Background
Muhammad Howard and Jessica Knepp married in 2014 and began a contentious dissolution proceeding in 2021. In March 2022, Knepp reported to Arvada police that Howard had opened several credit-card accounts in her name without her knowledge or permission and that she had learned of them only in December 2020. Police did not continue investigating that allegation, citing insufficient evidence and a limitations issue.
Howard sued Knepp for defamation in 2023. He alleged that she knew about and had authorized the accounts, had discussed them with him years before December 2020, and had signed relevant documents herself. Knepp sought dismissal under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute. The district court granted the motion without a hearing, concluding that the police report was protected activity and that Howard had not shown a reasonable likelihood of succeeding.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed. Although it assumed without deciding that the credit-card statements to police fell within the anti-SLAPP statute, it held that Howard made the required prima facie showing that the statements were false and made with actual malice.
At the anti-SLAPP stage, the district court had to accept Howard’s affidavit evidence as true, draw reasonable inferences in his favor, and could not weigh conflicting evidence. Howard’s affidavit and supporting communications, which indicated that Knepp knew of and participated in obtaining the accounts, supported a triable claim. Knepp’s contrary affidavit and documents did not defeat the claim as a matter of law. The court also rejected her arguments that Howard had to prove a separate “sham” police-report theory and that other alleged misconduct rendered the challenged credit-card accusations substantially true.
Key Takeaways
- Anti-SLAPP review does not permit courts to resolve factual disputes or discount a plaintiff’s sworn evidence.
- A defamation plaintiff need not prove that a police report was a “sham” as an additional element of the claim.
- Substantial truth must be assessed against the challenged statement itself; accusations of unrelated wrongdoing do not make a false accusation substantially true.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute is an early screening device, not a mechanism for trying disputed facts on affidavits. A defendant’s competing account of events will not justify dismissal when the plaintiff presents evidence that could establish falsity and malice at trial.
The case returns to Jefferson County District Court for further proceedings on Howard’s defamation claim concerning the credit-card statements. The appellate court did not decide the claim’s ultimate merits.