Become a Member
Remove ads, unlock a dark mode theme, and get other perks by upgrading your account. Experience the website the way it's meant to be.

Judge Dismisses Music Producer’s Defamation Suit Against Phoebe Bridgers

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Melody Bot, Nov 10, 2022.

  1. Melody Bot Nov 10, 2022
    Melody Bot

    Your friendly little forum bot. Staff Member

    This article has been imported from chorus.fm for discussion. All of the forum rules still apply.

    MyNewsLA:

    A judge Wednesday dismissed on free-speech grounds a lawsuit brought against Phoebe Bridgers by a music producer who alleged the singer-songwriter made false and defamatory statements on social media as part of a vendetta to destroy his reputation.

    Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin heard arguments on Bridgers’ dismissal motion on Aug. 11, saying at the time that he was leaning toward tossing plaintiff Chris Nelson’s case. He instead took the issues under submission before ruling Wednesday.

    Nelson filed the suit in September 2021, also alleging false light and emotional distress. On Feb. 14, the 28-year-old, Pasadena-born Bridgers’ attorneys brought a motion to dismiss the suit on free-speech grounds, arguing that Nelson was “seeking to chill Ms. Bridgers’ allegations of abusive conduct, which are protected by the First Amendment.”

    more

    Not all embedded content is displayed here. You can view the original to see embedded videos, tweets, etc.
     
  2. DandonTRJ Nov 10, 2022
    DandonTRJ

    ~~~ヾ(＾∇＾ Supporter

    I went to the case docket to pull the ruling and see the judge's reasoning.

    I was left wanting.
     

    Attached Files:

  3. RiseAgainst379 Nov 11, 2022
    RiseAgainst379

    Regular

    There is almost certainly a tentative opinion posted on the court's website that you can find by searching the case number, or if you know the department and hearing date and time.

    (I practice law in southern California).
     
  4. DandonTRJ Nov 11, 2022
    DandonTRJ

    ~~~ヾ(＾∇＾ Supporter

    The oral argument was back in August, so any tentative would have been long gone from the court's website, but since my original post, the full 11-page final order was added to the case document images. I just haven't decided if I want to pay $7.40 for it. Leave it to state court delays/price gouging to make me appreciate the immediacy and relative affordability of PACER.

    (Fellow SoCal litigator here. :folded: Almost all my state court cases are out of Stanley Mosk in DTLA.)
     
    RiseAgainst379 likes this.
  5. Remove
  6. DandonTRJ Nov 11, 2022
    DandonTRJ

    ~~~ヾ(＾∇＾ Supporter