attending a political candidate endorsement interview at the Kitsap
Sun office in Bremerton, both candidates exited the building and went to their respective
vehicles. Seaquist’s vehicle was parked directly behind Caldier’s along the street. While both
No. 50816-8-II
candidates were sitting in their cars, but before either drove off, Seaquist took two identical
photos of the back of Caldier’s car. Seaquist later stated that he was impressed with the
mechanics of the car’s convertible roof and that he took the photograph to assist him in
remembering the car’s make and model.
The photos show the back of a white Lexus IS250 C convertible with the top down. The
photos are a wide angle shot, with the street on the left, sidewalk and parking lot on the right, and
the bottom of the frame shows the dashboard of the vehicle from which the photos were taken.
On close inspection, a portion of Caldier’s face can be seen through the rearview mirror of the
Lexus. Caldier’s red sunglasses cover most of the portion of her face that can be seen in the
mirror.
Caldier noticed what Seaquist was doing, exited her car, and asked Seaquist if he had
taken photos. Seaquist responded in the affirmative.
Four days later, on September 2, Caldier posted on Facebook saying, “I came out of a
candidate interview and saw Rep. Larry Seaquest [sic], my opponent, taking pictures of me as I
got into my car. Wow. . . . I felt like I was being stalked!” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 708.
Individuals commented on Caldier’s post saying things like, “That’s kinda creepy,” “Wow,
gross,” “You might just be his midnight fantasy,” and “I am happy to be your bodyguard.” CP at
708-09. Caldier “liked” a number of the comments referring to Seaquist as weird, creepy, and
gross. CP at 508-12. Eventually Caldier removed the post.
On September 5, Caldier filed a police report with the Bremerton Police Department.
She spoke with Officer Robert Davis Jr. who filled out the demographic and narrative pages of a
police report. Caldier said that “on a couple of occasions” Seaquist took her photograph getting
2
No. 50816-8-II
out of a car or in public. CP at 84. Officer Davis wrote, “I advised Caldier that from what she
has told me Seaquist has not committed any crime.” CP at 84. The report also notes that Caldier
stated people had taken photos of her home and children and trespassed on her property. Caldier
further stated that she did not want Seaquist contacted.
A week later, on September 12, Steven Gardner of the Kitsap Sun wrote an article
discussing Caldier’s Facebook post and police report, and garnered comments from both
candidates about the incident. The article included Seaquist’s photo of Caldier and her car,
which Caldier acknowledges she saw when she read the article.
On October 8, the Caldier campaign released a video ad on YouTube and local television
mentioning the incident. A portion of the video included an actor saying, “Seaquist was caught
secretly photographing Michelle, invading her privacy.” Ex. B. When the actor said this, the
screen showed a doctored photograph making Seaquist appear to be hunched over taking a photo
with text underneath stating, “Larry Seaquist was caught secretly taking photos of Caldier.” CP
at 712 (capitalization omitted). The video also showed text saying, “Source: Police report filed
September 5, 2014.” Ex. 1 at Ex. B (capitalization omitted). Caldier approved the video.
On October 10, Caldier was interviewed on a radio show. The following exchange
occurred:
[Host]: Well, let me ask both of you, then—Melanie and Michelle [Caldier]—
you’re Republicans, right? And we’re told that Republicans have a war on
women. Why in the world did you choose the Republican Party? Why don’t you
each step in and let me know? Michelle, why don’t you go first?
[Caldier]: Well, it’s funny because I did not even know that there was a war on
women. In fact, I have had so much support from the party, and, you know, with
some of the experiences I’ve gone through. I’ve been actually harassed and had
people take pictures of me, had my opponent take pictures of me. I’d have to say
that the Democrats probably have more of a war of women, with my experience.
3
No. 50816-8-II
CP at 88-89.
Sometime near October 16, Caldier sent out a campaign mailer to voters in Kitsap and
Pierce counties. One side of the mailer contained the same doctored image of Seaquist as seen in
the campaign video. Seaquist was made to appear hunched over, with his coat collar up,
sneakily taking a photo with a camera phone while in a grassy area. In print, the mailer read,
“WHY WAS LARRY SEAQUIST TAKING PICTURES of Michelle Caldier?”1 CP at 93.
Underneath this, the mailer stated, “CALDIER FILES POLICE REPORT.” CP at 93.
On the other side of the mailer, a number of statements were under the heading,
“CALDIER FILES POLICE REPORT AGAINST SEAQUIST.” CP at 94. On the left side were
two separate statements, “Why Were Seaquist Campaign People Taking Pictures at Caldier
Home?” and, directly beneath, “Caldier Files Police Report Against Seaquist.” CP at 94. The
middle of the mailer had the heading, “Multiple Incidents Lead to Concern by Caldier.” CP at
94.
Under this, there was text on the left and an image of a demographic page of the police
report Caldier filed against Seaquist. The text stated:
It started with unwelcome strangers taking pictures of her home. Then the
mailbox was tampered with leading to the likelihood of trespassing—a Federal
offense. The final straw was an inappropriate intrusion by Larry Seaquist himself,
sneakily taking pictures of Michelle while she was getting in to her car.
1
At some time during 2014, Caldier’s neighbor alerted her that some of her mail was on the
ground instead of inside the mailbox as if a person had gone through it. Caldier also noticed
someone who said he was a real estate appraiser taking photographs of her recently purchased
house. Caldier’s sister, who served as her campaign manager, also noticed someone taking
photos of her own house.
4
No. 50816-8-II
Enough is enough! Michelle filed a police report seen here to communicate a
message to Larry Seaquist and his campaign staff that they had crossed the line.
Friendly campaigning had turned into what felt like stalking and harassment to
Ms. Caldier, so she took action.
CP at 94.
Under this block of text, there was a photo. The photo showed the hands of a person
taking a photo of Caldier in her car. The photographer was at the passenger side window taking
the photo of Caldier’s profile. Next to this photo and under the police report image was a photo
of Seaquist. Under Seaquist’s photo and in large lettering, the mailer stated, “Larry Seaquist
Should be Ashamed.” Under this, “You would expect a higher level of integrity from a man
with Larry Seaquist’s experience. Has the Seaquist team resorted to dirty tactics to win? It
appears so.” CP at 94. Finally, on the right side of the mailer, there was a picture of Caldier
with the accompanying text, “‘I don’t think a female candidate is supposed to feel like I have felt
in the privacy of my own home and car. This kind of behavior is concerning and possibly
illegal.’—Michelle Caldier.” CP at 94.
A website promoting Caldier’s campaign, Larryseaquistfacts.com, posted the same
graphics and statements as the mailer, except for Caldier’s picture and quote. The website
contained additional information recounting and criticizing Seaquist’s political stances. Caldier
acknowledged that this website promoted her campaign, but she denied running it or directing
the content of the site. Caldier’s campaign staff, however, acknowledged running the website as
part of the Caldier campaign.
5
No. 50816-8-II
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
After the Seaquists filed suit alleging defamation and false light. The lawsuit was
dismissed, but later reinstated.2
After the superior court vacated its prior dismissal and findings, Caldier moved for
summary judgment, which the superior court granted in part and denied in part. In its order, the
court examined each statement and denied summary judgment regarding the statements it found
to potentially support a defamation by implication claim. Because the court noted a split of
authorities as to whether defamation by implication was a viable theory in this State, it certified
the question to this court. However, the Seaquists renounced any defamation by implication
claim and, as a result, we denied discretionary review.3
The trial court, after requiring the Seaquists to expressly state they waived any
defamation by implication claims, granted Caldier’s motion for summary judgment dismissing
the case. The Seaquists appeal.
ANALYSIS
I. DEFAMATION AND FALSE LIGHT: LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Washington has adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E, recognizing invasion of
privacy by false light as an independent claim. Eastwood v. Cascade Broad. Co., 106 Wash. 2d
2
Caldier made a special motion to strike the complaint under the Washington act limiting
“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” (anti-SLAPP statute), RCW 4.24.525.
Following the trial court’s dismissal of the Seaquists’ claim under that statute and during the
pendency of an appeal, our Supreme Court found the anti-SLAPP statute unconstitutional. See
Davis v. Cox, 183 Wash. 2d 269, 351 P.3d 862 (2015). Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed
the Seaquists’ appeal, remanding the case to the superior court.
3
At oral argument, the Seaquists reaffirmed that they were not claiming defamation by
implication.
6
No. 50816-8-II
466, 471, 473-74, 722 P.2d 1295 (1986). Defamation and invasion of privacy by false light are
similar, yet distinct, causes of action. See Eastwood, 106 Wash. 2d at 470-471. Although both
actions rest on the disclosure of false or misleading information, they require different elements
and allow for recovery of different damages. Duc Tan v. Le, 177 Wash. 2d 649, 662, 300 P.3d 356
(2013); Eastwood, 106 Wash. 2d at 470-71.
A prima facie defamation claim requires a plaintiff to prove falsity, an unprivileged
communication, fault, and damages. Duc Tan, 177 Wash. 2d at 662. An invasion of privacy by
false light arises when a defendant publishes statements that place a plaintiff in a false light if (1)
the false light would be highly offensive and (2) the defendant knew of or recklessly disregarded
the falsity of the publication and the subsequent false light it would place the plaintiff in.
Eastwood, 106 Wash. 2d at 470-71.
“The theoretical difference between the two torts is that a defamation action is primarily
concerned with compensating the injured party for damage to reputation, while an invasion of
privacy action is primarily concerned with compensating for injured feelings or mental
suffering.” Eastwood, 106 Wash. 2d at 471. A plaintiff does not need to be defamed in order to
bring a false light claim, but any defamation action potentially gives rise to a false light claim.
Eastwood, 106 Wash. 2d at 471.
When the plaintiff is a public figure, both torts require proof of actual malice. Duc Tan,
177 Wash. 2d at 662; Hoppe v. Hearst Corp., 53 Wash. App. 668, 675-76, 770 P.2d 203 (1989).
Actual malice is a defendant’s knowledge of the statement’s falsity or reckless disregard of the
truth or falsity of the statement. Duc Tan, 177 Wash. 2d at 669; RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS
§ 652E (1997).
7
No. 50816-8-II
We review an order of summary judgment de novo, performing the same inquiry as the
trial court. Mohr v. Grant, 153 Wash. 2d 812, 821, 108 P.3d 768 (2005). Summary judgment is
proper and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the nonmoving party
shows no issue of material fact. Mohr, 153 Wash. 2d at 821; CR 56(c). In a defamation action,
summary judgment serves as an early test of the plaintiff’s evidence. Mark v. Seattle Times, 96
Wash. 2d 473, 486-87, 635 P.2d 1081 (1981). To defeat a defendant’s motion for summary
judgment on a defamation claim, the plaintiff “must establish a prima facie case by evidence of
convincing clarity.” Mark, 96 Wash. 2d at 487.
II. DEFAMATION
The Seaquists argue that they have shown a prima facie claim of defamation by Caldier’s
Facebook post, campaign video, statement during a radio broadcast, and statements within a
campaign mailer and similar website. We disagree.
A. Legal Principles
As stated above, a prima facie defamation claim requires a plaintiff to prove falsity, an
unprivileged communication, fault, and damages. Duc Tan, 177 Wash. 2d at 662. In proving
falsity for a defamation claim, a plaintiff must prove either a statement was false or a statement
left a false impression by omitted facts. Mohr, 153 Wash. 2d at 823. A provably false statement is
one that, as either a statement of fact or opinion, falsely expresses or implies provable facts about
the plaintiff. Schmalenberg v. Tacoma News, Inc., 87 Wash. App. 579, 590-91, 943 P.2d 350
(1997). When determining whether an article is defamatory, a court considers it as a whole and
construes it by its ordinary meaning to a person reading it. See Mark, 96 Wash. 2d at 496; Carey v.
Hearst Publ’ns, Inc., 19 Wash. 2d 655, 659, 143 P.2d 857 (1943).
8
No. 50816-8-II
The First Amendment protects an individual’s right to express an opinion, or “fairly
comment,” on a matter of public interest. Dunlap v. Wayne, 105 Wash. 2d 529, 537, 716 P.2d 842
(1986). Specifically, the First Amendment applies to the fullest extent during a political
campaign. Rickert v. Pub. Disclosure Comm’n, 161 Wash. 2d 843, 848, 168 P.3d 826 (2007).
An alleged defamatory statement must be a stated fact, not a stated opinion. Dunlap, 105
Wash. 2d at 537. However, a stated opinion may be actionable if it implies defamatory facts.
Dunlap, 105 Wash. 2d at 538. The distinction between a fact and an opinion implying defamatory
facts requires a court to consider the totality of the circumstances. Dunlap, 105 Wash. 2d at 539.
To determine whether an opinion implies undisclosed defamatory facts, courts consider “(1) the
medium and context in which the statement was published, (2) the audience to whom it was
published, and (3) whether the statement implies undisclosed facts.” Dunlap, 105 Wash. 2d at 539.
Statements are more likely to be opinion when in the context of a political debate. Dunlap, 105
Wash. 2d at 539. Further, in the context of ongoing public debate, audiences are prepared for
mischaracterizations, rhetoric, and exaggerations, and are “likely to view such representations
with an awareness of the subjective biases of the speaker.” Dunlap, 105 Wash. 2d at 539.
In proving falsity, a plaintiff must show either a false statement or a statement that leaves
a false impression. Mohr, 153 Wash. 2d at 823. A provably false statement is one that, as either a
statement of fact or opinion, falsely expresses or implies provable facts about the plaintiff.
Schmalenberg, 87 Wash. App. at 590-91. A defendant is not required to prove the literal truth of
every claimed defamatory statement. Mohr, 153 Wash. 2d at 825. The gist of the story or the
portion carrying the “sting” must be substantially true. Mohr, 153 Wash. 2d at 825. When a
defendant makes a mixture of true and false statements, “a false statement (or statements) affects
9
No. 50816-8-II
the ‘sting’ of a report only when ‘significantly greater opprobrium’ results from the report
containing the falsehood than would result from the report without the falsehood.” Mohr, 153
Wash. 2d at 826.
B. Alleged Defamatory Statements by Caldier
The Seaquists argue that Caldier’s statements were false or based on false facts and, thus,
sufficient to overcome an order granting summary judgment in Caldier’s favor. Because
Caldier’s statements are either true, nonactionable opinions, or statements about others, we hold
that the trial court did not err in granting Caldier’s motion for summary judgment regarding the
defamation claim.
Considering the Dunlap factors, the audiences here, whether online, over the radio,
through television, or in receipt of campaign mailers, would fully expect political campaign
materials to be saturated with mischaracterizations, rhetoric, and exaggeration. All the alleged
defamation was through campaign communications or a campaign interview. The First
Amendment plays an extremely important role in political speech during campaigns. See
Rickert, 161 Wash. 2d at 848. Political mudslinging is expected by audiences during contentious
elections. The race between Caldier and Seaquist for the 26th District State Representative
position was no exception. It is through a political campaign lens that we consider Caldier’s
statements.
1. Facebook Post
Caldier’s Facebook post stated, “I came out of a candidate interview and saw Rep. Larry
Seaquest [sic], my opponent, taking pictures of me as I got into my car. Wow. . . . I felt like I
was being stalked!” CP at 708.
10
No. 50816-8-II
Here, the Seaquists did not present evidence that this statement was substantially false.
Seaquist admits to taking pictures of Caldier after she got into her car and before driving away.
Although it appears that Caldier was seated in her car when the photo was taken, the gist of the
statement is true. Caldier’s accompanying opinion about feeling “stalked” cannot be defamatory
because there are no provable facts to the contrary. Caldier feeling “stalked” is her opinion
based on her perception of the incident. Accordingly, the Seaquists’ defamation claim as to the
Facebook post was properly dismissed by the trial court.
2. Campaign Video
Caldier’s campaign published an attack video capitalizing on Seaquist taking the photos.
A portion of the video included an actor saying, “Seaquist was caught secretly photographing
Michelle, invading her privacy.” Ex. B. When she said this, on screen, there was a doctored
graphic showing Seaquist hunched over taking a photo and text underneath stating, “Larry
Seaquist was caught secretly taking photos of Caldier.” Ex. B. The video also reads, “Source:
Police report filed September 5, 2014.” Ex. B.
Again, Seaquist did take pictures of Caldier without her permission. If Caldier had not
noticed Seaquist taking the photos, seemingly no one else would have known. While Seaquist
says he was not being secretive, it is not provably false to describe his actions as secretive. The
phrase, “invading her privacy,” is an opinion and is not provably false either. While the
Seaquists point out that it is not illegal to take photos of someone on the street and that a person
has no legal expectation of privacy when moving about in public, a person’s feeling of privacy is
not provably false. Caldier’s opinions and feelings about her personal privacy cannot be the
basis of a defamation claim.
11
No. 50816-8-II
Further, although the photoshopped image of Seaquist taking a photo is deceiving, the
gist is true. Similarly, Caldier did indeed file a police report on September 5, 2014, alleging that
Seaquist had taken pictures of her. Accordingly, the campaign attack video cannot be the basis
of a defamation claim.
3. Radio Show Statement
On the radio show, Caldier stated, “I have had so much support from the [Republican]
party, and, you know, with some of the experiences I’ve gone through. I’ve been actually
harassed and had people take pictures of me, had my opponent take pictures of me. I’d have to
say that the Democrats probably have more of a war on women, with my experience.” CP at 89.
Here, the only statement Caldier makes referencing Seaquist is that he took pictures of
her. This statement is true. Accordingly, Caldier’s statements on the radio show cannot be the
basis of a defamation claim.
4. Campaign Mailer and Website
Caldier’s campaign mailer contained a number of statements attacking Seaquist. Many
of these statements were repeated on the website, Larryseaquistfacts.com.
a. True Statements
The mailer contained three true statements: (1) “WHY WAS LARRY SEAQUIST
TAKING PICTURES of Michelle Caldier?” (2) “CALDIER FILES POLICE REPORT,” and (3)
“CALDIER FILES POLICE REPORT AGAINST SEAQUIST.” CP at 93-94. Seaquist did take
pictures of Caldier, and Caldier did indeed file a police report after the incident. Although
Seaquist disagrees with the content of the police report itself, Caldier’s broad statement about
12
No. 50816-8-II
filing a report is factually correct. Caldier simply states true facts; Seaquist took pictures of
Caldier and she filed a police report.
b. Opinions
The mailer contained multiple opinions. The mailer stated, “Larry Seaquist should be
ashamed. You would expect a higher level of integrity from a man with Larry Seaquist’s
experience. Has the Seaquist team resorted to dirty tactics to win? It appears so.” CP at 94. It
also read, “‘I don’t think a female candidate is supposed to feel like I have felt in the privacy of
my own home and car. This kind of behavior is concerning and possibly illegal.’—Michelle
Caldier.” CP at 94. These statements are nonactionable opinions and do not imply undisclosed
defamatory facts.
c. Statements About Others, Not Seaquist
The mailer asked, “Why were Seaquist campaign people taking pictures at Caldier
home?” CP at 94. Although posed as a question, this statement implies that Seaquist’s
“campaign people” took pictures of Caldier’s home. The group of “campaign people” is so
broad as to leave a person unsure of who Caldier is referring to. She does not attribute actions
directly to Seaquist, his campaign staff, or anyone directly under Seaquist’s direction. This
question is not defamatory to Seaquist, it asks a question about other people, not him.
d. Mixed Statements
The body of the mailer had the heading: “Multiple Incidents Lead to Concern by
Caldier.” CP at 94. This was followed by two paragraphs:
It started with unwelcome strangers taking pictures of her home. Then the
mailbox was tampered with leading to the likelihood of trespassing—a Federal
offense. The final straw was an inappropriate intrusion by Larry Seaquist himself,
sneakily taking pictures of Michelle while she was getting in to her car.
13
No. 50816-8-II
Enough is enough! Michelle filed a police report seen here to communicate a
message to Larry Seaquist and his campaign staff that they had crossed the line.
Friendly campaigning had turned into what felt like stalking and harassment to
Ms. Caldier, so she took action.
CP at 94.
This portion of the mailer described what gave Caldier concern. This concern is an
expressed opinion. Caldier stated that strangers took pictures of her home and that her mailbox
was tampered with. However, she did not directly attribute either of these to Seaquist. Caldier
again states that Seaquist took her picture, which is true. Explaining why Caldier filed a police
report and expressing a feeling of stalking and harassment are opinions. Although the placement
of certain statements in proximity to others suggested connections and correlations between
them, the mailer did not expressly note anything beyond true facts, opinions, or actions not
attributed to Seaquist himself.
e. Doctored Image and Photo
The Seaquists take issue with two images on the mailer. The first was the same doctored
image of Seaquist holding a phone that was included in the campaign video. As we discussed
above, the gist of this image is true. The second photo was a person’s hands taking a photo of
Caldier in her car. The photographer was at the passenger side window taking the photo of
Caldier’s profile. The broad gist of what the photo is attempting to recreate is true. Although the
position of the photographer may be misleading, Seaquist did take a photo of Caldier in her car.
f. Campaign Mailer as a Whole
We next view Caldier’s campaign mailer as a whole to construe it by its ordinary
meaning to a person reading it. See Mark, 96 Wash. 2d at 496. Although the mailer is
14
No. 50816-8-II
unquestionably misleading and ignoble, we hold that it is not provably false. The statements are
either true, directed at people other than Seaquist personally, or opinion. The statements may
carry negative and false implications, but because the Seaquists contend falsity in the statements
themselves and not defamation by implication, they may overcome summary judgment only by
proving falsity by convincing clarity. See Mohr, 153 Wash. 2d at 823.
5. Larryseaquistfacts.com Website
The Seaquists also assert, based on the previously discussed statements and photographs
that Larryseaquistfacts.com is defamatory. For the reasons discussed above, even assuming the
website is attributable to Caldier, the statements on the website are not defamatory. The
statements are either true, opinion, or statements about others.
C. The Seaquists Failed To Establish a Prima Facie Case
Accordingly, the Seaquists have failed to prove the falsity requirement of defamation
with convincing clarity because all of Caldier’s statements were either true, opinion, or
statements concerning actions not attributable to Seaquist. As a result, the trial court did not err
in granting Caldier’s motion for a final judgment dismissing the defamation claim.
III. FALSE LIGHT
The Seaquists argue that a final judgment should not have been entered regarding their
false light claim. We disagree.
A. Legal Principles
A false light claim arises when a person publishes statements that place another in a false
light if (1) the false light would be highly offensive and (2) the publisher knew of or recklessly
disregarded the falsity of the publication and the subsequent false light it would place the other
15
No. 50816-8-II
in. Eastwood, 106 Wash. 2d at 470–471; RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652E (1977). A
plaintiff does not need to be defamed in order to bring a false light claim. Eastwood, 106 Wash. 2d
at 471. However, the plaintiff must allege falsity.4 Emeson v. Dep’t of Corr., 194 Wash. App.
617, 640, 376 P.3d 430 (2016). When a public figure plaintiff alleges false light, he must also
prove the defendant acted with actual malice. Hoppe, 53 Wash. App. at 675-76.
Unlike defamation, our case law does not explicitly require a plaintiff to show a prima
facie false light claim to overcome a defendant’s motion for summary judgment. However, other
jurisdictions require such prima facie showings. See S.B. v. Saint James Sch., 959 So. 2d 72, 93
(Ala. 2006); Kitt v. Capital Concerts, Inc., 742 A.2d 856, 859 (D.C. App. 1999). Requiring a
prima facie showing of a false light claim weighs First Amendment considerations alongside the
personal interests intended to be protected by invasion of privacy torts. Our Supreme Court in
Eastwood held that false light is subject to the defamation statute of limitations period because of
the parallels between the two torts. Eastwood, 106 Wash. 2d at 469. Similarly, we implement a
requirement that a plaintiff must present a prima facie case of false light to overcome a motion
for summary judgment.
B. Alleged False Light of Seaquist
Here, for the same reasons the Seaquists were unable to show falsity for defamation, they
fail to show falsity for a false light claim. The Seaquists allege only that Caldier made false
statements. We emphasize again that the Seaquists do not allege that the implications of her
statements are false. Because no statement is provably false, the Seaquists do not present a
4
Because the Seaquists argue falsity only by false statements, we do not discuss whether falsity
by implication can support a false light claim. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652E
cmt. b; Mohr, 153 Wash. 2d at 825.
16
No. 50816-8-II
prima facie case of false light. Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it granted summary
judgment in favor of Caldier on the false light claim.
CONCLUSION
The Seaquists were required to establish a prima facie case for their defamation and false
light claims. Because they failed to establish a prima facie case for either a defamation or a false
light claim, we affirm the trial court’s summary judgment dismissal of both claims.
Worswick, J.
We concur:
Maxa, C.J.
Melnick, J.
17