[UPDATED] California Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Siding with Local Journalists Against Major Humboldt Law Firm in ‘Unique’ Defamation Case

Press release from Sharon Wolf of the Rio Dell Times

Press release from Sharon wolf of the

In a true David and Goliath legal battle, the California Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a unique First Amendment ruling, siding with the Rio Dell Times – one of the smallest local online news media outlets – against a senior partner in the largest law firm in Humboldt County.

Ron and Barbara Keller were long-time elderly residents of Fortuna, California, suffering from dementia, and being cared for by their family in Humboldt County. Ron suffered a mental health crisis on April 20th, 2021 which resulted in a call to Adult Protective Services (APS) for a welfare check. The APS social worker investigated and sent a referral to the Public Guardians office for conservatorship of both Ron and Barbara.  Barbara’s daughter, Sharon Wolff, had also filed a petition for conservatorship around the same time. On or about July 20th, just days prior to the first court hearing on the conservatorship, Ron and Barbara disappeared from their home.  

Eventually, Ron and Barbara’s family discovered that Ron’s sister, Diana Mendonca, had driven up to Humboldt County and removed both adults from their home. She brought them to her residence in Citrus Heights, California where they were isolated from Barbara’s family.  

Barbara’s Fortuna healthcare provider had declared her legally incapacitated by advanced Alzheimer’s just prior to her disappearance. Their signed declaration was filed in the Humboldt County Probate Court on August 17th by Sharon. Yet on August 25th, a legal document was drawn up by Chris Hamer, a senior partner at Stokes, Hamer, Kirk & Eads, LLP and Barbara’s signature was secured. This new legal document went against Barbara’s existing will and her living trust by nominating a distant relative of Ron’s to take custody and control of her.  

The very next day, Royce Mendonca, the distant relative, placed both Barbara and Ron into a locked memory care facility in Rocklin California. Attorney Hamer then filed a competing convervatorship petition for Royce. 

Court investigators interviewed all of the parties and recommended the court give conservatorship to Sharon and deny Royce’s petition.  

Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Timothy Canning then gave custody and control of Barbara and Ron to Royce Mendonca in December of 2021 without comment about his decision to reject the court investigators recommendations. 

In the months after Judge Canning made Royce Mendonca Ron and Barbara’s conservator, the Rio Dell Times reported extensively on the story of Ron and Barbara’s disappearance, with close coverage of the probate court’s proceedings surrounding Royce’s conservatorship. The Times’ reporting was highly critical of Royce and of his attorney, Chris Hamer. 

On August 11th, 2022, Steve and Sharon Wolff, owners of the Rio Dell Times, were served with two petitions – both filed by Royce Mendonca and drafted by attorney Hamer – one on behalf of Ron and one on behalf of Barbara. The petitions were the functional equivalent of defamation lawsuits, claiming that Steve and Sharon defamed Mendonca and Hamer.  

The petitions asked the probate court judge to order them to stop publishing or otherwise disseminating false and derogatory statements, articles, letters or pictures in writing or orally, concerning Mendonca or Hamer, and ordering them to remove their publications from the internet. 

The Wolff’s contacted Paul Nicholas Boylan, an attorney based in Davis, California, who represents a number of Humboldt County news media outlets, and who has successfully defended his clients’ free speech rights throughout California.  

Paul argued to the trial court – and the trial court agreed – that the two petitions were strategic lawsuits against public participation known as (SLAPP) and that the two petitions should be dismissed.  

After the two petitions were dismissed, Paul asked the Court to award him his attorney fees, but he also asked that Hamer and Mendonca pay his fees, not Ron and Barbara. Paul argued that, although the two petitions were brought in the names of Ron and Barbara, the petitions were really lawsuits intended to personally benefit attorney Hamer and her client Mendonca, which meant that Hamer and Mendonca, and not the Kellers, should pay his fees and court costs. 

The trial court, again, agreed, awarding Paul his fees and costs. The court specifically ordered Hamer and Mendonca – and not the Kellers or their estate – to pay the fee/cost award.

Hamer and Mendonca appealed. They admitted that the Court should grant Paul’s fee and cost motion, but they argued that neither Hamer, nor Mendonca should have to pay. 

Here is a statement from Paul Nicholas Boylan talking about the case.  

Paul said “If the Appellants were correct, then the only parties left to pay fees and costs would have been Ron and Barbara Keller, Appellants elderly, mentally handicapped clients. In my opinion, that result would be absurd. Ron and Barbara had no idea what their attorney and their conservator were attempting. Ron and Barbara had nothing to do with the defamation claims, which, if successful, would have benefited Ms. Hamer and Mr.  Mendonca, and no one else. It is unthinkable that a conservator and their attorney can sue a news media outlet to retaliate against a newspaper’s exercise of protected speech, and then, when they lose, hide behind their elderly, disabled clients to avoid paying fees and costs.” 

The Court of Appeals agreed, stating that Hamer and Mendonca’s decisions to file defamation claims on behalf of Ron and Barbara Keller should not shield Hamer and Mendonca from having to pay attorney fees to the prevailing defendants. 

The Court of Appeal also stated that “requiring Mendonca and Hamer to pay attorney fees furthers the purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute, which is to dispose of  lawsuits that are brought to chill the valid exercise of constitutional rights of petition or free  speech,” and the Court of appeal found that “Mendonca, personally and not as  conservator, and Hamer, personally, were the ones “abusing the judicial system.”  

For these, and other, reasons, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s fee award and the trial court’s order that Hamer and Mendonca pay the award, and not Ron and Barbara Keller. 

Sharon stated “A defamation lawsuit that is filed because someone exercised their free speech rights is a tool designed to chill public speech on important issues. It is a weaponization of the legal system and it can be highly effective because in order to fight back, an attorney is absolutely required. We were fortunate enough to have the assistance of Paul – an amazing attorney who specializes in representing reporters and small newspapers. Without his help, we would not have been able to win the trial and appellate court cases.”  

Hamer and her client, Royce Mendonca, who had been appointed as the Keller’s conservator, billed the Kellers’ estate to fund their defamation lawsuit. Conservatorship billing records submitted by Hamer included charging $350 an hour for her work filing the defamation suits. The court rejected that request after Sharon brought it to the court’s attention.  

The Court of Appeals heard the matter on December 3, 2024. Their unanimous ruling on December 20th upheld the trial court’s ruling that ordered Hamer and Mendonca – and not the Kellers – to personally pay Paul’s attorneys fees and costs.  

The holding that Royce must pay Paul’s fees and costs is important because it serves as a warning to any other conservator against prosecuting a lawsuit that benefits conservator but, but using conservatee money to finance the lawsuit. 

The holding that Attorney Hamer is personally liable is perhaps even more important.  

Ordinarily, an attorney is not liable for fees and costs if their client’s lawsuit is found to be a SLAPP and is dismissed. And that is what Hamer argued.  

But the trial court was persuaded, and the court of appeals agreed, that, in this case  – where Hamer had a personal interest in the outcome of the petitions – the ordinary rule  didn’t apply, and when an attorney is the real party in interest in a lawsuit, then that  attorney can be held liable to pay fees and costs if a defamation lawsuit they file is  dismissed because the trial court finds that the lawsuit is a SLAPP. 

This is new law that strengthens journalism by protecting news reporting from attorneys who want to use their client’s lawsuits to punish journalists who criticize them and using a client’s lawsuit to get a personal gain.  

The entire opinion is posted online at the RioDellTimes.com as well as a Request to Publish the Appeals Court Decision so that it could be cited as precedent in other cases.  

The original award has been accruing interest during the appeal, and, because Paul successfully defended the trial court’s order, Paul can ask the trial court to award him his fees and costs on appeal – all of which will be added to the initial fee award.  

Steve and Sharon responded, “We are eternally grateful for the extraordinary assistance and brilliant legal work of Paul Nicholas Boylan. Without his involvement, we would have not been able to fight back in the Humboldt County Courthouse against the senior partner of the largest law firm in the county. Which is exactly the point of these types of SLAPP lawsuits – it chills public speech.”

UPDATE: Please note this post has been reformatted to reflect that it is a press release not an article by one of our reporters.