Judge dismisses charge filed by past principal

Jeff Benson

An embattled former principal of Newport Heights Elementary lost an

initial round in court this week when a judge dismissed her

defamation charge against a parent whose criticism allegedly assisted

in the loss of her job last year.

Former Principal Judith Chambers sued three district officials

Nov. 10 for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional

distress, defamation and violation of federal and state due process

clauses, among others, related to her dismissal in February.

Four parents, including Robert Shaw, were also named in the

lawsuit for allegedly defaming Chambers during a public meeting.

Shaw’s attorney, Harry Carmack, said Thursday that Dec. 15 he’d

filed an anti-SLAPP motion, or anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public

Participation.

Essentially, the statute, first enacted in 1992, allows a

defendant a quick remedy when a complaint arises from conduct that

falls within their rights to free speech, Carmack said.

“It’s an abuse of the judicial process for Ms. Chambers to file a

motion to chill somebody’s freedom of speech,” he said.

Even though the case was thrown out Dec. 15, he said the hearing

was delayed until this week so Shaw could collect his legal fees.

As of Jan. 5, Shaw has 60 days to collect his court fees, Carmack

said.

Chambers alleges the school district put her on administrative

leave from her principal position in February, without any reason

given.

The suit states that the district held Chambers responsible for

the departure of a popular substitute teacher, Shannon Jay, and later

fired Chambers, offering her a lower-paying job as a teacher.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Charles Margines ruled

Wednesday that the argument against Shaw qualified as anti-SLAPP and

threw it out, Carmack said.

Chambers’ attorney, Margot Nelson, said she believes the district

held the meetings intentionally to spark criticism against her

client.

She added they’re targeting the focus of their complaint on the

district, not on private individuals.

“We threw Shaw in there because he’s one of the parents who really

made life miserable against Ms. Chambers before her termination,”

Nelson said.

“In doing so, Shaw and other parents made horrible comments about

Judith Chambers. But private citizens are allowed to make comments

against a public figure.

“Basically, Shaw can get away with it.”

In an anti-SLAPP case, the prosecution must come forth with

admissible evidence, Nelson said. Nelson said she didn’t want to put

anybody on the spot just yet, electing instead to play her cards in

the deposition phase of the suit against the district.

“We want to put our time and energy into fighting the district,”

she said.

But Nelson believes Carmack hasn’t been honest about how many

hours he’s compiled while working on his client’s case.

“We told him we’d pay for attorney’s fees, and generally a motion

like this would cost $1,500,” Nelson said.

“He came back with 54 hours and $15,000 worth of fees for making a

motion. I’d like to tell you how much work I did before I came up

with 54 hours working on this case.

“He showed no desire to resolve the situation.”

Action won’t likely be taken against the district until at least

April, Nelson said.

* JEFF BENSON covers education and may be reached at (714)

966-4617 or by e-mail at [email protected].