The ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct™ is a trusted resource that helps attorneys understand cases and decisions that directly impacts their work, practice ethically, and...
Cosby accuser Janice Dickinson can go ahead with her tort suit claiming that the entertainer defamed her through his lawyer’s statements in reaction to her rape accusation, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, ruled Nov. 21.
Cosby isn’t entitled to an early exit from Dickinson’s suit under California’s anti-SLAPP law, the court concluded in an opinion by Justice Laurence D. Rubin ( Dickinson v. Cosby , 2017 BL 417585, Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., B271470, 11/21/17 ).
Even though the decision isn’t a ruling on the merits of the claims against Cosby, it could prompt lawyers to think twice before describing accusations against their clients as lies.
When Dickinson went public with her rape accusation against Cosby, his lawyer Martin Singer reacted with (1) a letter demanding that media outlets not repeat her allegations; and (2) a press release characterizing her rape accusation as a lie.
Dickinson sued Cosby for allegedly defaming her in the demand letter and press release. Cosby responded with a motion to strike her complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP law.
The anti-SLAPP law, codified at Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §425.16, frowns on “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.” It provides a procedural mechanism for defendants to quickly escape a meritless suit that’s intended to squelch speech on public issues.
In response to the anti-SLAPP motion, Singer submitted a declaration explaining how he came to draft the two statements and why he believed their contents were true. Cosby didn’t file a declaration denying the truth of the rape accusation.
On appeal from a mixed trial court ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion, the battleground was whether Dickinson demonstrated a probability of prevailing on her complaint.
Cosby argued that the demand letter was protected by the absolute litigation privilege set out in Cal. Civ. Code §47, but the court didn’t agree.
The court noted that the litigation privilege applies to a prelitigation communication only when it relates to litigation that is contemplated in good faith and under serious consideration. The evidence here supported the inference that Cosby sent the demand letter without a serious, good faith contemplation of litigation, it found.
The court pointed out that the demand letter was sent only to media outlets that hadn’t yet run the story of Dickinson’s rape allegation but had indicated an intention to do so. Also, Cosby never sued any media outlet that ran the story.
These facts suggested that the demand letter was a bluff intended to frighten the media outlets into silence at a time when they could still be silenced, but with no intention to go through with the threat of litigation if they were uncowed, the court said.
The litigation privilege doesn’t extend to press releases so Cosby was correct not to argue otherwise, the court said in a footnote.
With regard to both the demand letter and the press release, Cosby argued that the statements in them were simply Singer’s opinion and thus couldn’t support a claim for defamation. Cosby also contended that he couldn’t be held liable for Singer’s statements without evidence that he furnished or approved them.
However, the court found that both the demand letter and the press release contained statements of fact—that is, that Dickinson lied about Cosby raping her.
The court pointed out that the demand letter came from Cosby’s litigation counsel on his behalf. When someone is publicly accused of rape, is asked for a response, and sends back a letter from counsel saying the alleged rape never happened, it’s reasonable for the recipient of the letter to infer that the accused is, in fact, denying the rape, the court said.
As for the press release, the average person reading it would assume that Singer, as Cosby’s attorney, was speaking for Cosby and that the statement was Cosby’s denial of having raped Dickinson, the court said.
On a separate issue in the case, the court held that Dickinson had the right to amend her complaint to add Singer as a defendant even though Cosby’s anti-SLAPP motion was pending at the time when she filed the amended complaint.
There’s no reason for a new defendant to escape being added simply because an existing defendant has an anti-SLAPP motion pending, the court said.
“We fail to see how justice is served by granting Singer a windfall immunity based on Cosby’s pursuit of a meritless motion,” the court said.
The other panel members were Justices Patricia A. Bigelow and Elizabeth A. Grimes.
DLA Piper and Greenberg Gross LLP represented Cosby. Horvitz & Levy LLP and Lavely & Singer P.C. represented Singer.
To contact the reporter on this story: Joan C. Rogers in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: S. Ethan Bowers at firstname.lastname@example.org
Text at http://src.bna.com/urJ.
Copyright © 2017 American Bar Association and The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)