After reviewing the case’s information, a Torrance Superior Court judge last Friday dismissed a $1 million defamation of character and conspiracy to commit libel lawsuit against Hermosa Beach residents Roger Creighton and Fred Huebscher filed by Hermosa Beach City Councilman Sam Edgerton.

Edgerton brought the lawsuit following the Hermosa Beach City Council race in November in which Edgerton won an open seat, beating out third-place candidate Howard Fishman by only 11 votes. Edgerton attributed the close race and loss of about 250 votes in the Nov. 4 election to a series of campaign mailers sent out to homes over Halloween weekend that Edgerton contended contained misleading and libelous statements.

In November, political campaign consultant and former council candidate Fred Huebscher claimed he partially funded and designed two of the three mailers, which circulated around town. Edgerton, who is a lawyer and co-owns a firm based in Hermosa Beach, believes three 8-inch by 11-inch glossy color mailers may have been sent out to between 3,000 to 9,000 households. The campaign committee calling itself Citizens for a Better Hermosa Beach admits to sending out two of the mailers. Edgerton filed suit in early December.

“The judge’s ruling was that I won the election, and so I had no right to complain and that was it. We were just dumbfounded by it,” said Edgerton. “There’s a wide berth you give to people who say things about public officials. It’s pretty well-known in the law, but this one takes the cake because it isn’t a wide berth and if it is, then its berth is wider than the Queen Mary. We’ll appeal it and so the court will review the standard if I have to show that to bring an action I would have had to lost the election which I contend I didn’t have to do. I also have to show that these statements taken as a whole have no basis in truth and clearly they were made with conscious disregard of such because you can see the sources used are as bogus as the statements themselves.”

Lawyers for both Creighton and Huebscher filed an anti-SLAPP motion in recent weeks which is a countermotion that claims their role in the alleged matter arises from conduct that falls within their First Amendment right of free speech. Judge Jean Matusinka agreed with both Creighton and Huebscher, and also ordered Edgerton to pay both Creighton and Huebscher’s legal fees, which are $14,458 and $30,000, respectively.

“I was confident that I would prevail since Edgerton’s suit was without merit,” said Huebscher. “Edgerton’s only interest was to stifle my First Amendment right to speak out about him and his record as a council member.”

In late January, lawyers representing former Mayor Creighton filed what is known as an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) motion against Edgerton, which seeks to strike the lawsuit against Creighton altogether and collect legal fees from Edgerton as reimbursement for costs incurred in Creighton’s defense.

“Nothing has really been resolved because Sam is appealing and until then there’s nothing resolved. I’m happy that it’s Sam appealing and not Fred. I, however, was kicked out of a lawsuit separately of Fred because I’m merely a contributor and the court found that I am merely a contributor. I had nothing to do with the preparation or distribution of the ads objected to in the lawsuit,” said Creighton.

California’s anti-SLAPP statute, enacted in 1992, allows for individuals to submit a special motion to strike a complaint where the complaint is based on actions that constitute one’s free speech rights.

Both the state’s and country’s constitutions grant every individual the right to participate in civic affairs and speak freely on government issues.

According to www.firstamendment.org, “Generally, a ‘SLAPP’ is a (1) civil complaint or counterclaim; (2) filed against individuals or organizations; (3) arising from their communications to government; or (4) speech on an issue of public interest or concern. SLAPPs are often brought by corporations, real estate developers, government officials and others against individuals and community groups who oppose them on issues of public concern.”

According to campaign statements, Huebscher is the treasurer of the committee and contends to be its only member. Creighton contributed $1,000 to the committee while Huebscher took out a loan of $5,000 that he contributed to the committee.

According to Creighton’s lawyers, William Slaughter and Jeffrey Halfen, Edgerton alleges that Creighton is a member of Citizens for a Better Hermosa Beach and alleges that Creighton knowingly published false information regarding Edgerton’s political position and campaign filings. However, Creighton’s lawyers contend Creighton is a private citizen who is not a member of Citizens for a Better Hermosa Beach and that he only contributed to the committee. Furthermore, he did not author the mailers and he also had no editorial control over the content of the two mailers.

“(The) plaintiff’s entire complaint alleges Creighton engaged in protected free speech related to an election and plaintiff’s qualifications, or lack thereof, for political office,” states Halfen in his motion. “In reality, Creighton’s conduct was limited to a political donation.”

According to one of the mailers, “Edgerton opposed placing a ballot measure before the voters to make the Pier Avenue plaza bars pay their fair share of police protection.” The mailer attributes this statement to City Council minutes dated July 22, 2003.

During its July 22 meeting, the City Council rejected the proposal to place an initiative on this year’s November ballot to increase the city’s business license tax as a way of generating more revenues to balance its future budgets. The city proposed raising taxes as a way to generate revenues to balance its budget that could experience a shortfall exceeding $1 million.

One of the most significant rate increases associated with the measure would have been to change the fixed rate for restaurants and bars to a rate proportional to individual gross receipts. Edgerton said he voted against it because he felt raising taxes was not a solution to balancing the city’s budget.

The mailer also states, “Edgerton refuses to disclose on his financial disclosure forms (required by law) whether any Hermosa Beach bars and restaurants are clients of his law firm.”

According to Edgerton, his firm, which represents securities broker dealers and stockbrokers, does not represent any restaurants or any business in Hermosa Beach.

“I did not refuse to answer any question of any form as to whether I have restaurants or bar clients in town. There was no such question asked,” said Edgerton. “The answer is that I have no clients in Hermosa Beach of any kind. Although I like restaurants just fine, it is not part of my business clientele.”

According to Slaughter and Halfen, since Edgerton is a public figure, he must present convincing evidence that the alleged defamatory statements were made with actual malice.

“To prove actual malice, a public figure must prove that the statements were made with knowledge that they were false, or with reckless disregard for truth, meaning high degree of awareness of probable falsity,” states Halfen. “As such, in the course of political campaigns, candidates have been called ‘thieves,’ ‘liars’ and ‘blackmailers.’ Similarly, a campaign mailer charging a candidate with ‘ripping off the taxpayer’ is not actionable; accusing a councilman of entering into a corrupt relationship with a third party was not actionable; accusing a candidate of having thousands of dollars of unpaid fines and citations is not actionable; and accusing a union official of misuse of union funds, disloyalty, theft, insubordination and excessive absences during an election campaign was not actionable.”

In his opposing argument against Creighton’s anti-SLAPP motion, Edgerton and his lawyers, Justin Houterman and Jonathan Wieman, state that Creighton alleges he is not a part of the conspiracy to defame Edgerton. One of the examples in which Creighton played a bigger role than just a contributor is evidence that he personally filed paperwork for the committee, according to City Clerk Elaine Doerfling who received the filings.

“Unfortunately, Creighton is misrepresenting himself to this Court,” states the brief. “Creighton filed, in person, necessary Citizens for a Better Hermosa Beach political committee filings with the Hermosa Beach city clerk.”

Edgerton has 60 days to appeal the ruling.