VERIFICATION
I. ______________ [name], am the plaintiff in the above‑entitled action. I have
read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters that are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters. I believe it to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
[date].
_ [signature]
[signature ]
COMMENTS
Use of Form
This complaint is for use by a private individual to obtain damages from another private individual for a libelous publication. For a form of complaint for use by a
73 LIBEL AND SLANDER Form 3
613]. The requirement that the plaintiff exercise reasonable diligence permits tolling of the statute of limitations only until the plaintiff knows, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the defendant's identity. Lack of knowledge alone is not sufficient to stay the statute; a plaintiff may not disregard reasonably available avenues of inquiry that, if vigorously pursued, might yield the desired information [Bernson v. Browning‑Ferris Industries (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 926, 936, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 440, 873 P.2d 613]. One factor that must be considered pertinent to the diligence inquiry is whether a timely Doe complaint [see Code Civ. Proc. § 474] would, as a practical matter, have facilitated the discovery of the defendant's identity within the three‑year period for service of process under Code Civ. Proc. § 583.210 [Bernson v. Browning‑Ferris Industries (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 926, 936‑937, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 440, 873 P.2d 613]. If the identity of at least one defendant is known, the plaintiff must avail himself or herself of the opportunity to file a timely complaint naming Doe defendants and take discovery [Bernson v. Browning‑Ferris Industries (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 926, 937, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 440, 873 P.2d 613]. However, if the facts are such that even discovery cannot pierce a defendant's intentional efforts to conceal his or her identity, the plaintiff will not be penalized [Bernson v. Browning‑Ferris Industries (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 926, 937, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 440, 873 P.2d 6131.
REFERENCES
Decisions
Equitable estoppel as available to preclude defendant from asserting statute of limitations if defendant intentionally concealed identity from plaintiff, who exercised reasonable diligence to determine defendant's identity. Bernson v. Browning‑Ferris Industries (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 926, 928, 936, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 440, 873 P.2d 613
FORM N0. 3
Allegation‑Libel on Its Face Based on Imputation of Crime
This [describe type of material ] is libelous on its face
because it charges plaintiff with committing the crime of
[specify crime ].
COMMENTS
Use of Form
The foregoing allegation may be used in place of Paragraph VIII of Form 1 in which the defendant has published material that charges plaintiff with commission of a crime.
(Matthew Bender & Co., Inc.) (Re1.104‑9/94Pub.181)
Form 4 LIBEL AND SLANDER 74
REFERENCES
Decisions
Imputing crime to a person as libel per se. Boyich v. Howell (1963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 801, 802‑803, 34 Cal. Rptr. 794 (stuffing ballot box in union election); Draper v. Hellman Com. T. & S. Bank (1928) 203 Cal. 26, 34, 263 P. 240 (fraudulent appropriation of funds); Morris v. National Federation of the Blind (1961) 192 Cal. App. 2d 162, 164, 13 Cal. Rptr. 336 (calling person "racketeer")
Text References
Witkin, Summary of California Law, vol. 5, Torts, § 482 (9th ed. 1988)
FORM NO. 4
Allegation‑Libel on Its Face Based on Injury to Occupation
This [describe type of material] has a tendency to injure the plaintiff in his/her occupation because it
[specify facts that support allegation j.
COMMENTS
Use of Form
The foregoing allegation may be used in place of Paragraph VIII of Form 1 in which the defendant has published material that tends to injure the plaintiff in his or her occupation.
(Text continued on page 75)
(Matthew Bender & Co., Inc.) (Re1.104‑9/94Pub.l81)
‑75 LIBEL AND SLANDER
REFERENCES
Decisions
Generally
Publication as libelous per se where allegation is inconsistent. with due fulfillment of what person has undertaken. Maidman vJewish Publications, Inc. (1960) 54 Cal2d 643, 650, 7 Cal Rptr 617, 355 P2d 265
Publication as capable of being libelous per se regardless of whether it reflects on office held for profit. or not. Correia v Santos (1961) 191 Cal App2d 844, 855,13 Cal R.Dt.r 132
Specific Occupations
Foreign diplomat. Pridonoff v Balokovich (1951) 36 Cal2d 788, 790, 228 P2d 6
Attorney. Maidman v Jewish Publications. Inc. (1960) 54 Cal2d 643, 651, 7 Cal Rptr 355 P2d 265
Agent in fiduciary relation to principal. Bates v Campbell (1931) 213 Cal 438, 445, 2 P2d 383
Union relationships with business community. Daniels v Sanitarium Ass'n, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal2d 602, 603, 30 Cal Rptr 828, 381 P2d 652
Engineer. Rodriguez v North American Aviation, Inc. (1967) 252 Cal App2d 889, 894, 61 Cal Rptr 579
Businessman. Cameron v Wernick (1967) 251 Cal App2d 890, 894895, 60 Cal Rptr 102
Administrator of estate. Fairfield v Hagan (1967) 248 Cal App2d 194, 201, 56 Cal Rptr 402
Street pavers. Williams v Daily Review, Inc. (1965) 236 Cal App2d 405, 411, 46 Cal Rptr 135
Teacher and writer. Menefee v Codman (1957) 15,5 Cal App2d 396, 402, 317 P2d 1032, overruled on another ground in Macl.eod v Tribune Pub. Co. (1959) 52 Cal2d 536, 551, 343 P2d 36.
Baseball player. Cepeda v Cowles Magazines and Broadeasting, Inc. (9th Cir Cal 1964) 328 nd 869, 870‑871 cert. denied 379115 844, 85 8 Ct 51, 13 L ed2d 50
Teat References
Witkin, Summary of California Law, (8th ed), Vol. 4, Torts, § 282
6 Cal. Jur. 3d, Assault and Other Wilful Torte, §§ 158‑163
30 Cal. Jur. 2d, Libel and Slander, §§ 105‑107
(Rcl No, 1N‑Nil(,( (('al Fm, PdcD
Form 5 LIBEL AND SLANDER 7s
53 CJ.S., Libel and Slander, §§ 32‑52
50 Am. Jur. 2d, Libel and Slander, §§ 102‑124
FORM NO. 5
Allegation‑Libel on Its Face Based on Imputation of Immoral Conduct
This [describe type of material ] is libelous on
its face because it charges plaintiff with improper and immoral conduct.
COMMENTS
Use of Form
The foregoing allegation may be used in place of Paragraph VIII of Form 1 where the defendant has published material which charges plaintiff with improper and immoral conduct.
REFERENCES
Decisions
Publication as libelous per se where plaintiff understood to be guilty of improper and immoral conduct. Ervin v Record Pub. Co. (1908) 154 Cal 79, 82, 97 P 21
Text References
53 CJ.S., Libel and Slander, §§ 29, 30
FORM NO. 8
Allegation‑Libel on Its Face Based on Imputation of Dishonesty
This [describe type of material] is libelous on its face because it charges plaintiff with dishonesty.
COMMENT
Use of Form
The foregoing allegation may be used in place of Paragraph VIII of Form 1 where the defendant has published material which charges plaintiff with dishonesty.
77 LIBEL AND SLANDER Form 7
REFERENCES
Decisions
Publication as libelous per se where person falsely accused of being hypocrite. Newby v Times‑Mirror Co. (1916) 173 Cal 387, 394, 160 P 233
Publication as libelous per se where members of city council imputed to be dishonest and corrupt. Kramer v Ferguson (1964) 230 Cal App2d 237, 242, 41 Cal Rptr 61
Publication as libelous per se where person falsely accused of being untruthful. Aaelbank v Rony (9th Cir Cal 1960) 277 F2d 314, 318
Text References
53 CJ.S., Libel and Slander, § 18
50 Am. Jur. 2d, Libel and Slander, § 74
FORM NO. 7
Allegation‑Libel on Its Face Based on Imputation of Communism
COMMENTS
Use of Form
The foregoing allegation may be used in place of Paragraph VIII of Form 1 where the defendant has published material which charges plaintiff with being either a communist or a communist sympathizer.
REFERENCES
Decisions
Publication as libelous per se that labels plaintiff as communist or as communist sympathizer. MacLeod v Tribune Pub. Co. (1959) 52 Cal2d 536, 551, 343 P2d 36; Farr v Bramblett (1955)132 Cal App2d 36, 48, 281 P2d 372, overruled on another ground in Field Research Corp. v Superior Court (1969) 71 Ca12d 110, 114n4, 77 Cal Rptr 243, 453 P2d 747
(Rtl. No. 18‑8/76) (GI Fmi P&P)
Form 8 LIBEL AND SLANDER 7R
Text References
6 Cal. Jur. 3d, Assault and Other Wilful Torts, § 157 30 Cal. Jur. 2d, Libel and Slander, § 104 50 Am. Jur. 2d, Libel and Slander, § 77
FORM NO. 8
Allegation‑Libel on Its Face Based on Exposing Plaintiff to Contempt and Ridicule
This [describe type of material ] is libelous on its face because it subjects the plaintiff to contempt and ridicule.
COMMENTS
Use of Form
The foregoing allegation may be used in place of Paragraph VIII of Form 1 where the defendant has published material which subjects plaintiff to contempt and ridicule.
EEYERENCF$
Decisions
Publication as libelous per se where sign said "Nuts to You‑You Old Witch" since it exposed plaintiffs to contempt and ridicule. Megarry v Norton (1955) 137 Cal App2d 581, 582‑583, 290 P2d 571
Text References
Witkin, Summary of California Law (8th ed), Torts, § 283
50 Am. Jur. 2d, Li be 1 and Slander, §§ 71‑95
FORM NO. 9
Allegation‑Libel on Its Face Based on Imputing Lack of Chastity to Woman
This (describe type of material] is libelous on its face because it imputes a lack of chastity to the plaintiff.
Cal Forms of Pleading and practice vol 30 chs 340-347