|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In 2020, East Palo Alto’s “closest” city council election not only sparked a sense of competition among the seven candidates but also led to multiple lawsuits and criticisms against the city’s water authorities.
Current council member Webster Lincoln lost the race by 69 votes to first-time candidate Antonio Lopez, then contested the election results in a failed lawsuit. Within days, he also filed a defamation lawsuit against a resident, Isaiah Pekary, after he urged residents not to vote for Lincoln in two social media posts.
Now, nearly five years later, a jury has decided that Pekary’s statements were opinion, and therefore did not constitute defamation. Lincoln says the court made a mistake.
Lincoln’s 2020 campaign drew criticism when residents called out his familial ties to Palo Alto Park Mutual Water Company, where his mother Niambi Lincoln was the general manager and his grandmother Katherine Loudd was the treasurer and member of the board of directors.
Local residents for years complained about arbitrary fees, lack of communication and seemingly random water cut-offs under the water provider, according to an in-depth Almanac report.
Pekary took to Nextdoor and Facebook to express his disapproval for Palo Alto Park Mutual Water.
Pekary did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
“Don’t vote for Webster Lincoln. His mother Niambi Lincoln and other family members have been running the Palo Alto Park Mutual Water Company, which is widely known to be a corrupt organization that has preyed upon many people and stolen community funds for many years,” Pekary wrote on Nextdoor at the time. “Don’t let this family get more power to hurt this community.”
Upon the family’s request, Pekary deleted the posts and apologized for his statements.
“I realize now that my post was not fair or loving,” he wrote on Facebook. “I don’t personally know Webster Lincoln and I should not have associated him with the actions of the water company.”
Still, the apologies weren’t enough. Lincoln, his mother and Loudd sued Pekary for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, claiming the damage had already been done by the time Pekary deleted his statements on Nov. 18, 2020.
In response to the lawsuit, Pekary pointed to other public criticisms of the water company and filed Anti-SLAPP motions, which are meant to protect free speech. The court granted the motion against the emotional distress claim, but denied the defamation claim.
After years of back-and-forth, a jury decided on June 17 that Pekary’s statements were opinion, and the case was dismissed. Five days later, the Lincolns filed a request for a new trial, claiming that earlier court decisions had already determined the statements were not opinions.
“This Court subsequently denied Pekary’s summary judgment motion in April 2025, finding triable issues of material fact existed regarding the truth or falsity of the statements and whether Pekary acted with actual malice,” the request claims.
The question “should not have been relitigated at trial,” Webster Lincoln wrote in a message to this publication.
The San Mateo County Superior Court is set to decide whether to accept the request for a new trial on Aug. 29.
