Nelson v. Wells
| Docket Number | B320223 |
| Decision Date | 27 October 2023 |
| Parties | CHRIS NELSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NOEL WELLS, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20STCV48299, Gregory Wilson Alarcon, Judge.
Clark Hill, Bradford G. Hughes, Richard H. Nakamura, Jr. and Tiffany B. Hunter for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Liang Ly, Jason L. Liang and John K. Ly for Defendant and Respondent.
A record producer sued a singer/songwriter for defamation. The dispute arose when respondent Noel Wells sent an e-mail to a music group about her experience while working on an album two years earlier, with appellant Chris Nelson. Wells used the word "predatory" to describe Nelson's conduct.
Wells moved to strike Nelson's complaint as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). The anti-SLAPP law allows courts to strike claims arising from a defendant's First Amendment activity "in connection with a public issue" unless the court determines that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).)[1] The trial court granted Wells's motion.
On de novo review, we conclude that Nelson's lawsuit does not fall within the anti-SLAPP law. Wells's private e-mail about Nelson is not "speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest." (§ 425.16 subd. (e)(4).) Nor is it "artistic speech." Because Wells did not establish a prima facie case, Nelson did not have to show a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits. We reverse.
Nelson "is a well-established record producer, musician, and businessman." He owns a Los Angeles recording studio frequented by "well-known artists and musicians" who work with him or use his recording equipment. Nelson strives to promote diversity in music by working with "all musicians regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation."
In 2020, Wells contacted music manager Tom Wironen, with whom Nelson had a professional relationship. Wells said Nelson was "predatory" toward her and other young female musicians. Nelson alleges that this false statement about him was "intended to interfere with and damage [his] business and working relationship with the music manager."
Nelson's complaint asserts causes of action for defamation; false light; intentional infliction of emotional distress intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations; and seeks injunctive relief.
Wells moved to strike Nelson's complaint as a SLAPP, asserting that she was sued for exercising her right to free speech. Wells declared that she knew Nelson for seven years. In 2018 he offered his studio to record her first album, free of charge, and donated his services as producer; she only had to pay for a studio engineer. After they began, Nelson suggested recording more songs for a longer album on the same terms-free studio time and free producer services.
While Wells was recording, Nelson allowed other artists to interfere with her studio time. When she objected, he proposed changing their agreement, seeking 50 percent of the song-writing credit and 50 percent of the royalties. Wells was shocked. She felt Nelson's request was "unusual and out of line with industry norms, but it was also predatory and designed to take advantage of my naivete with the music industry."
When Wells confronted Nelson, he claimed his proposal was within industry standards. Disbelieving, she stopped recording with him. He ceased communication and refused to return the songs she recorded in his studio, which delayed the release of her album. Nelson returned the recordings to Wells after she hired a lawyer. Wells was traumatized by her experience with Nelson.
Two years later, Wells saw an Instagram posting by one of her favorite bands, Big Thief, showing them in Nelson's studio. Big Thief asked people to recommend places "to create in" near Los Angeles. Wells decided to "shar[e] my experience working with Plaintiff" in a private message she sent to Big Thief.
In an e-mail entitled, "Los Angeles recording space/Chris Nelson," Wells wrote that she saw "a photograph of you recording in Chris Nelson's space," saying "I feel it's important as a creative to let you know about that recording environment and what happened to me in case it informs your recording situation in the future." Nelson "brought me into his orbit by claiming to let me use his space for free." Later,
The e-mail continues, "I also witnessed incredibly predatory behavior from him toward young females including young female musicians, and I felt like because I had a slightly higher profile, he was using working with me to try and lure in other more naive women into his orbit." Noting Big Thief's popularity, Wells opined that "promoting [Nelson] and his space may invite other younger women to work with [him] who may not have the same protections in place as you have." She closed by expressing hope that "there are some good safe spaces for you to be able to use while you visit Los Angeles."
Wells declared that she shared her experience to protect Big Thief. An artist's decision on who to work with and where to record has an "impact in the music world" and "on the quality of the music that is produced." Wells believed that working with Nelson would affect Big Thief's creative process.
Wells argued that her e-mail furthered "artistic speech" because it could affect a band's decision who to hire to create music. It involved "an issue of public interest" because the subject was someone in the public eye or could affect large numbers of people; the activity occurred in the context of an ongoing controversy, dispute, or discussion; or it affected a community similar to that of a governmental entity.
Wells asserted that Nelson cannot prevail on the merits. Her statements are not defamatory-they are personal opinions- and are privileged; she did not portray Nelson in a false light; there was no outrageous and extreme conduct causing emotional distress; Wells did not intend to contact Wironen; and there is no proof she interfered with a business opportunity.
Nelson did not submit a declaration in support of his opposition. He argued that Wells's statements did not involve an issue of public interest. He is a private individual and the subject matter of her e-mail does not affect a broad segment of the population. In any event, Wells acted with actual malice, sending her e-mail before Big Thief requested studio recommendations on Instagram. Wells's statements were later posted on a site created by Nelson's ex-girlfriends as part of "a vengeance plot to destroy [his] reputation."
Nelson argued that he is likely to prevail on his claims. Wells's statements are defamatory per se: They allege that he committed crimes and took advantage of female musicians or impugn his character by accusing him of unethical and predatory practices, without supporting evidence.
Wells replied that she engaged in protected acts furthering artistic speech and concerning an ongoing, public discussion on social media about Nelson, a person in the public eye. His complaint alleges that he works with "numerous" artists, which could affect a substantial number of people.
Nelson did not show a probability of prevailing on his claims. He did not address her claim of privilege. Nor did he show with admissible evidence that she acted with malice or that any artist or manager stopped working with him after Wells's e-mail about her personal experience.
The court granted Wells's motion to strike Nelson's complaint. It deemed the incident "straightforward," involving Wells's e-mail to a music group advising it not to use Nelson's recording studio because he tried to change the terms of her agreement in a "predatory" manner. The court found that Wells's e-mail did not involve an issue of public interest. Nelson is not in the public eye; the e-mail was not shown to affect a substantial number of people; and there was no "ongoing" public discussion.[2]Her private e-mail did not enter the public sphere. Despite finding no issue of public interest, the court found this is "artistic speech" that advances or assists in the creation of music.
After finding a prima facie case to apply the anti-SLAPP law, the court found that Nelson did not show a probability of prevailing on the merits. He offered no declaration to establish the elements of his claims. He did not show he was defamed, placed in a false light, or suffered severe or extreme emotional distress; he presented no evidence that the statements disrupted any economic relationship or caused him harm.
Nelson sought reconsideration, citing a recent case involving commercial speech. He declared, "I never pulled a predatory move on defendant Wells," who thanked him for his work on her album. He offered 200 pages of new evidence, mostly text messages from 2018. Wells objected that the evidence was untimely and irrelevant, and the commercial speech case is inapposite. The court "did not discern a material change in law requiring reconsideration" and denied the motion.
The anti-SLAPP law is construed...
To continue reading
Request your trial