ROSEVILLE, Calif. – council member Scott Alvord filed a defamation lawsuit against House of Oliver owner, Matthew Oliver, and local political blogger, Aaron Park. 

The claims were defamation, false light, unfair business practices and declaratory relief.

According to ABC10, Alvord says that “he’s reached his boiling point with accusations made against him on social media and through the community.” 

For context, Alvord is currently a city council member, adjunct college faculty professor, and a candidate for the Placer County supervisor for District 2. This covers Western Roseville, Lincoln, and Sheridan. 

The first course of action in the lawsuit is defamation against Oliver, Park and Does 1-100. During the time of the elections, Alvord claimed that Oliver, Park, and others damaged his reputation through lies and false light to the community. 

The alleged defamatory and false statements, included that “Scott Alvord forced masks for children,” “Scott Alvord forced vaccines for schools,” and he is “bad for Placer County business” – to name a few. 

Alvord claims that these statements are false, and that he had no jurisdiction over COVID-19 policies in schools. 

The second cause of action is false light against Oliver, House of Oliver, Park, and Does 1-100. Due to the false and misleading light that was made in regards to Alvord, he believed them to be offensive. 

Park and/or Oliver communicated that Alvord reported Oliver’s business to government authorities as he was allegedly concerned about the mask-wearing policies. The reluctance to not comply with COVID-19 protocols could prevent small businesses in Placer County from remaining open at the time. 

Beyond this, in a post published on Park’s blog on Oct. 16, 2020, the post regarded Alvord’s part-time teaching at William Jessup University. Park reported that Alvord required his students to read his book, however Alvord claims that this is a lie. 

It is believed that Oliver, House of Oliver, and Park made comments with disregard of the rights, reputation and safety of Alvord. 

The third cause of action is unfair business practices under Cal. Bus. Prof Code § 17200. 

As previously mentioned, rumored statements made by Oliver and Park were illegal in the sense that it violated rights under the California law to have a good reputation and not be included in false light.

Comments regarding Alvord’s profession as a Roseville city councilmember, some stating that Alvord is anti-small business and has pro-socialistic stances, have allegedly inhibited him from fulfilling his business trade and fulfilling his duty as a council member. 

The forth cause of action is declaratory relief against Oliver, House of Oliver, Park and Does 1-100. 

Alvord claims that the comments made by Oliver, House of Oliver, Park and others have defamed him. The controversy between these parties has prompted Alvord to seek a declaratory and injunctive order from the Court to force Oliver, House of Oliver, and Park to remove all posts about Alvord off of their media platforms and blogs. 

Alvord’s prayer of relief is that Oliver, House of Oliver, and Park according to the lawsuit: remove all false statements from publications, a temporary and permanent injunctive relief, general damages be exceeded by the jurisdictional minimum of the Court, proof of damages to business or business opportunities, exemplary and punitive damages, under the Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 attorney fees and suit incurred, and additional relief that the Court finds.

Oliver spoke to ABC10 Sacramento, and said that “He’s (Scott Alvord) running for Placer County Board of Supervisors. He’s not doing well. He needs a headline, so he feels like I’m a headline. This is the way politicians try to use people. It’s not OK.”

Especially during midterms elections, Oliver has noted that this lawsuit appears to be an attempt from Alvord to create a political gain. 

In an interview with Sacbee Alvord explains that he doesn’t like knocking on doors and hearing Olivers and Parks remarks being repeated. 

Nevertheless, Alvord insists that the timing of the lawsuit is coincidental to the elections and he is trying to clear his reputation from alleged false claims.