ENCINITAS — A Vista Superior Court judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by former San Dieguito Union High School District board candidate Kevin Sabellico against Trustee Michael Allman, ruling that the case targeted protected political speech and should be struck under California’s anti-SLAPP law.
Judge Marcella O. McLaughlin granted Allman’s special motion to strike on June 5, finding that Sabellico failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his libel claim. The ruling effectively ends the lawsuit, filed in September 2025, which alleged that Allman defamed Sabellico by accusing him of submitting fabricated evidence to state election regulators.
“Anti-SLAPP law exists precisely for this: to protect people who speak on matters of public concern from being sued into silence,” Allman said in a statement. “Today’s ruling reaffirms that candidates for public office should be free from litigation abuse when exercising their right to free speech.”
Allman also criticized the lawsuit as costly and unnecessary.
“This case cost real money and was a waste of time. That’s how Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suits work — the cost of defending yourself is the punishment, regardless of how the case ends,” Allman said. “In this case, it didn’t work for Mr. Sabellico.”
The lawsuit arose from comments Allman made during the pair’s contentious 2024 campaign for the district’s Area 4 seat. In an October 2024 interview with The Coast News, Allman accused Sabellico and Encinitas attorney Bob Ayers of submitting doctored evidence to the California Fair Political Practices Commission, or FPPC, as part of a complaint alleging election violations related to political advertisements on Facebook.
Sabellico, who also serves as a Democratic political consultant and previously worked for state Sen. Catherine Blakespear’s state and local campaigns, criticized the ruling, suggesting that a higher court would likely overturn it.
“I wouldn’t celebrate if I were Allman,” Sabellico told The Coast News. “This was a case of Michael Allman falsely accusing me and one other person of a crime — a crime that would have ended both of our legal careers if it were true. With all due respect to the trial court judge, there’s good reason to expect a reversal or remand by the Court of Appeal.
“There must be room for heated political dialogue, but somewhere along the way he crossed the line by accusing me of a crime he knows I’m innocent of, and he should be held accountable.”
In her ruling, McLaughlin found that Allman’s statements were protected political speech and that Sabellico, as a limited public figure, needed to show that he acted with “actual malice” — meaning Allman knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
The judge concluded that Sabellico failed to meet that burden.
“The existence of actual malice turns on the defendant’s subjective belief as to the truthfulness of the allegedly false statement,” McLaughlin wrote, finding that Allman presented evidence showing he reasonably believed the Facebook advertisement referenced in the FPPC complaint was not legitimate.
The court also rejected Sabellico’s argument that subsequent reporting by The Coast News on the advertisement’s potential authenticity could not be used to prove Allman knowingly made a false statement at the time.
McLaughlin also wrote that courts must provide broad protections for speech during political campaigns.
“Those engaged in political debate are entitled … to speak foolishly and without moderation,” the ruling states.
During the 2024 election, FPPC complaints alleged that Allman failed to include required disclaimers on Facebook advertisements and missed campaign filing deadlines. In response, Allman admitted to missing a filing deadline but disputed allegations involving the advertisements, arguing that screenshots submitted to the FPPC had been fabricated.
The Coast News found that Facebook records indicated the advertisements had existed at some point, although questions remained about why they no longer appeared in Meta’s public advertising database.
The ruling marks the latest chapter in a long-running political and legal feud between Allman and Sabellico. During the 2024 election, Allman successfully challenged Sabellico’s ballot designation, and a judge ruled that Sabellico’s proposed use of the term “educator” was false and misleading.
The ruling comes about one month after Sabellico filed a separate lawsuit against the San Dieguito Union High School District and Associate Superintendent Mary Anne Nuskin. In that case, Sabellico alleges that the district unlawfully removed him as a substitute instructional assistant after he completed the district’s onboarding process, and that the decision was political retaliation.
The district has not yet filed a response to the complaint.
Court records show Allman is entitled to seek reasonable attorney fees and costs under the state’s anti-SLAPP statute.
But Sabellico, who said he is headed to law school, warned that future statements of a similar nature would result in more litigation.
“His ‘I didn’t know’ defense is only going to work once, if it even works this time. If he says it again, I’ll sue him again,” Sabellico said.
