Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Posts Saying Bar Is Run by ‘Killer’ Did Not Raise Public Issue
Opinion Says Anti-SLAPP Motion Properly Denied in Defamation Case, Rejecting Argument That Wide Interest in Matter Was Shown By $50 Million in Damages Sought for Closure of Brewery Following Social Media Campaign
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that an anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied in a defamation suit accusing two siblings of making social media posts indicating that the plaintiff brewery was owned by a “murderer,” saying that the statements related to a specific event—the death of the defendants’ father during a collision involving the owner’s son—and were not about an issue of broad public interest.
In an unpublished opinion, filed Thursday and written by Justice Martin N. Buchanan, the court rejected the defendants’ assertion that the topic must have garnered significant public interest because the plaintiffs allege that the brewery closed as a result of the campaign, causing at least $50 million in damages. Buchanan wrote:
“[D]efendants provide no authority to support the idea that the amount of a plaintiff’s requested relief determines whether speech implicates an issue of public interest. Moreover, plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that a significant portion of their requested damages came from the cancellation of a large-scale distribution contract—a decision which could have been made by only a few individuals sensitive to bad publicity. While plaintiffs will eventually bear the burden of proving causation and their entitlement to any amount of damages, at this stage in the proceeding, we give little weight to the amount of requested relief in our analysis of whether defendants’ statements constituted protected activity.”
Acting Presiding Justice Richard D. Huffman and Justice Julia C. Kelety joined in the opinion.
Online Campaign
The online campaign at issue began after Ryan Wicks, the son of the owner of Riverside-based Wicks Brewing Co. LLC, hit a vehicle on the 15 freeway in March 2022. Gary Boeldt was driving the other vehicle and was killed in the collision.
Wicks, who had been convicted of drunk driving in 2005, pled guilty in April to driving under the influence and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated relating to the crash.
Following the death of their father, defendants Bryan J. Boeldt and Nicole Boeldt found videos on YouTube that purportedly identified Wicks—who worked for the establishment at the time of the deadly collision—as the owner of Wicks Brewing. They began posting on social media that the owner of Wicks Brewing was a “killer” and a “murderer.”
Several social media accounts, some belonging to friends and family members of the defendants, reposted the accusations or responded by saying things like “[l]ife long ban on Wicks Brewery” and “do not support this business.” Family members of the defendants also posted reviews of the business which identified Wicks as an owner and said that he “killed” Gary Boeldt.
According to a story in The Mercury News, dated April 29, a sign was hung on the door of Wicks Brewing Company, after the deadly collision, threatening legal action against anyone who said that Wicks was an owner.
The brewery closed in March 2023, after 10 years in operation.
Complaint Filed
Wicks Brewing Company and its owner, Edmund Brad Wicks, filed a complaint in April 2023, asserting causes of action for defamation, false light, and negligence against the defendants. The pleading alleges that the company had an “excellent” reputation with a “loyal and enthusiastic following” before the defendants’ actions forced the brewery to close, causing at least $50 million in damages.
The defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion under Code of Civil Procedure §425.16, which provides that “[a] cause of action…arising from any act…in furtherance of the person’s right of…free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless…the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”
Subdivision (e) defines an “act in furtherance of a person’s right of…free speech” to include “any written…statement…made in a…public forum in connection with an issue of public interest, or…any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of…the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.”
According to the motion, the defendants’ posts amounted to “public” statements on two issues of interest to the community at large—the dangers of drunk driving and the ethics of patronizing an establishment affiliated with a person engaging in such reckless behavior.
Riverside Superior Court Judge Eric A. Keen denied the motion, finding that the defendants’ statements concerned a personal controversy and did not address an issue of public importance. Thursday’s opinion affirms the denial.
Anti-SLAPP Analysis
Courts analyze an anti-SLAPP motion in a two-step analysis—the defendant must first prove that the causes of action arose from constitutionally protected speech, then the burden moves to the plaintiff to show that the asserted claims have at least “minimal merit.”
As to whether the defendants’ online activities amounted to “act[s] in furtherance of a person’s right of…free speech,” Buchanan said that the determination turns on whether the speech touches on a public issue and what relationship exists between the specific statements and the public discourse on the topic.
Looking to the online posts, the jurist remarked:
“The parties do not dispute that defendants’ social media statements were made in a public forum….The parties disagree, however, about whether those statements had a sufficient connection to an issue of public interest….Defendants…argue their statements alerted customers to Ryan’s drunk driving so that they could make an informed decision about whether to continue patronizing Wicks Brewing if doing so would ‘encourage Ryan to believe that there are no real consequences to his actions.’ ”
Acknowledging that “[d]eterring drunk driving and warning about its dangers undoubtedly serve the public’s interests,” he said “[w]e are also mindful, however, that ‘[c]ourts have generally rejected attempts to abstractly generalize an issue in order to bring it within the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute.’ ”
Insufficient Connection
Buchanan continued:
“[D]efendants have not shown a sufficient connection between their alleged postings and the asserted public interest in deterring drunk driving….Defendants’ posts described Ryan’s DUI record, said that his drunk driving caused Gary’s death, and encouraged people to stop patronizing Wicks Brewing…Contrary to how defendants characterize those statements, the posts themselves give no indication that their primary purpose was to educate the public at large about the dangers of drunk driving….The posts, for example, made no reference to educational materials, resources, advocacy groups, or broader campaigns addressing drunk driving.”
The justice added:
“Even defendants’ opening brief states that the posts were ‘designed to rally the community to send a message to Ryan[.]’ (Italics added.) And although Ryan himself could have been deterred from driving drunk in the future, given the absence of evidence that the posts had an impact on the wider community, there is only a tangential connection between deterring Ryan and a broader deterrent effect on the general public.”
Under these circumstances, he said “[t]here is no evidence, for example, that defendants’ posts about Ryan’s drunk driving generated public meetings, petitions, letters, or other broader engagement from the community” and “[w]ithout such evidence, we cannot conclude that the statements had any ‘functional relationship’ with a public issue extending beyond defendants’ private dispute with plaintiffs.”
In Public Eye
He continued:
“[N]either Ryan nor the parties to this case were in the public eye to the extent courts have found significant in anti-SLAPP cases….Beyond the fact that Wicks Brewing was a local brewery and Brad was its owner, there is no evidence indicating that either plaintiffs or defendants had unique standing in the community such that the public would have ‘a legitimate interest’ in their ‘doings, affairs or character.’ ”
Buchanan reasoned that “[w]hile the issue of whether consumers patronized Wicks Brewing in light of Ryan’s DUI charges was consequential to defendants’ own private interests, defendants have not adequately explained how that issue impacted the broader community.”
In light of that failing, he declared:
“[W]e conclude that defendants have not met their burden of showing their alleged statements had a sufficient connection to an issue of public interest, and therefore the statements do not constitute protected activity under section 425.16….We thus need not, and do not, consider whether plaintiffs established a probability of prevailing on its claims.”
The case is Wicks Brewing Co. Inc. v. Boeldt, D083416.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company