Nili N. Alai v. Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer, P.C., et al.

Practicing physician Nili N. Alai, M.D. is a frontline worker who has operated a small medical practice in Southern California for 25 years. She had never been sued and hired a local attorney, Respondent Mark Plummer to defend an employment matter. Unbeknownst to her, Plummer was a high frequency, self-represented plaintiff who had filed numerous unsuccessful suits against his former clients and associate counsel— several against the same individuals. In Plummer’s 2018 fee dispute lawsuit against Dr. Alai, she sought to deem Plummer and his alleged alter ego law firm vexatious litigants under California’s statute. She also filed an amicus brief in another of Plummer’s pro se cases. In response—in 2020, Plummer filed this instant defamation suit against Dr. Alai and a web platform that posted various court pleadings. The California courts (1) decided that alleged statements about Plummer’s “vexatious” litigation conduct were not protected speech, and (2) failed to recognize or address Plummer’s limited-purpose public figure status or the public interest surrounding such speech about professional conduct. The appellate court astonishingly summarily dismissed Dr. Alai’s federal claims as ‘moot’ based entirely on a co-defendant’s appeal, effectively silencing her speech. The questions presented are: 1. Whether failing to consider a public figure classification under Gertz and its progeny improperly lowers this Court’s standard for