UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PLANET AID, INC., A Massachusetts No. 21-15690 Corporation which has its principal place of business in Howard County, D.C. No. Maryland; LISBETH THOMSEN, An 3:17-cv-03695- alien and permanent resident of MMC Chilangoma, Malawi, Plaintiffs-Appellants, OPINION v. REVEAL; CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING; MATT SMITH; AMY WALTERS, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 14, 2022 San Francisco, California

Filed August 11, 2022

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Ronald M. Gould, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge S.R. Thomas 2 PLANET AID V. REVEAL

SUMMARY*

California’s Anti-SLAPP Statute

The panel affirmed the district court’s order granting the Reporters with the Center for Investigative Reporting (“CIR”)’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike a complaint alleging defamation under California law.

Matt Smith and Amy Waters were reporters with CIR (“Reporters”) and they published stories alleging misuse of funds by two charitable organizations, Planet Aid, Inc., and Development Aid from People to People Malawi (“DAPP Malawi”). In response, Planet Aid and the director of DAPP Malawi, Lisbeth Thomsen, filed a defamation suit.

In a number of decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court established that public officials and public figures claiming defamation must prove that an allegedly defamatory statement was made with “actual malice.” The Supreme Court identified two types of public figures: all purpose public figures and limited-purpose public figures. All- purpose public figures must prove actual malice for virtually any subject of defamation, while limited-purpose public figures, who have assumed prominence on a limited range of issues, need only prove actual malice for speech touching upon those issues. In Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 715 F.3d 242 (9th Cir. 2013), this court articulated a three-prong test to determine whether an individual or entity is a limited-purpose figure.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. PLANET AID V. REVEAL 3

The panel held that the district court correctly found that Planet Aid and Thomsen were limited-purpose public figures and that the Reporters did not act with “actual malice” within the meaning of New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). The panel agreed with the district court’s determination in applying the Makaeff test that: (i) there was an existing public controversy with respect to Planet Aid and Lisbeth Thomsen’s use of charitable funds; (ii) the Reporters’ alleged defamation was relevant to this preexisting controversy; and (iii) the voluntariness requirement—which examines whether the plaintiff voluntarily injected itself into the controversy for the purpose of influencing the controversy’s ultimate resolution—was satisfied. The panel further agreed with the district court, for the reasons stated by the district court in its order, that a reasonable factfinder could not find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Reporters acted with actual malice. The panel therefore affirmed the district court’s grant of the Reporters’ motion to strike the complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

COUNSEL Samuel Rosenthal (argued), Nelson Mullins LLP, Washington, D.C.; James M. Wagstaffe and Michael von Loewenfeldt, Wagstaffe von Loewenfeldt Busch & Radwick LLP, San Francisco, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Tho