Today, former Beverly Hills High School Principal Mark Mead scored a resounding victory in the long battle to clear his name when Judge Michael Whitaker of the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that he had enough evidence to support his claim for defamation against Romeo Carey to defeat Carey’s anti-SLAPP motion.
Anti-SLAPP motions are designed to prevent the use of the judicial system to retaliate against individuals for the content of their speech. When successful, anti-SLAPPs entitle the moving party to attorney’s fees. Defamation claims often draw anti-SLAPP motions. Once an anti-SLAPP is filed, the plaintiff must justify their claims with evidence, and the defendant may provide evidence as well.
In this case, the complaint alleges that as principal, Mead supervised Carey, the Beverly Hills Broadcast Studies teacher, for years. In that capacity, Mead refused to approve suspicious demands for additional compensation submitted by Carey – who was known to be, at times, the second highest paid employee in the District, despite being an elective teacher. Carey nursed a grudge against Mead for refusing to uncritically approve his inflated hours. In 2021, Carey used his broadcast studies students to create and publish a false story about Mead’s approach to masking during covid, which created such a firestorm of controversy within the school community that Mead was transferred to District headquarters and replaced as Principal.
In his new role as Executive Director of School Safety, Mead was directed to ensure safety at a planned Trump rally at the high school on November 6, 2024 following the national elections. Mead watched the rally, and at one point intervened to lower the temperature when it threatened to become a mob. Weeks afterward, Carey struck again, manipulating his freshman and sophomore students into publishing another hit piece on Mead. This time, the claim was that Mead had choked one of the students in the crowd during the rally. It was supported by little evidence other than a blurry stillshot and slowed-down video clip of less than two seconds’ duration. All other video of the widely filmed event clearly showed that Mead acted appropriately and lawfully at all times, and never hurt any student. Carey’s program had other students who were in possession of additional video of the event, and Carey knew that Mead himself could have provided a copy of the surveillance footage of the event as well. Nevertheless, Carey allowed the hit piece to be published on Youtube, where the video garnered thousands of views and sparked outrage among hundreds of students and families, who appeared at numerous BHUSD board meetings to voice their displeasure. Mead was put on leave and informed that his contract would not be renewed, despite twenty years of excellent service to the District, exclusively positive performance reviews, and a sterling reputation among all who had worked with him – besides Carey. Carey, for his part, openly bragged that he was sexually aroused by the District’s punishment of Mead.
Mead filed this lawsuit in November 2025 against both Carey and the District, alleging defamation, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a violation of Labor Code § 1050 (blacklisting) against Carey. In response, Carey filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that Mead’s claims arose from protected speech and therefore should be dismissed immediately. Carey claimed Mead could not show that Carey knew the choking allegation was false before publishing it. Carey did not dispute that the choking story was false. He did not dispute that he had full supervisorial and editorial control over the student broadcasting program. And he did not dispute that he harbored a grudge against Mead. He only disputed Mead’s ability to provide sufficient evidence that he knew the allegation was false at the time of publication. He essentially said, “Prove it.”
Mead intends to do just that, and yesterday’s ruling is a first step down that road.
Judge Whitaker found that “the video footage demonstrates that the footage and stillshot that aired on Youtube appears to be slowed down and probably altered to make it seem like Plaintiff is strangling the student. In comparison, the security footage demonstrates Plaintiff was pushing the students back away from each other with open hands to disperse them, and made contact with each student, including the student in question, for only a second or two, as he attempted to disperse the crowd.” He further found that “Carey probably had personal involvement in the publishing of the allegedly defamatory video and student news story.” And finally, he found that Plaintiff is “likely to prevail on the merits of his claim.”
Congratulations to Mark Mead on this vindication!