Ocean Towers Housing Corp., the owner of an apartment building in Santa Monica, California filed a defamation lawsuit against one of its tenants Richard Stone, who accused the company of breaching its fiduciary duty to its shareholders.  According to filings in the case, in a posting on his website The Ocean View, Stone accused Ocean Towers of using company funds to finance a loan for a board member's nephew.  Stone claimed that the company did this despite statements that it lacked sufficient funds to engage in "much needed building repairs."

On December 22, 2006, Stone filed a motion to dismiss the suit under California's anti-SLAPP statute.  As an alternative reason for dismissal, Stone argued that his statements were priviliged because they litigation or were protected communications between parties who share an "interest" in an issue of direct and immediate concern.

The Superior Court denied the motion, finding that the statement constituted defamation per se and that there was evidence suggesting Stone's statements were false.  Further, the court found that Stone may have had malice in publishing the disputed statement.  The court also found that the litigation privilege didn't apply because both Stone and his comments were unrelated to the other Ocean Towers lawsuit.

Stone appealed to California's Second Appellate District.  The appeals court affirmed the ruling on essentially the same grounds.  The court also explicitly rejected the "interest" privilege, which Stone argued had not been addressed in the trial court.  The court recognized that Stone might have qualified for the privilege if he had made his statements in a letter to another interested party, but it determined that posting a statement on the Internet does not prove the required intent to reach a specific interested party.

The case is scheduled to go to trial in L.A. Superior Court on 03/30/2009.

Update:

05/15/2009 - According to the case summary (search "BC359619"), the case was dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice.  It appears that a settlement was reached.

Scott Wilbanks, a viatical settlement broker, filed a defamation and unfair business practices lawsuit against Gloria Wolk, a former insurance agent and author of books on viatical settlements (viaticals are arrangements that allow dying persons with life insurance policies to sell their policies to investors for a percentage of the death benefits). 

According to Wilbanks's complaint, Wolk defamed him and his company on her website Viatical & Life Settlements Consumer Information, which provides information about settlement brokers, by publishing the following statements:

• Be very careful when dealing with this broker. Wilbanks and Assoc. is under investigation by the CA dept. of insurance. The complaint originated with a California viator who won a judgment against Wilbanks. How many others have been injured but didn’t have the strength to do anything about it?
• The company is under investigation. Stay tuned for details.
• Wilbanks and Associates provided incompetent advice.
• Wilbanks and Associates is unethical.

Wolk moved to strike the defamation claim under California's anti-SLAPP statute.  The court granted her motion and awarded Wolk $7,000 in attorney fees and costs.

On August 17, 2004, the California Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Wilbanks had shown a reasonable probability of success on the merits of his claims.

Update:

The California Superior Court's electronic docket states that the case was dismissed with prejudice on August 18, 2005, following settlement discussions in chambers. 

Michael J. Zwebner, CEO of penny-stock holding company Universal Communication Systems, sued James Coughlin, a.k.a. IrishJim44, and 25 "Doe" defendants over statements on the Raging Bull financial message board that were critical of him and his company. According to the Miami New Times, "[i]t was the latest of five lawsuits Zwebner has filed since June 2004, all of them aimed at silencing people who have posted malicious messages about him on two Websites: Raging Bull and Bad Business Bureau."

Zwebner's complaint seeks damages for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On July 15, 2005, defendants filed a Special Motion to Strike under California's anti-SLAPP law. The motion was granted, and the case was dismissed with fees and costs awarded to the defendants. Defendants also won on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. On remand to the district court, defendants won fees and costs arising from the appeal as well.

Zwebner had previously filed this action in federal court in Florida, but the court dismissed the case because Coughlin is a California resident and the court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over him.  Zwebner, et al v. Coughlin, et al 05-CV-20168 (S.D. Fla)

The City of Memphis and the Memphis Police Director Larry Godwin filed a petition for pre-litigation discovery in Tennessee state court, seeking the identity of  a number of unknown defendants, including the pseudonymous blog operators of MPD Enforcer 2.0, who go by the collective moniker "Dirk Diggler."

MPD Enforcer 2.0 is a blog popular with Memphis police officers, and Diggler and many of its users are not fans of Godwin. They have been critical of his leadership and have set up a petition calling for his resignation, and the blog features an online voting poll asking users whether the police chief should resign.  According to Paul Alan Levy, counsel for the blog operators, the City claimed in its petition that the blog authors "misappropriated the image, likeness and name of Director Godwin and the City of Memphis' Blue Crush trademarks." (source) The city also alleged that the operators posted a photograph of an undercover officer. 

On July 10, 2008, Godwin and the City obtained a subpoena from the Chancery Court of Tennessee for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis, which commanded AOL to produce identifying information for the subscriber who created the email account associated with the blog. They then applied to the Clerk of the Court in Loudon County, Virginia -- where AOL is located -- asking that the subpoena be issued. On behalf of the blog operators, Levy then moved to unseal the petition and prepared to file a motion to quash based on First Amendment protection for anonymous speech. It is not clear whether the motion was ever filed.  In early September 2008, the City withdrew its subpoena.

Virgie Arthur,  mother of deceased celebrity Anna Nicole Smith, attempted to add several bloggers as defendants to a defamation lawsuit in Texas federal court.  Arthur originally filed claims of defamation and conspiracy to defame against Howard K. Stern, CBS Studios, and KPRC Houston after Stern and Anna Nicole Smith allegedly defamed Arthur on an episode of "Entertainment Tonight."  Numerous blogs and websites discussed and criticized Arthur following the episode and lawsuit.

In response, Arthur filed a motion to add the following defendants on the ground that they were part of the alleged conspiracy to defame her:

• Celebrity gossip website TMZ.com and TMZ operator Harvey Levin, who  allegedly published a defamatory article that accused Arthur of marrying and having a child with her step-brother.
• Bonne Stern, Stern's sister, who allegedly republished Anna Nicole Smith's defamatory statements and "corresponded with and directed" other conspirators (primarily via e-mail).
• Nelda Turner, operator of blog "Rose Speaks," who allegedly forwarded defamatory information to TMZ and corresponded with Bonnie Stern via e-mail.
• Art Harris, operator of blog "The Bald Truth" and frequent correspondent on "Entertainment Tonight," who allegedly republished Smith's statements in a blog post.

On June 26, 2008, the Texas federal court denied Arthur's motion to add the new defendants.  The court found that there was evidence that Arthur, who had failed in an earlier attempt to remand the case to state court, had attempted to add the defendants in part as an effort to destroy the court's diversity jurisdiction.  The court also noted that the new defendants' actions were sufficiently distinct from the disputed television broadcast that they could be litigated separately.

Prior to the court's decision, Arthur filed a related suit against Stern and all of the new defendants in Texas state court.  That suit still is ongoing.   See Arthur v. TMZ.com (state) for more information. 

Arthur also has subpoenaed blogger Lyndal Harrington in this case.  See Arthur v. Harrington.