 Your new post is loading...
Bill Cosby will give a new deposition in the defamation case from Janice Dickinson over her allegations of sexual assault.
The former supermodel told Entertainment Tonight in November 2014 the comedian drugged her into unconsciousness and raped her. Cosby's former attorney Martin Singer responded in a statement to the media calling Dickinson’s story “an outrageous defamatory lie" and "completely fabricated."
In a hearing Monday, judge Debre K. Weintraub ordered Dickinson will depose Cosby and Singer by Nov. 25 on whether they knew if her allegations were true before denying them to the press. The testimony will follow Cosby's recent deposition in Judy Huth's lawsuit (which will be sealed until a Dec. 22 hearing in which the sides will argue if the testimony should be public).
Anti-SLAPP attorney Aaron Morris discusses why it is never too late to file an anti-SLAPP motion.
"A judge ordered singer/actress Ronee Sue Blakley to pay more than $200,000 in attorneys’ fees to her former lover, who won dismissal earlier this year of a lawsuit alleging he based the character of an abusive mother on his ex-flame when penning the screenplay for the film “What Maisie Knew.”
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rafael Ongkeko granted $209,670 to writer Carroll Cartwright on June 5, the same day he heard arguments on the motion for attorneys’ fees brought by Cartwright’s attorneys. He also ordered Blakley to pay Cartwright an additional $1,840 in associated legal costs."
A Florida judge has resigned before the resolution of ethics charges alleging she “repeatedly expressed paranoia” and exhibited “inexplicable” and “disruptive” behavior.
Judge Linda Schoonover of the Seminole-Brevard circuit court plans to retire Aug. 31,
On May 13, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted review in Baral v. Schnitt to resolve the divide among lower courts regarding whether anti-SLAPP motions can strike so-called “mixed” causes of action.
Washington Supreme Court Shoots Down Unconstitutional Anti-SLAPP Statute.
The New York Times won't be sued for libel over its article quoting a Loyola professor saying slavery was "not so bad," the Columbia Journalism Review reported.
The professor, Walter Block, said the Times took his comments "out of context" and suggested he "is a racist, a supporter of slavery, and/or against the Civil Rights Act ... solely because of racial prejudices," the judge's ruling stated.
A dispute over a campaign sign in 2010 in rural Washington County was the impetus for a new law that will protect a person who calls the police from being sued.
A finding of probable cause at a preliminary hearing bars the defendant from subsequently claiming that he was prosecuted without probable cause, despite his claim the finding was based on false testimony, the Court of Appeal for this district ruled yesterday.
Former 'Young and the Restless' star Victoria Rowell claims she was refused reemployment after advocating for more African-Americans in soap operas.
Paul Brodeur, a science writer who claims he was defamed by something Jennifer Lawrence said in David O. Russell's 2013 film American Hustle, has survived an attempt to knock out his $1 million lawsuit on First Amendment grounds.
A California appeals court sees no evidence that Courtney Love's fame is on par with Marlon Brando's. As a result, the rock star will continue fighting a lawsuit from a fashion designer who claims being defamed by Love on social media and Howard Stern's radio show. Dawn Simorangkir, a.k.a. the "Boudoir Queen," is the plaintiff who's fought Love on and off (and on) for the last six years.
Anti-SLAPP motions must be taken in context when deciding if subject to litigation privilege or right of redress.
Three Ways to Bring an Anti-SLAPP Motion Against an Ambiguous Complaint. Anti-SLAPP attorney Aaron Morris provides strategies to deal with a bad complaint.
Judge Thomas Anderle has dismissed a lawsuit filed against the City of Santa Barbara, police chief Cam Sanchez, and police spokesperson Sgt. Riley Harwood by 10 people who claim they were the victims of slander and emotional distress when they were named in an ongoing gang suppression operation and when their mugshots were displayed during a November 2013 press conference on the crackdown. The ruling also allows the city to recover its attorney’s fees.
Editor calls it absurd 'right to be forgotten' ruling
Yelp’s statements to consumers about the accuracy of its review-filter software are protected speech, the website operator has told the California Supreme Court.
In an Aug. 28 petition for review, Yelp urges the high court to overturn a recent appeals court decision allowing restaurateur James Demetriades to proceed with his false-advertising suit against the site. The company says the state’s anti-SLAPP statute protects Yelp’s statements about the review filter.
In a brief filed today in the DC Court of Appeals as part of his defamation lawsuit against the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Michael Mann once again argued his case and requested that the Court proceed to adjudicate the merits of Defendants' appeal of the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss. The stated intention of Dr. Mann's request is to expedite moving to trial on a case that has been long-delayed in procedural tangles.
Travolta and Yelp Anti-SLAPP Motions. In this week's California SLAPP Law Podcast, we examine 2 anti-SLAPP motions and the rulings that came down this week.
Two more anti-SLAPP victories. In one, filing an anti-SLAPP motion was enough to dispose of a case, and in another, we defeated a bogus discovery motion.
Benghazi, Robin Williams, Islam, Twitter, and a convicted bomber from the 1970s came together in a court case against right-wing bloggers.
"If you watch Dance Moms online, you know Hyland is suing the show and its main star, Lee Miller, the dance studio shot-caller and show matriarch.
L.A. Superior Court Judge Ruth Kwan stated she was inclined to toss out Hyland’s claim that Miller defamed her in the aftermath of an episode last year.
Defense attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case under California’s anti-SLAPP law protecting free speech. But attorneys representing Hyland argued otherwise.
They claim their clients were not properly compensated and that the contract between them and the series was unfairly slanted in favor of the production company.
Attorney Kelli Sager, on behalf of Collins, said Hyland was paid for every episode on which she appeared, and that simply, "is the deal she signed.”
“She’s just unhappy she was not on every week,” Sager said."
Read more <a href="http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com">celebrity gossip</a> at: http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2014/08/dance-moms-lawyers-slam-kelly-hyland-lawsuit-file-motion-to-dism/#ixzz3BwquhyAN.
Yesterday, a California appellate court overturned the lower court’s dismissal of a malicious prosecution claim against Biglaw mainstay Latham & Watkins. According to the opinion, the lower court was wrong on the statute of limitations, but the opinion also went out of its way to express just how likely the plaintiffs were to prevail on the merits of their claim that Latham doggedly pursued them on a “non-viable” legal theory.
Latham still has an opportunity to defend itself, but the language of this opinion is certainly not encouraging.
The plaintiff already recovered over $1.6 million in fees from Latham’s client, let’s see how they do against the firm…
A restaurateur’s lawsuit accusing the popular review website Yelp of falsely claiming that its software accurately and efficiently filters out biased and unreliable reviews was revived yesterday by the Court of Appeal for this district. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos had tossed out James Demetriades’ suit, citing the anti-SLAPP statute. But Div. One, in an opinion by Justice Jeffrey Johnson, said the suit is exempt from anti-SLAPP treatment because it arises from commercial speech.
SAN FRANCISCO — It will take more than an anti-SLAPP motion to bring down a suit filed against John Travolta by the movie star's former pilot, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled Tuesday. Douglas Gotterba also claims he was Travolta's lover and, according to Tuesday's ruling, planned to publish a tell-all book. Gotterba filed a declaratory judgment action after receiving threatening letters from Travolta's attorney, Los Angeles-based lawyer-to-the-stars Martin Singer. The suit seeks a court order as to the validity of two conflicting termination agreements, one of which contained a confidentiality clause.
On behalf of a unanimous panel, Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert rejected Singer's claim that the suit against Travolta and his company, Alto Inc., should be dismissed because it seeks to stifle his protected speech. Read more: http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202664207677/Travolta-Pilots-TellAll-Suit-Survives-AntiSLAPP-Motion#ixzz38JXZBAcE
|
Curated by Aaron Morris
A Partner in the law firm of Morris & Stone, with more than 20 years of experience in employment, free speech, defamation and anti-SLAPP law. Call (714) 954-0700 with any questions.
|
Typical article about how posting a review can get you into legal trouble, but the interesting fact is the contract language. I am seeing more and more contracts that provide a consequence if the customer posts a negative review.
In some instances, I've seen intake forms at doctors' offices that purportedly prohibit negative reviews. I don't see how that would ever be enforceable. But as was the case here, some contracts take something away if a negative review is posted. Here, the contractor offered a ten year warranty on the construction, but the contract provided the warranty would be forfeited if a negative review is posted. I don't see any reason that parties would not be free to enter into such an agreement.
Before you cry outrage that a contract would seek to silence someone's right to criticize, you may not be aware that "extortion by defamation" is very prevalent in this country.
"Oh, I see from your invoice that I still owe another $5,000 for the job. If you don't agree to waive that, I'm going to post bad reviews about you on every site I can find."
Looking at it another way, it levels the playing field a little. Here the consumer posted a review that could have a significant financial impact on the contractor. If the consumer feels strongly enough about the job that they feel the world needs to know, then he can stand by that conviction and post to his heart's content, knowing the the price of freedom is the ten-year warranty.
Read more about Internet Defamation and remedies here.