Appellate court dismisses year-old TTAD suit | SierraSun.com
YOUR AD HERE »

Appellate court dismisses year-old TTAD suit

DAN FOSCALINA

A state court of appeals, reaffirming a lower court decision, dismissed a defamation lawsuit involving three former Truckee-Tahoe Airport District board members.

Ex-TTAD Director William Chilcott’s suit – which included complaints of libel, slander, intentional interference with a business relationship and conspiracy – targeted former board members Tom Meadows and Tom Harrison for reading a statement into the record during the Sept. 26, 1995, TTAD board meeting.

The statements Chilcott found fault with were made as part of the former board members’ comments on the performance of ex-airport general manager Mary Catherine Tennant.

Tennant’s performance was under close scrutiny by the board, which had recently given her a poor performance rating. Harrison, Meadows and a fourth ex-board member, Dick Studer, who was named in the original suit but later settled with no admission of responsibility, had publicly supported Tennant and criticized Chilcott.

In addition to the statement of Sept. 26, 1995, Chilcott claimed the former board members made defamatory statements in a jointly authored letter to the editor in the Sierra Sun.

The case, filed in December 1995, was dismissed in Placer County Superior Court in Auburn in March 1996. Chilcott appealed the trial court’s decision at the state level in the 3rd District Court of Appeals.

Bob Cohune, attorney for Harrison and Meadows, said the appellate court reaffirmed the decision to dismiss the case, saying the statements made in September 1995 were protected under the state’s Ralph M. Brown Act.

“The statements made at the TTAD board meeting were relevant to the business of the board and the qualifications of a board member. These items are certainly of interest to the public and within the jurisdiction of the TTAD. Accordingly, the statements were privileged,” it states in the appellate court’s decision.

Also, after filing his complaint, Chilcott was responsible for establishing the probability of prevailing on the merits of the complaint, according to section 425.16 of the government code. Cohune said the appellate court decided Chilcott had no probability of prevailing at a trial.

The motion to dismiss at the appellate level was filed June 3.

Chilcott did not return calls to the Sierra Sun.


Support Local Journalism

 

Support Local Journalism

Readers around Lake Tahoe, Truckee, and beyond make the Sierra Sun's work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.

For tax deductible donations, click here.

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User