• Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

It’s not David versus Goliath. It’s more David taking on a gang of Goliaths.

David in this instance is former elementary school teacher Maura Larkins. Larkins, a quiet but crotchety, middle-aged resident of Lakeside, runs the relatively unknown education blog called The San Diego Education Report.

Blogger Maura Larkins

Blogger Maura Larkins

Playing Goliath is the law firm of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz. One of the firm’s chief clients is the San Diego County Office of Education, along with the 65 school districts that make up the agency’s Joint Powers Authority. Since 2009, the firm has earned more than $7.7 million defending both the districts and the San Diego County Office of Education.

The conflict has lasted for six years inside courtrooms at the San Diego Superior Courthouse. For the lawyers, it is a fight to silence an incessant blogger from publishing defamatory comments about the firm on her website. For Larkins, it is a fight for her First Amendment rights to free speech.

So far, Larkins appears to be losing.

“The case has been a huge gray cloud hovering over me,” Larkins says at a coffee house in downtown La Mesa. “It’s limited my freedom to do the other things I want to do. My family has been more severely affected than I have. They see Stutz as powerful and invulnerable and don’t believe I have any chance of prevailing.”

But Larkins remains persistent, much as she was in 2007, when she posted what lawyer Daniel Shinoff claims were personal attacks and defamatory comments about the law firm.

Ray Artiano

Ray Artiano

Daniel Shinoff

Daniel Shinoff

Those comments appeared in a 2007 blog post. In it, Larkins accused the firm of “a culture of misrepresentation and deception,” adding that “the firm clearly suffers from a lack of professionalism or lack of understanding of the law…. My own personal opinion is, if a public entity is doing business with Daniel Shinoff of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff, and Holtz, that public entity is probably involved in dirty business.”

The dispute between Larkins and Shinoff’s law firm goes back to 2002, when Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz defended the Chula Vista Elementary School District in a wrongful-termination lawsuit Larkins had filed.

Larkins lost that case but didn’t forget it. Neither did the firm.

On October 5, 2007, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz filed a defamation complaint against Larkins. The “publications by defendant…were made with malice, hatred, and ill will towards [Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz], with a design and intent to injure [the firm and its] good name, its reputation, employment, and employability in the future,” reads the complaint.

The firm asked for a judgment of $100,000, saying that due to Larkins’s commentary, it suffered “embarrassment, humiliation, and significant economic loss in the form of lost wages and future earnings.”

In 2009, judge Judith Hayes agreed, ruling in favor of Shinoff and company. Judge Hayes prohibited Larkins from posting negative comments about the law firm. Larkins agreed, while insisting that she would not refrain from publishing facts about the attorneys.

But later that year, Larkins couldn’t hold her tongue, or stop her fingers from typing, when former San Diego County Office of Education employee Rodger Hartnett filed a wrongful-termination lawsuit. Hartnett was fired from his job after accusing his boss, a former attorney at the law firm, of showing preferential treatment to her former colleagues by assigning them the bulk of cases from the San Diego County Office of Education.

In the comments section of her website, in response to an online article on the lawsuit by former Voice of San Diego reporter Emily Alpert, Larkins wrote: “…Shinoff makes Vito Corleone look like an altar boy. Shinoff has destroyed the lives of many individuals and families; only God knows what his body count is.”

Shinoff and his partners filed a motion with the court. Judge Hayes agreed with the lawyers, fining Larkins $3000 and barring her from making any further mention of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz. “And I’m doing that not in an attempt to foreclose or eliminate [Larkins’s] right to free speech,” said the judge, “but because it is crystal clear to me at this point that she is unable or unwilling to modify her [websites] in any good-faith attempt to remove reference to that law firm. So we’re cutting it off at this point. No more reference to the law firm.”

Larkins, however, has not gone this entire time without a few legal victories. In 2011, an appellate court agreed that the earlier judgment violated Larkins’s First Amendment right to free speech. That victory was short-lived, and the case is now back in the hands of Judge Hayes, who was scheduled to hear it sometime this month. Meanwhile, Larkins continues to post articles on her website.

“It upsets my husband every time an envelope comes from Stutz. He doesn’t understand why I don’t just take down my website. But over the past decade I’ve learned that the rule of law is far less secure than I once thought, and if I don’t defend it, then I am guilty of aiding and abetting the elected officials and their associates who want to suspend it whenever it’s in their interest to do so.”

She adds, “The financial costs have been very burdensome. I had to use my credit card to pay for court costs and $3000 [in] sanctions given by judge Judith Hayes. I’m deep in debt, even after breaking into my paltry IRA account.”

Court fees continue to increase without any sign of either side backing down.

Larkins puts court fees (including the judgment) at $43,000, and that’s not counting the money spent on copies and filings.

As for the lawyers, they show no signs of letting Larkins off the hook. In an April 10 email, attorney Ray Artiano wrote: “In the complaint, we set forth a number of the defamatory statements which were made by Ms. Larkins.

“The court agreed, yet Ms. Larkins persisted in making more defamatory comments. When someone makes defamatory comments, and refuses to withdraw those comments, the remedy is to file a lawsuit such as the lawsuit which we filed. This is hardly a case of bullying. [Our law firm] is extremely proud of its reputation, and we will not tolerate the publication of untrue and defamatory comments, nor should we be expected to.”

Continued Artiano: “The reason for pursuing this lawsuit is obvious. Why this lawsuit is viewed by you as newsworthy is not. Unless you intend to be less than objective. We have no thought of ‘silencing our detractors.’ Those who want to express opinions are certainly entitled to do so. When comments expressing alleged facts are made, and those comments are untrue and made maliciously, action must be taken.”

A May 3 hearing was postponed. A new hearing date has not yet been set.

  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it


SurfPuppy619 June 26, 2013 @ 9:41 a.m.

Larkins wrote: “…Shinoff makes Vito Corleone look like an altar boy. Shinoff has destroyed the lives of many individuals and families; only God knows what his body count is.” This is an opinion and is 00% protected free speech. Anti-SLAPP should be used here, but in my experiences the anti-SLAPP laws are now being used by Big Business to silence the little guy, the opposite of what they were designed for.


eastlaker June 26, 2013 @ 3:48 p.m.

100% protected free speech is what you meant, right?


SurfPuppy619 June 26, 2013 @ 4:10 p.m.

Opps= 100%! The statement is an opinion, and everyone has their right to an opinion. Hayes, I've been before her, never did le her. I am pretty sure she was the one who got in trouble over a contempt issue several years ago.


MPuente July 4, 2013 @ 2:41 p.m.

Amazes me that a middle-aged school teacher from Lakeside has some of the biggest balls in San Diego County. Long live free speech. Long live the first amendment. Dear Reader management, this should be your feature article. God knows, the UT would never take this on.


eastlaker June 26, 2013 @ 4:32 p.m.

I would just like to add, in case anyone needs more information about Shinoff, et al, that if you Google "Shinoff and Sweetwater" you will get a near endless list of reading material.

The most recent being the presentation on behavior at the recent board meeting, meant to make all members of the public sit in awe of the great personages sitting before us, chastising the public for being argumentative towards board members and Brand--despite all the wrong-doing on their side.

And of course, the Sweetwater district paid using our tax dollars for this line of claptrap. Shinoff lecturing US on proper behavior. As if any such scruples have ever stopped that bunch.

Nerve? Oh, I'll say.

More bullying from those that have spend their lifetimes acquiring the skill.

I wish you all that is good, Ms. Larkins, and hope that 'truth, justice and the American way' isn't just the tag line of a joke.


eastlaker June 29, 2013 @ 9 a.m.

Pretty sure that not even Shinoff and pals were able to get through that presentation without breaking into cynical laughter at what they were paid to do.


shirleyberan June 27, 2013 @ 4:47 p.m.

When I was learning how to write analysis of the progress of addicts in treatment for case records they stressed that nothing be said as a fact so there wouldn't be a legal issue or blame and lawsuits for possible relapses. Words like appears to be..., seems to be, in my opinion, apparently... are very handy. Those behemoths will probably love draining the life out of you and resources out of your pockets. They won't stop because its a game they like to win at. I love a good writer as you obviously are/might be and I also want to truth tell but we can read between the lines if it helps you get out of court proceedings somehow sooner. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it because now you gotta prove free speech, that what you say is a true fact and it seems to not be going in your favor. Sincerely, Best of Luck


MPuente July 4, 2013 @ 9:26 a.m.

Thank you, Ms. Larkins for having the courage to stand up for free speech and to call it like you see it. Have you considered a website with a legal defense fund. Have you heard of Californians Aware? http://calaware.org/about/what-we-do


MauraLarkins May 11, 2014 @ 11:45 a.m.

I liked Mr. Hargrove's article about me, but I would like to correct one error. In fact, the comment about Vito Corleone was not written by me, but rather by an anonymous visitor to my website. Mr. Hargrove's mistake can be explained by the fact that Judge Judith Hayes ignored the documentary evidence (exhibits that included printouts of my blog) when she issued a decision saying that I had published the comment!

In fact, I don't believe that Dan Shinoff makes Vito Corleone look like an altar boy. I'd say the exact opposite: that Vito Corleone makes Dan Shinoff look like the personification of moral purity.

I bear no malice toward Mr. Shinoff. I simply believe that the public has a right to know what our tax dollars are paying for, and how our schools are being run.


MauraLarkins May 12, 2014 @ 10:02 a.m.

There was no trial in this case. In fact, there was no weighing of evidence by the judge, either. Judge Judith Hayes made her decision based ONLY on a technicality: that I hadn't used the updated format when I prepared my opposition to summary adjudication.

My statements were NOT found to be defamatory in fact, but only as a matter of law.

The judge could have weighed the evidence, but she chose not to do so. Why not?

To insulate herself even further from the facts of the case, Judge Hayes also threw out all my evidence. That was overkill, of course, since she had thrown out my opposition to summary adjudication.


MauraLarkins May 12, 2014 @ 4:33 p.m.

The law does NOT allow prior restraint of speech except for statements found to be defamatory "at trial". Judge Hayes did not have the right to deprive me of my constitutional rights without due process. Obviously, throwing out my evidence and my opposition to summary adjudication does not constitute due process.


Sign in to comment