A defamation lawsuit between two opponents in one of San Diego County’s fiercest school board races has drawn to a close, at least for now — more than 18 months after the unusually expensive election was decided.
On Friday, a San Diego County Superior Court judge dismissed the complaint that Democratic political consultant Kevin Sabellico had filed against Michael Allman, the polarizing incumbent he challenged in 2024 for his seat on the San Dieguito Union High School District board.
The lawsuit, filed last fall, emerged from a series of campaign advertisements that Sabellico said Allman ran on Facebook. State regulators investigated the ads for possible campaign violations and later .
Speaking to local media at the time, Allman denied the ads were his, accusing his opponent of lying and suggesting evidence submitted to regulators had been faked. Sabellico sued him for libel, arguing those comments were malicious and defamatory.
Allman praised the ruling, saying it “reaffirms that candidates for public office should be free from litigation abuse when exercising their right to free speech.”
“This case cost real money and was a waste of time,” he added.
Sabellico said he plans to appeal.
“Michael Allman accused me of a very serious crime, a crime that would have ended my career in politics and my career in law if it were true,” he said. “This was a very heated campaign, but somewhere along the way, Michael Allman crossed the line into accusing me of this crime — and I think he needs to be held accountable.”
The ruling is the latest in ongoing fallout from the county’s most expensive and politically focused school board race of 2024 — one in which Sabellico raised more than $100,000 and Allman more than $50,000.
Sabellico had characterized his campaign as one opposing extremism, while Allman billed his as focused on improving academics and transparency.
That year, the Fair Political Practices Campaign opened an investigation into Allman in response to two complaints by a man named Bob Ayers alleging violations of disclaimer rules and campaign reporting rules.
Read more All lanes of north I-15 reopened after morning crash killed 2 good Samaritans
Allman was , but the regulator had not yet made a decision when media outlets including The San Diego Union-Tribune wrote about it.
“It is truly dispiriting that they would stoop so low as to doctor evidence presented to a government regulatory body to gain a political advantage,” he said in an Oct. 2, 2024, article, going on to accuse his then-opponent of “a long history of lying.”
“Not only do I not remember running these ads, I am stating affirmatively that I did not run these ads,” he said in a follow-up article.
In the complaint, Sabellico’s attorneys describe their client as a limited public figure.
For such a plaintiff to succeed, their defamation claim must meet a standard of actual malice — either knowing the statements were false or showing a reckless disregard for the truth.
In December, Allman’s attorneys filed what’s known as an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing the complaint amounted to a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP, and asking the judge to dismiss it.
In a tentative ruling issued ahead of Friday’s hearing, Judge Marcella O. McLaughlin granted that motion, agreeing that Sabellico had not met his burden of showing he was likely to prevail.
Read more With contract expiring July 1, UC doctors criticize prolonged negotiations
At a Friday hearing, the judge upheld that tentative ruling.
