THE LITIGATION OPTION PRESENTATION TO FIL-AM LEADERS’ SUMMIT IN VEGAS
By:
Roman P. Mosqueda, Esq.
On November 10, 2007, upon invitation of the UST Medical Alumni Association of America (USTMAAA), through its Executive Director, Dr. Stella Evangelista, of Bloomfield, Michigan, this Author made a PowerPoint presentation on the “Pros & Cons of the Litigation Solution Or Option” to ninety-eight (98) delegates to the “Summit Meeting of Fil-Am Leaders” from all over the United States at the Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas.
The summit meeting was called to discuss and arrive at strategies to condemn and protest the racial slur on Philippine med school-educated physicians in the season’s premiere of Desperate Housewives on September 30, 2007, and pressure ABC-Disney to rectify the group defamation.
Presided by Dr. Primo A. Andres, a cardiologist from Terre Haute, Indiana, and President of USTMAA Foundation, the summit meeting started just after 1:00 p.m. with the U.S. and Philippine National Anthems, followed by the group singing of “Ako Ay Pilipino,” led by this Author, and adjourned at about 8:00 p.m. with the meeting of the newly-formed Filipino-American Leadership Council (FALC).
Ted Laguatan, Esq., from San Francisco, also presented the “Pros & Cons of Litigation” on his demand for correction sent to ABC on behalf of Philippine physicians in Northern California. And Melvin N.A. Avanzado, Esq., of the Los Angeles law firm of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, LLP, presented “The Entertainment Industry Perspective.”
Position Statements Of Medical
Associations And Community Groups:
After the singing of the two (2) National Anthems led by Dr. Fred Quevedo and of “Ako Ay Pilipino” led by this Author, position statements of at least sixteen (16) medical associations and community groups from all over the United States were delivered by designated leaders.
The following organizations presented position statements: NaFFAA (by Vice-Chair Rozita Lee), NAFCON (by Legal Counsel Arnedo Valera, Esq.), FUN (by Chairperson Philip Chua, M.D.), FADC (by Board Member Felix Antero), APPA (by Presidential Adviser Fred Quevedo, M.D.), SPSA (by Acting President Rey Lee Llacer, M.D.), USTMAAA (by President Dante Gapultos, M.D.), FEU-DNRSMAF (by Chairman Amante Legaspi, M.D.), FEU Class 64 & FEU-DNRSMAF (by Chairman Emeritus Daniel Fabito, M.D.), UPMASA (by Nevada Chapter President Romualdo Aragon, Jr., M.D.), UERMMC (by President-Elect Ed Banez, M.D.), LAS VEGAS, NEVADA PHYSICIANS (by Rena Nora, M.D.), PEACE (by Executive Director Nelson Bocar, M.D.), and GREENLINING INSTITUTE (by Founder Robert “Bob” Gnaizda, Esq.), Connecticut Association of Practising Physicians (CAPP) (by Aleflor Ragaza, M.D.) and North Central Virginia Association of Philippine Physicians (NCVAPP) (by President-Elect Sarie G. Laserna, M.D., F.A.C.O.G.).
Pressure Strategies Against
DISNEY/ABC:
San Francisco attorney and Philippine News columnist Rodel Rodis delivered a PowerPoint presentation on “Boycott Strategies & Alternative Measures To Pressure Disney/ABC,” on behalf of the Filipino Anti-Defamation Coalition based in San Francisco.
The delegates approved a motion to stage a national boycott of Disney Stores at the plenary session that followed the various presentations. Indeed, the National Alliance for Filipino Concerns (NAFCON) in its October 09, 2007 Statement had called for boycott of ABC-DISNEY, unless a real apology is issued.
NAFCON’s legal counsel and Executive Director of Migrant Heritage Commission Arnedo Valera, Esq., next presented the “Legal Resources or Alternative Lawyering Approach.”
This Author’s Presentation On
Litigation Solution Or Option:
To sue or not to sue is the question. This Author presented the legal issues on : (1) group defamation as decided by the California Supreme Court in Blatty v. New York Times Co. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 1033, 232 Cal. Rptr. 542, and Restatement, Torts 2nd Edition, 564A; (2) statements of opinion and rhetorical hyperbole as decided by the California Court of Appeal in Weller v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (1991) 232 Cal. App. 3d 991, and the United States Supreme Court in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990) 497 U.S. 1, 12-21; (3) SLAPP suits and anti-SLAPP statutes (Sections 425.16, 425.17, and 425.18 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; and (4) group defamation class action as governed by Section 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and Rules 1850-1861 of the California Rules of Court.
This Author also discussed and analyzed the viability of suing for group defamation by a smaller subset (25 or less) of white Caucasian, Philippine med school graduates practicing in OB-GYN, of the large group of about 22,000 Philippine-educated physicians in the United States.
This seems to be the right approach from this Author’s consultation with Prof. Michael J. Polelle of The John Marshall Law School in Chicago, who has written and litigated on group defamation. He was co-counsel of the American Italian Defense Association (AIDA), which sued Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., (2001, No. 01CH05819, Cir. Ct. Cook County, Ill.) because of the latter’s distribution of “The Sopranos” through HBO.
AIDA claimed that “The Sopranos” depicted the depraved character of the Mafia underworld as the dominant motif of Italian-American culture.
Lastly, this Author gave the legal opinion that a group defamation suit may not be certified as class action because of the requirement of California case law that the class must be “numerous,” although no minimum or maximum number of members is required, in relation to federal case law that requires the class to exceed forty (40) in potential membership.
But according to the Restatement, Torts 2nd Edition and Blatty, supra, a group defamation suit involving a class of more than twenty-five (25) members would not be actionable. Therefore, a group defamation suit involving 25 or less members to be actionable would not be certified as class action.
Vegas Decision On Whether
To Litigate Or Not:
At the plenary session, the delegates to the Summit Meeting of Fil-Am Leaders 2007 decided to table the motion on the litigation strategy, but keep it open as an option to add pressure on ABC-Disney. Section 340 of the California Code of Civil Procedure provides for one (1) year to file suit from September 30, 2007.
The delegates further approved a motion proposed by Robert Gnaizda of Greenlining Institute for the newly formed Council to send letters condemning the racial insult to the CEOs of all the television sponsors of Desperate Housewives and to arrange personal meetings with them to discuss solutions that will remedy the impact of and the prevention of future group defamation, among other concerns.
“What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.” Not this time.
*******
(The Author, Roman P. Mosqueda, demanded correction or retraction of the group defamation from ABC on behalf of 73 practicing physicians in Southern California who graduated from some med schools in the Philippines. To know more about the Author, please visit his website at www.mosquedalaw.com. And for any comments on this article, please e-mail at rpm_law@yahoo.com or call at Telephone No. (213) 252-9481.)