Readylink Healthcare, a Nevada Corporation Barry Treash, an Individual v. David Justin Lynch, an Individual David Justin Lynch and Associates, a California Professional Law Corporation

Citations: 440 F.3d 1118; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 6115; 6 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2204Docket: 04-55890

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 13, 2006; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves Appellants ReadyLink Healthcare and Barry Treash suing Appellees David Justin Lynch and David Justin Lynch Associates for various claims, focusing primarily on the invasion of privacy. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has decided to certify a specific legal question to the California Supreme Court concerning the applicability of the First Amendment in cases involving the publication of facts about a plaintiff's past crimes, particularly distinguishing between media and non-media defendants. The question seeks to clarify whether the California Supreme Court's prior ruling in Gates v. Discovery Communications applies only to media defendants and whether a non-media defendant could be liable for invasion of privacy if motivated by commercial interests or malice. The appeal proceedings are currently stayed pending the California Supreme Court's response to this certified question, as it may determine the outcome of the case. The case was argued on February 17, 2006, and the order was filed on March 14, 2006, with specific counsel listed for both parties.

Readylink Healthcare, a licensed staffing company for nurses, is owned and operated by Barry Treash. Following a lawsuit by Readylink against former employee Jerome Cotton for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction were issued against Cotton and his new employer, including David Lynch, who represented Cotton. Appellants allege that Lynch launched a campaign against Readylink, meeting with its employees, investigating a competing nurse placement agency, and encouraging claims against Readylink regarding pay practices.

In December 2003, Readylink filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County alleging that Lynch concealed stolen trade secrets, solicited clients using those secrets, and defamed Readylink. The claims in this state court action were distinct from those in federal court. Appellants assert that Lynch's website contained a section targeting Readylink, soliciting claims against the company, and listing his willingness to take on cases against Readylink, including those with merit.

Lynch's website made various claims, including references to his representation of clients against Readylink and emphasized that potential clients should not fear Readylink. Following Readylink's lawsuit, Lynch allegedly intensified his website's attacks, specifically highlighting Treash's criminal history, including a felony conviction from 1984, and providing links to public records about the conviction. Readylink argues that these statements falsely imply ongoing illegal activity, despite Lynch not disputing the accuracy of the posted statements.

Statements made by Appellees are either truthful recitations of public records or the public records themselves. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), contending that Appellants' case failed because the statements were truthful and the legal claims required evidence of falsity or unlawfulness. Regarding the invasion of privacy claim, Appellees argued that it should fail since the published information was truthful and public. Appellants countered that while the statements were public, they were not newsworthy and thus violated Treash's right to privacy under California law. The district court granted Appellees' motion to dismiss all claims and denied Readylink leave to amend, leading to an appeal by Readylink and Treash.

The need for certification from the California Supreme Court is emphasized, as their decision could impact the appeal's outcome, and existing California appellate decisions do not provide clear precedent on the matter. The case raises significant public policy questions, particularly regarding the applicability of Gates v. Discovery Communications, Inc. to non-media publishers.

Appellants reference Briscoe v. Reader's Digest Association to support their invasion of privacy claim, arguing that publication of past criminal activities, even from public records, can constitute an invasion of privacy. Appellees counter with Gates, which overruled Briscoe, asserting that the First Amendment protects media defendants from liability for publishing true but non-newsworthy facts obtained from public records. Appellants argue that Gates does not apply since Lynch is not a media entity, and they claim their privacy rights remain viable as Lynch's publication was motivated by malice or commercial intent, lacking the public-policy justification that protects media publications.

Gates, Cox Broadcasting, and Briscoe pertain to media defendants and raise the question of whether an invasion of privacy claim against a private individual can be barred by the First Amendment when the speech is motivated by malice or commercial gain. California courts have not yet determined if the Gates ruling applies to all accurate publications from public records, especially when the publisher is not a media member and has malicious intent. This ambiguity could significantly affect the case's outcome. Given the absence of controlling precedent and the critical intersection of First Amendment rights and privacy law, a request is made for the California Supreme Court to address the certified question. The court will file relevant briefs and materials with the California Supreme Court under seal, in compliance with California Rules of Court. If certification is granted, Plaintiffs-Appellants will be referred to as Petitioners.