Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Allegations of Abusive Conduct Toward Women Are Protected
Weingart Says Anti-SLAPP Motion Was Properly Granted in Action Against Singer/Songwriter Phoebe Bridgers
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
|
|
—AP PHOEBE BRIDGERS Singer/songwriter |
The Court of Appeal for this district has affirmed the granting of an anti-SLAPP motion in a $3.8 million defamation/emotional distress action against singer/songwriter Phoebe Bridgers based on her posting allegations on her pubic Instagram account accusing the plaintiff, a record producer, of abusive conduct toward women.
Such behavior, Div. One held, constitutes an “issue of public interest,” rendering statements in connection with that topic in a public forum protected speech, satisfying the first prong of the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure §425.16. The plaintiff, Chris Nelson, disputed the finding that a “public issue” is involved and did not address, in his appeal, the second prong of the statute: whether his action had “minimal merit.”
Justice Gregory Weingart of Div. One authored the opinion, filed Wednesday. It was not certified for publication.
The opinion affirms the order by Los Angeles Superior Court Curtis A. Kin granting Bridgers’s special motion to strike, as well as his later order awarding the defendant $496.608.32 based on the attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with that motion, and the amended judgment dumping the lawsuit and adding the fee-award.
Allegations of Complaint
Nelson’s complaint alleges that “in or around 2018, Plaintiff and his girlfriend at the time. Emily Bannon, began having consensual sexual encounters with defendant Bridgers.” It avers that after Nelson’s relationship with Bridgers ended in 2019, “[i]n or around October 2020, defendant Bridgers published false and misleading statements about Plaintiff on her public Instagram account, ‘©fakenudes,’ stating: ‘I witnessed and can personally verify much of the abuse (grooming, stealing, violence) perpetuated by Chris Nelson, owner of a studio called Sound Space...,’ ” adding:
“Defendant Bridgers intentionally directed the public to Bannon’s public Instagram account by publishing a post stating, ‘For anyone who knows [Plaintiff], is considering working with him, or wants to know more, there is an articulate and mind blowing account on @emilybannon’s page as a highlight. TRIGGER WARNING for basically everything triggering.’ “
It goes on to say:
“Defendant Bridgers also shared the defamatory and misleading statements from Bannon’s Instagram account onto her own Instagram. which at the time the defamatory content and statements were published had a following of approximately 500,000 accounts....
“Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant Bridgers maliciously and intentionally posted the false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff as part of a vendetta to destroy Plaintiff’s reputation that was enflamed by defendant Bridgers and Bannon’s sexual relationship.”
Weingart’s Opinion
In his opinion affirming the judgment and orders, Weingart said:
“The content and context of Bridgers’s post shows it falls within the scope of conduct protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. The post related to public concerns, especially prevalent in light of the #MeToo movement, about men using their power to abuse women. It also provided consumer protection information about Nelson, who operated a substantial business selling musical instruments and recording equipment, as well as a recording studio. Lastly, it furthered public discourse by adding to an on-going discussion summarized in Bannon’s post about Nelson’s business practices and alleged abuse of young females.”
Weingart elaborated:
“Bridgers’s post referred to ‘grooming’ by Nelson ‘that is being brought to light.’ It then referred readers to Bannon’s claims on her Instagram account, which Nelson alleges included the claim he ‘abuses women.’ Bannon’s post referred to her being 11 years younger than Nelson when they began their relationship and how he took advantage of her, and further attached a screenshot of a text from another woman saying she later came to recognize Nelson’s behavior as grooming. Given this context, Bridgers’s post implicated the issue of men using psychological, economic, and other means of manipulation to gain control over, and abuse, women. This is a topic of widespread public interest.”
He added:
“Bridgers’s post further concerned an issue of public interest by warning those who might do business with Nelson about his alleged misconduct. Courts have found that providing such consumer protection information to the public can constitute protected conduct under section 425.16.”
The case is Nelson v. Bridgers, B325454.
Richard H. Nakamura Jr., Tiffany B. Hunter, and Bradford G. Hughes of the downtown Los Angeles firm of Clark Hill represented Nelson, while Michael H. Strub Jr. of Jeffery Mangels Butler & Mitchell’s Irvine office and Lena Streisandof that firm’s Century City office acted for Bridgers.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company