Dickinson v. Cosby
Decision Date | 26 July 2019 |
Docket Number | B291701 |
Citation | 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 350,37 Cal.App.5th 1138 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Janice DICKINSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William H. COSBY, Jr., Defendant and Appellant. |
The Bloom Firm, Lisa Bloom, Woodland Hills, Franklin L. Ferguson, Jr., Los Angeles, and Alan Goldstein for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Greenberg Gross, Alan A. Greenberg, Wayne R. Gross, Costa Mesa, and Sarah Kelly-Kilgore for Defendant and Appellant.
In 2014, plaintiff Janice Dickinson publicly alleged that defendant William Cosby drugged and raped her in 1982. Cosby responded by issuing a demand letter and several press releases through his attorney, which expressed or implied that Dickinson was lying. Dickinson filed a complaint against Cosby for defamation and related causes of action, which Cosby moved to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute).1 The trial court granted Cosby's motion in part, which we subsequently reversed in Dickinson v. Cosby (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 655, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 430 ( Dickinson I ). We concluded that none of Dickinson's claims were barred by the anti-SLAPP statute.
On remand, Cosby filed a second anti-SLAPP motion seeking to strike claims newly asserted in Dickinson's first amended complaint. The trial court granted the motion in substantial part, but refused to strike Dickinson's claims premised on two allegedly defamatory statements appearing in press releases issued by Cosby's attorney.
Cosby contends the trial court erred in declining to grant his motion in full. He argues that Dickinson cannot show he is directly or vicariously liable for his attorney's statements. He also argues the allegedly defamatory statements were his attorney's nonactionable opinions and did not refer, directly or indirectly, to Dickinson. We disagree and affirm.
During a nationally televised Entertainment Tonight interview that aired on November 18, 2014, Dickinson, a successful model and television personality, accused Cosby, a successful comedian and actor, of drugging and raping her in 1982. After the interview went public, Cosby's attorney, Martin Singer, sent a demand letter to the executive producer of Good Morning America , with similar letters to other media outlets. The body of the letter states, among other things,
The body of the press release asserts, among other things, "Janice Dickinson's story accusing Bill Cosby of rape is a lie," and "Documentary proof and Ms. Dickinson's own words show that her new story about something she now claims happened back in 1982 is a fabricated lie."
The statement reads, in its entirety, as follows:
The statement reads, in its entirety, as follows:
On February 2, 2015, Dickinson's counsel, Lisa Bloom, sent several Cosby attorneys, including Singer, a letter seeking retraction of both the November 18 demand letter and November 19 press release. Bloom argued that Singer's statements on behalf of Cosby had defamed Dickinson and harmed her reputation, and she demanded Cosby "immediately publicly correct the record to restore [Dickinson's] reputation."
On December 24, 2015, Bloom sent additional letters to Cosby's attorneys, as well as Singer's attorney, demanding retraction of the November 20 and 21 press releases.
Neither Cosby nor Singer retracted the statements.
On May 20, 2015, Dickinson filed a complaint against Cosby for defamation and related causes of action.3 Her complaint alleged that Cosby had drugged and raped her, which she disclosed publicly in 2014. "In retaliation, Cosby, through an attorney, publicly branded her a liar and called her rape disclosure a lie with the intent and effect of revictimizing her and destroying the professional reputation she's spent decades building."
Dickinson's complaint alleged that Singer's November 18 demand letter and November 19 press release were defamatory. She also alleged that Cosby "issued" and "published" both statements, through his attorney, which were republished by thousands of media entities worldwide as Cosby "foresaw and intended."
Dickinson pleaded that Cosby's refusal to retract the statements after having been provided with evidence confirming that her claims were not fabricated "constitutes actual malice." She also argued that failure to retract "constitutes [Cosby's] acceptance, endorsement and ratification" of Singer's statements.
Dickinson did not assert any claims based on the November 20 and 21 press releases.
On June 22, 2015, Cosby filed an anti-SLAPP motion seeking to strike Dickinson's entire complaint. Among other things, Cosby argued that Dickinson could not prevail on her defamation claims because the allegedly defamatory statements were protected by the litigation privilege and were nonactionable opinions.
Cosby also put forth a series of arguments based on the fact that the statements had been made by Singer, rather than Cosby himself. Cosby argued that he could not be held liable for Singer's conduct without evidence that he furnished or approved the statements, and a failure to retract is not sufficient. He further argued that since Dickinson is a public figure, she could only prevail on her defamation cause of action if she established actual malice. He claimed that Singer had not acted with actual malice; and that, even if he had, Singer's malice could not be imputed to him as Singer's principal via respondeat superior.
As Cosby's anti-SLAPP motion had put Singer's malice into question, Dickinson moved to lift the automatic discovery stay ( § 425.16, subd. (g) ) to depose Cosby and Singer on the issue. After considerable litigation, the trial court indicated that, prior to allowing such discovery, it would first determine whether Dickinson had a reasonable probability of establishing the elements of her defamation action other than actual malice.
On March 8, 2016, in an apparent bid to entirely remove the malice issue from consideration, Cosby filed a supplemental brief in the trial court stating he was no longer "pursuing on this Special Motion to Strike the arguments advanced in the opening brief regarding agency and actual malice."
While Cosby's original anti-SLAPP motion was pending, Dickinson filed a first amended complaint (FAC), which added Singer as a defendant. In addition, the FAC newly alleged that Cosby is liable for defamatory statements contained in the November 20 and 21 press releases. It also added explicit allegations that Cosby is both directly and vicariously liable for publishing the demand letter and press releases. The trial court struck the FAC on procedural grounds.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. USA Taekwondo
...the agent’s conduct. ( Rakestraw v. Rodrigues (1972) 8 Cal.3d 67, 73, 104 Cal.Rptr. 57, 500 P.2d 1401 ; Dickinson v. Cosby (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1158, 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 350.) "Ratification is the voluntary election by a person to adopt in some manner as his own an act which was purporte......
-
Deal v. Deal (In re Deal)
...‘precludes a party from obtaining appellate review of the same issue more than once in a single action.’ " (Dickinson v. Cosby (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1153, 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 350.) ...
-
Nunes v. Lizza
... ... he shared the Tweet, despite being told the implication as to ... Nunes was false before tweeting. See Dickinson v ... Cosby , 37 Cal.App. 5th 1138, 1159 (Cal.Ct.App. 2019) ... (discussing failure to retract a statement upon which doubt ... is ... ...
-
Abboud v. Khairallah
...to be opinions... are immunized” from defamation liability. (Bently Reserve LP v. Papaliolios (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 418, 426; see Dickinson, at p. 1163 [“Statements opinion... do not enjoy blanket protection.”].) A “‘statement that implies a false assertion of fact, even if couched as an o......
-
Defamation and privacy
...matter may be held liable for the publication” Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1245; see also Dickinson v. Cosby (2019) 37 Cal. App. 5th 1138 (Bill Cosby may be held liable for the allegedly defamatory statements made in press releases issued by Cosby’s attorneys). §1:31 False a......
-
Employment Law Case Notes
...so employer's motion was properly denied).Bill Cosby May Be Liable for His Attorney's Statements About Accuser Dickinson v. Cosby, 37 Cal. App. 5th 1138 (2019)After Janice Dickinson went public with her accusations of rape against Bill Cosby, Cosby's attorney (Martin Singer) reacted with: (......