0:00

Welcome back to the emily show if you are watching

0:02

the grammys like i did hoping to see

0:04

jelly roll when you might have been surprised

0:06

to see lizzo i sure was

0:08

seeing her present in the war and i was like. Hey

0:11

what's going on with those lawsuits we're gonna talk

0:13

about that today because the judge granted

0:16

her anti slap motion in part

0:18

denied it in part had some strong

0:20

words for the defense attorneys and you

0:22

know we love a good judicial ruling

0:25

and since we've been talking so much

0:27

about special motions to strike or anti

0:29

slap motions were also going to check

0:31

back in on what's going on with

0:33

leo remedy and Scientology because the court

0:36

put over there anti slap hearing for

0:38

yet another date and there

0:40

is more fighting going on about

0:42

whether david miscavige will be served

0:44

properly or not so there's a

0:47

whole nother round of motions to

0:49

quash service is really fighting to

0:51

not be a part of this lawsuit you

0:54

know what i'm really fighting for my

0:56

everyday wellness and a lot of that starts

0:58

with having fast easy dinners at home

1:00

and that is made possible. Because

1:03

of green chef green chef is the number one

1:05

meal kit for cleaning and you can get sixty

1:07

percent off plus twenty percent over the next two

1:09

months. With code sixty Emily

1:12

baker at green chef.com/sixty Emily baker

1:14

let's get in to today's

1:16

episode. Welcome to

1:19

the Emily show i'm Emily debaker the

1:21

internet's go to legal analyst and big fan

1:23

of the curse awards i've been

1:25

a licensed attorney for over seventeen years i'm

1:27

a former prosecutor and i break down the

1:29

legal side of pop culture and entertainment stories

1:32

we can't stop talking about. We

1:34

should just get into it let's go. Let's

1:44

take a look at what's going on with

1:46

the leo remedy Scientology lawsuit first and

1:48

then we will get into the court's

1:51

order and ruling in the lizzo

1:54

dancers lawsuit because lizzo has been sued

1:56

by a designer as well so there

1:58

are multiple lizzo. loss it's going

2:00

on, but today we're just taking up the suit that

2:02

I covered a number of

2:04

months back now with regard to the three

2:06

dancers that sued her. So we are taking

2:09

a look at the January 19th,

2:11

2024 court order, and that is

2:13

when the hearing on Scientology's

2:15

special motion to strike, also

2:17

called anti-slap motion, also by

2:19

me sometimes just called slap

2:21

motion because it's just

2:23

easier to say they went

2:26

in for hearing on that day and that

2:28

hearing has been pushed to an additional other

2:31

date. So let's take a look at what

2:33

the court ruled nature of the proceedings case

2:35

management conference hearing on special motion to strike

2:37

under CCP section 425.16 anti-slap motion hearing on

2:42

request for media coverage. So the

2:44

court goes through first the media

2:46

coverage requests. The

2:48

underground bunker and Megan Cooney had filed

2:51

motions for media coverage. Cooney was not

2:53

present so it was taken off calendar.

2:56

The underground bunker was allowed to

2:58

tweet out the proceedings

3:00

from the courtroom but was not allowed to record

3:02

audio or video of the proceedings. The

3:05

anti-slap motion resumed. They had heard part

3:07

of it another day, resumed

3:09

it on the 19th. It

3:11

says counsel for the church of Scientology

3:13

addresses an issue of conduct by people

3:15

in the audience and the court makes

3:17

no rulings. Court does admonish the audience

3:19

of its expectations of their actions while

3:21

in the courtroom. I don't know what

3:23

happened in court but the

3:27

court or at least counsel for Scientology was

3:29

not thrilled about whoever was in court. It

3:32

sounds like court was busy that day so

3:34

it will be interesting to see what happens

3:36

on the next court date. It

3:38

says on the court's own motion the hearing on

3:40

special motion to strike of

4:00

how defendant religious technology center is

4:02

linked to the Church of Scientology

4:05

International. plaintiff to electrically file and

4:07

serve decorations no later than 4pm

4:09

on January 23rd, 2024. defendants to

4:11

electrically file and serve any written

4:13

response no later than 4pm January

4:16

30th, 2024.

4:18

The court's own motion the case management

4:20

conference scheduled for the 19th is continued

4:22

to February 6th. Notice is waived which

4:24

means the attorneys were all in court

4:26

and knew what was going on. So

4:28

there is additional filings from Leah

4:30

Remini showing the court or

4:33

attempting to show the court how the

4:35

religious technology center who is one of

4:37

the defendants is a linked to the

4:39

Church of Scientology for the purposes of

4:42

this motion. So when

4:44

the court asked for more information the hearings

4:46

normally get put over though the court has

4:48

already heard some of the arguments with regard

4:51

to this anti-slap we will see what the

4:53

court chooses to do after February 6th and

4:56

go from there. In

4:58

the meantime there has been no

5:00

shortage of filing from both parties

5:02

in this case. One

5:04

thing I can tell you for sure I don't

5:07

give percentages on things I don't normally

5:09

speculate on how things are going to

5:12

go here's what I can tell you

5:14

for absolute certain in this Leah Remini

5:16

Church of Scientology case this is going

5:18

to be expensive and voluminous

5:20

litigation even downloading all the documents

5:22

is expensive because every other declaration

5:24

is like 300 plus pages

5:27

long this is going to

5:29

be so voluminous in

5:32

documents it is it is going to

5:34

go on and on and on

5:37

the fact that we're multiple motions

5:40

in and multiple declarations in over

5:42

whether the defendant's David Miscavige is

5:44

going to be served or is

5:46

going to be served by substitute

5:48

service the plaintiffs filed

5:50

a 300 page declaration

5:53

with all the things they have done

5:55

to attempt to serve David Miscavige so

5:57

we're going to talk a bit about

5:59

that now in

6:01

both David Miscavige's motions and the

6:04

responsibly remedy side is filed. For

6:06

a quick road so far, I covered this

6:09

in the last podcast where I covered Scientology

6:11

and this lawsuit talking about the efforts

6:13

that have been made to serve David

6:16

Miscavige at two locations owned by the

6:18

Church of Scientology. And while the church

6:20

says that he is the religious

6:23

leader of the church, they

6:25

say that those are not his places of business

6:28

and he does not live there, so too bad

6:30

so sad. He has not been served. The court

6:32

doesn't have jurisdiction over him. Leah Remini's side has

6:34

been arguing that if you would like to tell

6:36

us exactly where to serve him, we will, but

6:38

otherwise this works as substitute service of process because

6:41

he is the CEO of the

6:44

Religious Technology Center

6:46

Institute and he can

6:49

be served there. This fight is ongoing

6:51

because now they are seeking substitute service

6:53

of process, meaning, okay, we didn't serve

6:55

you personally, but you have essentially been

6:58

served and these are all the efforts

7:00

that we've taken and those apply under

7:02

the code. And we're gonna find out

7:04

exactly how much money Leah Remini's side

7:06

has spent just trying

7:08

to serve David Miscavige.

7:11

And if you guys want to go ahead and guess in the chat

7:14

on YouTube where this is premiering or come over

7:16

to the comments and take a guess before I

7:19

before I let you know, go ahead and guess how

7:21

much they've spent trying to serve this man. What

7:24

we're looking at first is the new

7:27

motion from Miscavige trying

7:30

to quash service

7:32

of summons and subpoena. This

7:34

includes multiple declarations. A declaration

7:37

by Gary Soder, Warren McShane,

7:39

Lynn Farney, Frenic

7:42

Paolo, Matthew Wernker, and

7:45

Leonardo Chaparro. Those are

7:48

all of the declarations. We're not going

7:50

to get in those in today's podcast because we've got

7:52

a lot to cover. But here's

7:54

the overriding argument that they are

7:57

making. Mr. David Miscavige. is the

7:59

ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology, religion,

8:01

and the chairman of the board

8:04

of the religious technology center. If

8:06

I said CEO, I was

8:08

wrong. Chairman of the board, not CEO.

8:11

Although RTC is a codefendant,

8:13

Mr. Miscavige has been named here individually,

8:15

not as chairman of the board of

8:17

RTC. Plenip is a former

8:19

Church of Scientology parishioner. She was

8:22

expelled from Scientology for serious misconduct

8:24

ever since Plenip has made a

8:26

career publicly attacking her former religion

8:28

and Mr. Miscavige personally. This lawsuit

8:30

is just her latest effort to

8:32

harass Mr. Miscavige. It goes

8:34

on to say Plenip's prior insufficient attempts

8:37

at service of Mr. Miscavige in

8:39

this action are already the subject of a

8:41

pending motion to quash. That motion is supposed

8:43

to be heard on Valentine's Day. So

8:45

we've got two motions a week

8:48

apart that are coming up in this case.

8:50

The additional hearing on

8:52

the anti-slap that's set for February

8:54

6th after this is recorded

8:57

but before it airs and then another

8:59

one set for Valentine's Day. Apparently

9:01

realizing that her purported service was

9:03

invalid, Plenip sent process servers to

9:05

allegedly attempt to serve Mr. Miscavige

9:08

at two additional locations, neither

9:10

of which is Mr. Miscavige's home

9:12

nor usual place of business. Nevertheless,

9:14

Plenip filed a proof of service claiming to

9:17

have served Miscavige at his quote office or

9:19

usual place of business. She has

9:21

not done so. Again, the

9:24

Plenip in this case is arguing that

9:26

if he is the chairman of the

9:28

board of the religious technology center serving

9:30

him at the religious technology center is

9:33

his place of business. They say that

9:35

the declarations signed by Plenip's process server

9:37

are false. Among other issues, the process

9:39

server erroneously claims, so they're calling the

9:41

process servers liars, erroneously claim

9:44

that one, the notice to the person

9:46

served was complete when it was not.

9:48

Two, they were ignored when they were

9:50

not. Three, they informed persons

9:52

quote apparently in charge of the locations

9:54

that they were being served on behalf

9:56

of Mr. Miscavige when they did not.

9:58

Four, they left the service. packet with

10:00

a person apparently in charge of Mr.

10:02

Miscavige's office or usual place of business

10:04

when they did not. Indisputable

10:06

evidence demonstrates that plaintiff's process server

10:09

statements made under penalty of perjury

10:11

of proper service on

10:13

Mr. Miscavige are fraudulent. And

10:16

then they go through and talk about

10:18

the fact that surveillance videos complete with

10:20

audio recordings reveal that on December 7th

10:22

and December 12th, the days that the

10:24

service packets were thrown on the ground,

10:27

the process servers never mentioned Mr. Miscavige's

10:29

name and they never informed anyone, much

10:31

less a person apparently in charge, that

10:33

such persons were being served on behalf

10:35

of Mr. Miscavige. Neither service

10:37

packet was left with a person apparently

10:40

in charge of Mr. Miscavige's office or

10:42

usual place of business and the process

10:44

server was not ignored. Mr. Miscavige was

10:46

not served. The motion to quash should

10:49

be granted. And then it really lines

10:51

out the exact same arguments that we

10:53

saw the last time. And

10:55

because it lines out the same arguments

10:58

that we covered last time, I'm not

11:00

going to cover them again, but I'm

11:02

going to go to the plaintiff's response

11:04

to this motion next. We're

11:07

going to Leah Remini's opposition

11:10

to the defendant's motion to quash

11:12

filed on January 31st, 2024 stating

11:14

that quote on August 2nd,

11:17

2023 plaintiff filed this action

11:21

against defendants David Miscavige, Church

11:23

of Scientology International and Religious

11:25

Technology Center. Since that date

11:27

plaintiff has made great efforts to serve

11:30

each of the three defendants including defendant

11:32

Miscavige. Defendant Miscavige is an individual who

11:34

serves as chairman of the board of

11:36

the religious technology center. From

11:38

August 23rd through December 23rd plaintiff has

11:41

made diligent efforts to locate Miscavige

11:43

for personal service and to ascertain

11:45

a mailing address for him at

11:47

which waiver requests and notices may be sent.

11:50

See the declaration on September 22nd, 2023rd, December 7th, 2023rd

11:53

and December 12th, 2023 defendant Miscavige was served by

11:59

substitute in compliance with California

12:01

Code of Civil Procedure 415.20B. And

12:06

again, this is what the defense is saying is

12:08

improper and did not happen. They

12:10

say that the summons complaint and other filings

12:12

were also mailed to Miscavige at two known

12:14

addresses on those dates. Because plaintiff

12:17

properly served Miscavige and because there's no question

12:19

that Miscavige has notice of this lawsuit, the

12:21

court should deny the motion to quash service

12:23

and summons a complaint. Defendant

12:26

David Miscavige knows about the lawsuit. There's

12:28

no argument that he doesn't know about the lawsuit. He

12:31

is specially appearing saying, I've not been served.

12:33

I'm not part of the lawsuit. But

12:36

to do that, you have to know that you're a part

12:38

of the lawsuit. This is not a

12:40

situation where someone never gets served, the

12:42

court issues a default judgment, and years later

12:45

they're like, excuse me, I was never

12:47

served. This is not that situation where

12:49

he is unaware of what's going on. Statement

12:52

of facts. Defendant Miscavige is the sole

12:54

defendant of the three in this case

12:56

to challenge service with a motion to quash. True. Plaintiff

13:00

has undertaken numerous steps to confirm

13:02

all known residential, business, and mailing

13:04

addresses of defendants. In

13:07

conducting research, plaintiff became aware that defendant has

13:09

a policy and practice of evading service of

13:11

process, a practice he

13:13

engages in with the assistance of other

13:15

Scientologists and their hired security personnel. These

13:17

are all based on the 300 page

13:20

declaration that we talk about. Based

13:23

upon available information, Miscavige is believed to

13:25

reside at 6331 Hollywood Boulevard. It

13:28

gives a suite number and believed

13:31

to maintain a regular place of business at

13:33

multiple locations outlined in the declaration. Plaintiff

13:36

engaged Apex Legal Services to serve

13:38

process upon Miscavige. And over the

13:40

course of five months, Apex took

13:42

extraordinary measures to serve process on

13:44

Miscavige in accordance with the law.

13:47

These measures, ultimately costing plaintiff nearly $10,000,

13:50

were accomplished with the efforts of multiple

13:53

process servers, making a total

13:55

of 32 separate visits to nine

13:57

different addresses on 16. separate

14:00

dates. It's not like

14:02

they tried to serve him once at

14:05

one place and were like good enough.

14:07

32 separate visits, nine

14:09

different addresses, 16 different dates.

14:13

That's a lot of work to

14:15

try to serve someone. The Declaration

14:17

of Cameron Scott, which is filed,

14:19

concurrently thoroughly details plaintiff's extensive service

14:21

efforts and Miscavige's avoidance. And

14:23

then they go through the legal standard on the

14:26

motion to quash. The burden is on the plaintiff

14:28

to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, the

14:30

validity of the service. That's where this 300 page

14:32

declaration comes in for Rimini

14:35

to show that her

14:37

legal team has gone above and

14:39

beyond trying to serve David

14:42

Miscavige. He actually does have notice

14:44

they have been reasonably diligent and

14:46

therefore the motion to quash should

14:48

be dismissed. And the court should

14:50

determine that he has been served

14:52

by substitute service process. Then

14:54

they quote the California Code of Civil Procedure,

14:57

when personal delivery cannot be completed

14:59

with reasonable diligence, substitute service

15:01

is allowed. Quote, ordinarily two

15:04

or three attempts at personal

15:06

service at a proper place

15:08

should fully satisfy the requirement

15:10

of reasonable diligence and allow

15:12

substitute service to be made.

15:14

Substitute service can be accomplished by leaving a copy

15:17

of the summons and complain at a person's dwelling

15:19

house, usual place of abode,

15:21

usual place of business, or usual mailing

15:23

address with a competent member of the

15:25

household or a person apparently in charge

15:27

who is at least 18 years of

15:30

age and is informed of the contents

15:32

of the papers. Thereafter a serving

15:34

party must also mail a copy of the

15:36

summons and complaint. And they are

15:38

arguing that that's what they did. They go

15:41

on to say quote, the service

15:43

dodging of Miscavige and his agents

15:45

in this matter is a continuation

15:47

of his long scanning practice of

15:49

electing procedural gamesmanship over participation

15:51

in litigation. This court,

15:53

like those before it, should reject such

15:56

efforts and deem service upon Miscavige accomplished.

15:58

Furthermore Miscavige is deliberate avoidance tactics

16:01

leave him absent any claims of

16:03

lack of notice. A person who

16:05

deliberately conceals himself to evade service

16:07

of process is scarcely in a

16:09

position to complain over much of

16:11

unfairness in substitute methods of notification

16:14

enacted by the legislature to cope

16:16

with such situations." It goes

16:18

on to state that in the present

16:20

case before resorting to substitute service, plaintiff

16:23

attempted personal service with exceedingly more than,

16:25

quote, reasonable diligence required by the statute.

16:27

Though two or three attempts at personal

16:30

service would have been sufficient, plaintiff made

16:32

a total of 24 attempts

16:34

in this case. And we're going to go

16:36

through the declaration just a little

16:38

bit to show you the lengths that

16:41

they went to. Conclusion, they say, for

16:43

the foregoing reasons, plaintiff respectfully requests that

16:45

this court deny Ms. Kavaj's motion to

16:47

quash service of summons and complaint and

16:49

deem him served by substitute service. Alternatively,

16:52

should the court deem the substitute

16:54

service inefficient, plaintiff requests that the

16:56

court grant plaintiff's application for publication

16:59

filed January 30th, meaning that

17:01

they would then serve him by publication,

17:03

meaning just publishing your being

17:06

suit. I don't know if we really

17:09

need to publish it. He's specially appearing

17:11

to fight service because he knows the

17:13

lawsuit is ongoing. We're going

17:15

to take a brief look at the declaration

17:18

with regard to the efforts made for service

17:20

in this case. A

17:22

huge thank you to our sponsor, Honeylove. I

17:25

know they're known for their shapewear and

17:27

this Valentine's season, whether you're looking for

17:29

a little something for your night out

17:31

or looking for something special for your

17:33

night in, Honeylove has you covered. When

17:36

I say don't sleep on their sleepwear, I

17:38

mean it literally. It is my favorite sleepwear

17:41

that I have ever found. It

17:43

keeps everything contained and is comfy

17:45

and keeps me cool at night, but also looks sassy.

17:49

So I don't feel like I'm

17:51

just schlubbing it in a

17:53

holy tank top. Yes, I've done that for

17:55

years. So it actually feels good to take

17:57

off your shapewear at the end of the

17:59

night and... you're

18:18

also going to be able to use the

18:20

restroom with ease. So from sculptwear to

18:22

bras, to tanks, to leggings, Honeylove

18:24

has something for you. And because you're an

18:26

Emily's show listener, a little extra something to

18:29

show yourself some love and treat yourself to

18:31

the best bras and shapewear on the market and

18:33

save 20% off at

18:35

honeylove.com/lawnered. Use our exclusive link down

18:38

below to get 20% off

18:40

at honeylove.com slash lawnered. After

18:42

your purchase, they're going to ask where you heard

18:44

about it. Please let them know from the Emily

18:46

show. Let's get back. Let's

18:50

take a look at the 300 page declaration

18:53

filed in support of plaintiff Leah

18:55

Remini's opposition to defendant David Miscavige's

18:57

motion to quash service of

19:03

subpoena in this case. We're not going to go through

19:05

all 344 pages. Don't worry. It's not

19:07

going to be a seven hour episode. We're

19:09

going to go through a brief bit

19:11

of it. I, Cameron Scott, I'm

19:14

an attorney at Motley Rice. I

19:16

represent plaintiff in this action. I make the

19:18

declaration based on my personal knowledge. And this

19:20

is the lawyers declaration of

19:22

everything they did to try to serve

19:26

David Miscavige, who I will probably refer

19:28

to as defendant. Most of the

19:30

time plaintiff served defendant by

19:32

substitute service. Defendant is the only

19:34

of the three defendants in this case to challenge

19:37

service with a motion to quash below are the

19:39

details from June, 2023 to December, I

19:43

have made diligent efforts and attempts to

19:45

locate Miscavige personally, to locate his place

19:47

of residence and business and obtain a

19:49

mailing address for him, including the following

19:52

searches of public records databases, engagement

19:54

of Apex legal services, a process

19:57

serving and private investigation company to

19:59

conduct. research and surveil locations, reviewing dockets

20:01

and pleadings and other cases in which

20:03

Ms. Kavage was named as a defendant

20:05

for details as to his whereabouts, and

20:08

past service attempts, reviewing

20:10

corporate filings accessible through the California

20:12

Secretary of State for Religious Technology

20:15

Center and the Church of Scientology,

20:17

requesting his contact information from the

20:19

registered agent for the Church of

20:21

Scientology. We saw those emails in the

20:24

last time I covered this. They

20:26

got spicy. And we covered a bit

20:28

of that the last time where the attorney's like,

20:30

you are welcome to tell us his email or

20:33

his home address. And

20:35

they were disinclined to acquiesce to that request. It

20:38

goes on to say searching public sources such as

20:41

news media and blogs for his location, reviewing

20:43

Scientology websites and promotional literature for

20:45

scheduled appearances, interviewing individuals who have

20:48

information on his possible whereabouts, corresponding

20:50

with current and former counsel who

20:52

are believed to know of his

20:54

whereabouts. In addition to reviewing

20:57

Apex public record searches, I've conducted public

20:59

record searches using Westlaw and Lexus. The

21:02

reports generated include information from telephone

21:04

service providers, email address

21:06

records, credit bureaus, driver's license,

21:08

voter registration records, asset registration,

21:11

property title records, bankruptcy filing, criminal

21:13

history records, lawsuits, marriage records and

21:16

divorce records. I've reviewed

21:18

the public records search through

21:20

Westlaw and Lexus and

21:22

the report prepared by our private investigator and

21:24

each reflect 6331 Hollywood

21:27

Boulevard as the most recent known

21:29

or likely address attached to exhibit A as a

21:31

true and correct copy of the reports. I'm not

21:33

going to go through all those reports. I

21:36

reviewed records from the registrar of

21:38

actions for Pinellas County, Florida attached

21:40

as exhibit C, a true and

21:42

correct copy from the registrar

21:44

of actions in Pinellas County,

21:46

Florida shows that Miscavige received traffic citations

21:48

in 1991 and 1995, which lists his

21:51

address as

21:53

that 6331 Hollywood Boulevard address.

21:57

I reviewed dockets and jurisdictions in which Miscavige

21:59

has been named as a... defendant determined whether

22:01

his address is revealed in affidavit splitting or

22:03

other court documents. He declared

22:06

in a sworn statement on September 24th,

22:08

1999 in Wollersham versus Church of Scientology

22:10

filed in the Superior Court of the

22:12

State of California that he is a

22:14

resident of the State of California. That's

22:16

attached. He declared in a sworn statement

22:18

on August 28th, 2013 in another case

22:21

where he was or is

22:23

being sued in Texas

22:26

that he is a resident of the State of

22:28

California and that his address is 1710 Ivar

22:32

Avenue Los Angeles. Ivar

22:34

Avenue just for note, the

22:37

Ivar Avenue address and the Hollywood

22:40

Boulevard address are two sides of

22:42

the same building on a corner.

22:44

So there are doors on both

22:47

sides. Those are two addresses for the

22:49

same building. It is a

22:51

Scientology building on Hollywood

22:54

Boulevard. On March 4th, 2020 in

22:56

Bixler versus Church of Scientology filed in

22:59

the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Miscavige

23:01

in his reply in support in motion

23:03

to quash services summons and complaint to

23:05

strike plaintiff's proof of service as fraudulent

23:08

did not challenge the purported substitute service

23:10

based on the location of alleged attempts

23:12

at service. Plaintiff submitted proofs of

23:14

substituted service for Miscavige at 6331

23:18

Hollywood Boulevard and 1710 Ivar Avenue. So what

23:22

the plaintiff is saying is in

23:24

these other lawsuits, he's not challenged

23:27

service at this location. And

23:29

then they're attaching all of that, which is why this

23:33

declaration is so long. On March

23:35

16th, 2020 in Jane Doe versus

23:37

Church of Scientology flag service organization

23:39

filed in the circuit court of

23:41

Miami-Dade County, defendant religious technology center

23:43

acknowledges in their motion for protective

23:46

order that RTC is a California

23:48

corporation with its principal place of

23:50

business in California. And that

23:52

this effectively establishes that RTC is

23:54

quote unquote, at home in California,

23:56

not Florida. And that's not

23:58

subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida. So

24:01

to get out of a lawsuit in Florida,

24:03

they said, Hey, we're a California company. We

24:05

belong in California. So all

24:07

of these lawsuits are being compiled

24:09

to say, where was he served

24:12

in these other lawsuits? There is

24:14

a declaration of war in McShane

24:16

signed on December 27, 2022 filed

24:18

in Baxter versus Miscavige, another

24:20

case filed in Florida, in which he

24:22

states that Miscavige is a resident of

24:25

California, and that religious technology center withholds

24:27

California income tax for Miscavige and

24:29

has done so since Miscavige joined

24:31

RTC. So they have

24:33

gone through all of these other

24:36

lawsuits and declarations to say that

24:38

this Scientology building on 6331 Hollywood

24:42

Boulevard is either

24:44

his residence or

24:47

his likely place

24:49

of business where he can be

24:51

served. It goes on to say

24:53

that the Church of Scientology website

24:55

lists 6331 Hollywood Boulevard as its

24:57

headquarters. The Scientology headquarters building sits

25:00

at the corner of 6331 Hollywood

25:02

Boulevard and 1710 Iver Avenue. And

25:06

Scientology maintains an entrance to the

25:08

building at each address attached as

25:10

a Google Maps image showing the

25:12

Church of Scientology International Building location

25:15

on each corner. And then

25:17

it goes on to list those addresses and how

25:19

many times the different process servers went out to

25:21

those addresses. And the fact that

25:24

the addresses have cameras and

25:26

like speaker boxes when

25:28

you ring the bell, and that the process servers

25:30

went and rang the bell to gain

25:32

entry into the buildings and they say were

25:34

ignored because they rang

25:36

15 plus times and

25:39

no one answered the doors for them. And it goes on

25:42

to list out

25:44

the 23 different attempts to serve

25:46

David Miscavige on those different dates. So

25:48

with all of that, when I say

25:50

that this case is going to be

25:54

lengthy and litigated, two

25:56

of the defendants are in the process

25:58

of an anti-slap motion. trying to

26:00

get parts of this case and allegations

26:03

made in the case dismissed, ultimately

26:05

hoping to get some of the causes of action

26:08

in the case dismissed. Well, the

26:10

third defendant is still fighting service of

26:12

process. When that defendant gets brought into

26:14

the case, it's just as likely that

26:16

he will start the process of the

26:18

anti-slap motions as well. So we're going

26:20

to see, as I said

26:22

previously, voluminous litigation in this case and

26:24

I'll keep covering it. There's two upcoming

26:26

court dates and we'll see what happens.

26:29

This particular judge in Los Angeles

26:31

hasn't been denying every media

26:34

request, so there will be or should

26:36

be media in the courtroom if they're inclined

26:38

to be there. The court seems to be

26:40

amenable to allowing people in the courtroom to

26:43

watch the proceedings to report what happens even

26:45

to live tweet out what happens and I've

26:47

seen CBS granted access

26:49

to records. So we will see

26:51

what happens in these upcoming

26:54

hearings. So with that, let

26:57

us switch gears to another anti-slap

26:59

motion and talk about the Lizzo

27:01

lawsuit. For those

27:03

of you who aren't super familiar with

27:05

the Lizzo lawsuit from her three dancers,

27:08

because the court gives such a great

27:10

road so far, we're going to

27:12

go to the court's tentative after we go to

27:14

the court's order in this case. This is from

27:16

January 31st, 2024 in the Ariana Davis et al.

27:24

versus Big Girl Big Touring,

27:26

a Delaware corporation, Lizzo,

27:29

and the rest of the companies. Nature of proceedings

27:31

ruling on submitted matter special motion to strike. That

27:33

means that this was argued on a different court

27:35

date and the court took it under submission to

27:38

consider their ruling. The

27:40

court having taken this matter under submission

27:42

on December 4th, 2023 for hearing on

27:44

special motion to strike under CCP 425.16

27:47

the anti-slap motion

27:49

of plaintiff's complaint pursuant to California Civil Code

27:52

425.16 now rules as follows. The court issues

27:54

its ruling

27:57

as detailed in the document

27:59

title. Tentative order granting

28:01

impart. And. Denying and part

28:04

defendants. And then it was the

28:06

companies and little special most into strike

28:08

portions of plane of Complaint. The.

28:10

Such a motion to strike. Filed.

28:12

By all of the defendants is

28:15

granted in part. Court to give

28:17

notice. So we're going to go to

28:19

the courts tentative ruling and take a

28:21

look at what was granted and what

28:23

impact that has. This. Is the

28:25

courts tentative ruling from January Thirty

28:27

First? Twenty Twenty Four. Or

28:30

on a Davis Crystal Williams in

28:32

a while. Rodriguez vs. Big Girl

28:34

Big Touring Inc. Melissa Jefferson aka

28:37

Lizards and surely quigley. The court

28:39

give this a really good background

28:41

so we're gonna go with the

28:43

courts. Background Plaintiffs filed this employment

28:45

discrimination action against defendants Big Girl

28:48

Big Touring, B D B T,

28:50

Melissa Jefferson logo and Shirley quickly

28:52

quickly collectively defendants. According.

28:54

To the operative complaint, plaintiffs are professional dancers

28:56

who worked with without. And then there's a

28:59

footnote: One, the quit typically does not safe

29:01

from the complaint, on a special motion, a

29:03

strike. However, the parties and witnesses recollections of

29:05

events very so widely said. It's best to

29:08

focus on the allegations to provide context for

29:10

the lawsuit. This is not meant to imply

29:12

that the court take the allegations as true.

29:15

That. Said the various declaration slain

29:18

have submitted in support of their

29:20

opposition papers are consistent with the

29:22

allegations said as here. In all,

29:24

though the declaration defended submitted in

29:26

support of their motion are not

29:28

consistent with the more troubling allegations.

29:30

Because. In the special motion

29:32

to Strike context, the court for

29:34

prone to discuss below must take

29:37

evidence in opposition. to

29:39

the motion as true and draw

29:41

a reasonable inferences in the opposing

29:43

parties favor the court recites from

29:45

the complaint and plaintiffs declarations here

29:47

defendants deny many of these allegations

29:49

and the court is of course

29:51

making no factual findings as to

29:53

any of it that is a

29:55

very unique footnote the goes on

29:57

for two pages which is why

29:59

was it immediately invested in this

30:01

court's ruling because the court says

30:03

that the recollections

30:05

of events vary so

30:08

widely Which means

30:10

how the plaintiffs see things and how

30:12

the defendants see things are so

30:14

at odds with each other That

30:17

the court is trying to make it

30:19

clear by just citing what the plaintiffs

30:21

are alleging remember here

30:24

the moving party is the

30:26

defense so when Assumptions

30:28

need to be made in favor of

30:30

the non-moving party. That is the plaintiffs

30:32

that are suing Lizzo It

30:35

goes on to say plaintiffs alleged that in

30:37

March 2021 Davis and Williams first met Lizzo

30:39

with contestants on her reality show Called watch

30:42

out for the big girls WFTBG

30:47

Is it really easier is WFTBG

30:50

easier than watch out for the big girls.

30:52

I I Don't

30:54

know. I don't know if that's easier to say Your

30:57

honor the show centered on contestants competing

30:59

for the opportunity to join Lizzo as

31:02

dancers on her tours and live performances

31:04

plaintiffs contend that Rodriguez was hired around May 2021 by

31:06

Lizzo and Bgbt

31:09

the touring company for a music video and

31:12

later as part of a performance group that

31:14

supported Lizzo during live shows While Rodriguez was

31:16

working on a music video for Lizzo She

31:18

claims she was approached with another

31:20

job opportunity and would have required her to

31:22

work during the same period as rehearsals for

31:25

Lizzo's shows plaintiffs claim that Rodriguez

31:27

spoke with Lizzo's tour manager Carolina

31:29

Guglietta About taking this opportunity

31:31

to which Guglietta stated Do you want the

31:33

job or not implying that Rodriguez should not

31:35

take other jobs while hired as a tour

31:38

dancer? plaintiffs Davis and

31:40

Williams contended they were first introduced to defending

31:42

quickly in or around August 2021 Which

31:45

is when filming for? WFTBG

31:47

began quickly was allegedly vocal

31:50

about her religious beliefs and

31:52

purportedly proselytized Whenever

31:54

the opportunity arose plaintiffs assert that quickly

31:56

was particularly interested in Davis and preached

31:58

to her about their shared Christian

32:00

identity. After finding out about Davis's

32:03

virginity while filming, Quigley purported to

32:05

make a point of

32:07

bringing it up in the following months and

32:09

sharing it in interviews and on social

32:12

media without Davis's permission, which

32:14

just gives me the ick. Plaintiff

32:16

alleged that one of the requirements for WOF-TBG

32:19

was a nude photoshoot that made some

32:21

contestants uncomfortable, including Davis. Davis claims she

32:24

did not want to be photographed nude,

32:26

but felt she would be sent home

32:28

if she refused or did not perform

32:31

well. Are you

32:33

guys seeing similar claims? Not the nude

32:35

photoshoot, but similar allegations when we

32:37

talk about the stuff going on in the

32:39

Bravo world, where individuals are

32:41

saying, I felt pushed to do these things.

32:44

I wasn't explicitly told to do these things,

32:46

but I felt like it was encouraged by

32:48

production because otherwise I might not have a

32:50

job as a housewife

32:54

or cast member in future

32:56

seasons. It's similar here, where we

32:58

were not told to do it,

33:00

but we felt like if

33:03

we refused to do it, then we would lose

33:05

this opportunity. Davis claims she broke

33:07

down in tears from the stress and was eventually

33:09

allowed to participate partially clothed. Plaintiffs assert that both

33:11

Williams and Davis were chosen to be part of

33:13

the dance team, accompanying Lizzo on tour. Plaintiffs performed

33:16

with Lizzo from September 2021 to April 2022. In

33:18

April 2022, Plaintiffs began preparing

33:23

for Lizzo's the special tour and

33:25

worked closely with Quigley, the captain

33:27

of the dance team. Plaintiffs stayed

33:29

that Quigley continued to proselytize to

33:31

everyone around her regarding Christianity and

33:33

sexuality. She purportedly derided those who

33:35

engaged in premarital sex, spoke about

33:37

her masturbation habits, spoke about her

33:39

sexual fantasies, and would simulate oral

33:41

sex on a banana which made

33:43

Plaintiffs uncomfortable. There's

33:45

a lot in that sentence, Your Honor. Your

33:48

Honor. Your Honor. She

33:51

derided those who were having premarital sex and

33:53

then went to talk about nothing but sex.

33:56

Plaintiffs contend that Quigley continued to minister

33:58

to them, keeping tabs on Davis's

34:01

virginity, preaching at Rodriguez for being

34:03

a non-believer, interrogating Davis about her

34:05

religious beliefs, and becoming upset if

34:07

Davis disagreed. Quigley was

34:09

allegedly not the only one, however,

34:11

as others in supervisory roles at

34:13

BGBT would allegedly have prayer circles

34:16

prior to rehearsals and performances. The

34:18

plaintiffs state that while the prayer circle was

34:20

not an official requirement, it soon became clear

34:22

to them that the failure to participate was

34:24

looked down upon. Rodriguez purportedly did not want

34:26

to lead the prayer, but was pressured to

34:28

do so. Plaintiff claimed that

34:30

complaints regarding Quigley's proselytizing

34:33

and instances of sexual

34:35

harassment by bus drivers went unaddressed

34:37

by management, although management claimed to the contrary,

34:39

especially as to the bus driver. After the

34:41

domestic portion of the tour came to an

34:43

end in November 2022, plaintiffs began to look

34:45

for work to fill the time until the

34:48

European leg of the tour was to begin

34:50

in February 2023. Because BGBT preferred

34:54

plaintiffs took no additional jobs, it instructed

34:56

plaintiffs agents to place plaintiffs on a

34:58

quote-unquote soft hold, meaning plaintiffs would not

35:00

be paid during this gap period, but

35:02

also could not take other work. Plaint

35:04

assert that due to the soft hold,

35:06

they became financially dependent on the income

35:08

from the tour. Plaint learned, however, that

35:10

other members of the tour were on

35:12

a retainer, meaning they were paid a

35:15

portion of their tour rates during the

35:17

breaks in exchange for not taking other

35:19

jobs. The dance team began discussing

35:21

how to negotiate for a retainer. Plaint

35:23

contends they performed with Lizzo at her Amsterdam show

35:26

in February 2023. After

35:28

the show, Lizzo invited the dancers out with her for

35:30

the night. Any of

35:32

this ringing a bell yet? For some of you who have followed this case,

35:34

you're like, oh yes, Amsterdam

35:36

and the bananas. Yes,

35:39

that's the portion that we're getting to.

35:42

But a judge had to write this, so

35:45

I just, A,

35:48

I want to know who this judge's

35:50

research attorney is that had to sit

35:52

down with this judge and talk about

35:54

simulating sex with bananas in Amsterdam. I

35:57

really want to be away on the wall. Clean

36:00

up. Can see that attendance was not. Mandatory, but

36:02

they assert that those who attended such

36:04

events were favored by less else, selected

36:07

to perform with her more regularly and

36:09

enjoyed better job security. Plane. Of

36:11

contend that Davis and Rodrigo were rushed

36:13

into accepting list as invitation without knowing

36:16

that the club was banana and bar.

36:18

Where. Patrons interacted with nude performers.

36:21

Putting. It mildly. Davidson Rodriguez claimed they

36:23

tried to withdraw after learning about the

36:26

club, but were unable to do so.

36:28

They asserted that things got out of

36:30

hand when they reach the club's specifically

36:33

loser, and others allegedly pressure Davis into

36:35

touching the naked breast of one of

36:37

the performers, despite Davis expressing her discomforts

36:39

both verbally and physically. Later.

36:42

When had her with them Parents live though invited

36:44

the dancers out to the Crazy Horse without explaining

36:46

that this was a nude cabaret bars. I mean,

36:49

it's called the Crazy Horse do you need to

36:51

define it. It's the Crazy

36:53

Horse and. The.

36:55

Judge let out a lot of detail. Your

36:59

otter. Well. Played. Played.

37:02

Of say that about March Ninth, Twenty twenty

37:04

three, the dance team submitted a request for

37:06

retainer of fifty percent of their weekly tour

37:09

rate during the soft periods to be G

37:11

B T and the list though a number

37:13

consistent with what some of the others were

37:15

getting. A March Sixteenth: the dance team received

37:17

an email from Ashley, Jaci. A

37:20

Bg Bt Accountant who offered

37:22

a retainer. They. Asked for money will

37:24

they run a soft old and then they were paid. And

37:27

it's email. Darcy scolded the dancers for

37:29

their unacceptable and disrespectful behavior on poor

37:31

but did not explain specifically what behaviour

37:34

triggered the comments and inform the damn

37:36

seen that such behavior was grounds for

37:38

termination. Point. A To point

37:40

out that the dance team is comprised

37:42

of full figured women of color and

37:44

plaintiffs asserts that only they were spoken

37:46

to in this way meanings other groups

37:48

were allegedly treated differently. Wow, Bg Be

37:50

T did eventually agreed though a larger

37:53

retainer management allegedly treated the black members

37:55

the day of seem differently than others,

37:57

calling the black the answers, lazy and

37:59

and prefer. No stereotypical tropes purportedly

38:01

aimed at the riding plane of

38:03

space on their race. On.

38:05

April twentieth, Twenty Twenty three, The dance

38:08

team had an eight hour rehearsal scheduled.

38:10

At the end of the rehearsal, Lissa

38:12

appeared lives of reportedly stated that the

38:14

dancers were not up to par and

38:16

accuse them of drinking before shows. playoff

38:18

contenders are made them real dish and

38:20

for their spots and the eight. our

38:22

rehearsal extended to a grueling twelve hours.

38:25

Plaintiff. Assert that the real different process was

38:27

brutal Davis allegedly how to use the restroom

38:29

that helps you might be fired if she

38:31

left the stage at any point in the

38:33

audition plane of C. Davis eventually lost control

38:35

of her bladder but still feeling termination dance

38:37

in her swelled clothing until she could run

38:39

off and change during a break. On

38:41

April twenty First was called another meeting with

38:43

the didn't seem to reiterate none of their

38:46

jobs are safe and reiterated that drinking before

38:48

shows was prohibited. Plaintiffs. Assert that

38:50

Williams spoke up and said the dancers

38:52

did not drink before shows, which resulted

38:54

in tension between Liz L. management Williams.

38:56

with the rejoinder that the decline in

38:58

quality of the performance was the reason

39:00

for the accusation. The same day, Davis

39:02

was called into a meeting with Lives

39:04

On the choreographer Tunisia Scots, during which

39:06

they questioned whether she was struggling or

39:08

something because she seemed less committed to

39:10

her position. Save. His claims the

39:13

to pressured her for an explanation about her

39:15

personality changes. However, These comments are

39:17

purportedly really focused on Davis' weight gain

39:19

given list of statements after music festival

39:21

In that specific point, Favorites:

39:23

Disclose that she had anxiety and depression and

39:25

had been diagnosed with an eating disorder. Davis.

39:28

Reiterated her commitment to the tour. Butler's oh

39:30

and Scott allegedly dismissive Li offered her time

39:32

off for therapy. Plaintiffs assert the Davis felt

39:35

that if she accepted the offer, she would

39:37

be seen as too weak for the torso.

39:39

Davis declined, but she felt it was the

39:41

only way she could keep her job. It

39:43

should be noted that defendants contend there was

39:46

no hidden motives and that they were only

39:48

trying to be supportive and accommodate. Davis. Williams.

39:51

Was terminated on around August Twenty Six

39:53

Twenty Twenty Three and the hotel lobby

39:55

by golly at a under the guise

39:57

of budget cuts Rodriguez later questioned glee.

40:00

as to her decision to terminate Williams in a

40:02

public place. On April 27th,

40:04

the dancers were called into a meeting

40:06

with Lizzo, purportedly to discuss notes. However,

40:08

according to Planiff, once in the room,

40:11

Lizzo addressed Williams' firing and demanded to

40:13

know who questioned her decision to fire

40:15

Williams. Planiff state that Lizzo

40:17

said she preferred that the dance team did

40:20

not socialize with Williams before she left. Lizzo

40:22

also allegedly added that

40:24

weight gain was the cause of termination

40:27

and supposedly looked at Davis. Planiff claimed

40:29

that Davis suffers from an eye condition

40:31

that causes her to sometime be disoriented

40:33

in stressful situations, and so in such

40:35

situations she had a habit of making

40:37

a recording so she can review them

40:39

later. Davis claims that she recorded this

40:41

particularly meeting due to its stressful nature.

40:44

According to Davis, the recording was done in

40:46

order to mitigate any issues that

40:48

might be caused by her disability. Planiff

40:51

contends that the dancers were called into an emergency

40:53

wardrobe fitting on May 3rd. They were made to

40:55

hand in their phones when they arrived. Planiff

40:58

asserts that Lizzo then entered and furiously stated

41:00

she knew someone had recorded the prior meeting.

41:02

She purportedly threatened to go person by person

41:05

to learn who made the recording, but before

41:07

she actually did so, Davis admitted to recording

41:09

it. Davis explains she wanted a

41:11

copy of the notes Lizzo had given and that

41:13

she already had deleted the recording. Planiff

41:16

states that Davis was fired on the spot.

41:18

According to defendants, Davis admitted not only recording

41:20

the prior meeting but sending the recording to

41:22

Williams, which was a violation of Davis's contract

41:24

and that is why Davis was fired. As

41:27

Lizzo was leaving, Rodriguez claims to have stopped

41:29

her and state she did not appreciate how

41:31

Lizzo handled the situation and resigned on the

41:33

spot. Planiff asserts that Lizzo

41:35

then aggressively approached Rodriguez, cracking her

41:37

knuckles, bawling her fists, and stating,

41:40

you're lucky, you're so fucking lucky.

41:42

Rodriguez contends she feared that Lizzo was going to

41:45

hit her and would have done just that

41:47

if other dancers had not intervened. Planiff states

41:49

that the other dancers escorted Rodriguez back to

41:51

her room due to their fear that Lizzo

41:53

might return. Planiff contend that

41:55

Davis was forced to stay behind in the

41:57

meeting room by Lizzo's security guard under the

41:59

wall. Of the towards com manager

42:01

the guard allegedly went through Davis' cellphone.

42:03

I glad to confirm whether the reporting have

42:05

been deleted. I have huge problems with that's.

42:08

Really? Really? Do? You can't? Wait,

42:11

Hold someone and forced them to have

42:13

their cellphone searched. Currently. Before

42:15

the court as the defendants special

42:17

motion to strike the complaint plane

42:19

of suppose this matter was previously

42:21

before the court on November twenty

42:23

second. At that point the current

42:25

requested the party's provide additional authority

42:27

interpret in a language and lion

42:29

versus One or brother production regarding

42:31

the viability of sexual harassment claims

42:33

were no disparate treatment or impact

42:35

was alleged. The plaintiffs had submitted

42:37

their list of cases. And.

42:39

The matter is now right for resolution.

42:42

Evidentiary issues. And. This

42:44

is where the court Spicy! Thank you

42:46

to our sponsor Shopify! Not only do

42:49

they make the lawn or shop possible

42:51

they support this podcasts, but they make

42:53

it easy for you to activate any

42:56

ecommerce solution or to sell things locally

42:58

and in person. Shopify is a global

43:00

ecommerce platform that helps you sell at

43:03

every stage of your business from launcher

43:05

shop on mind to the first real

43:07

life store all the way to did

43:10

we just hit a million dollars Shopify!

43:12

There. To. Help you grow and

43:14

shopify. Helps you. Turn. Browsers into buyers

43:16

with the internet the best converting

43:18

check out. thirty six percent better

43:20

on average think appeared to other

43:22

commerce platforms. And shopify plugs in

43:25

to all of these social shopping.

43:27

Solutions you're looking for whether

43:29

it's on you tube or

43:31

through Instagram her Face books.

43:33

Those integrations are super easy

43:35

on Shopify Platform Shopify Powers.

43:37

Ten. Percent of all ecommerce, including

43:39

brands like mine. Rothys and

43:41

all birds. plus they're award winning

43:43

Help is there every step of

43:45

the way. Because businesses that grow

43:47

grow on Shopify, you can sign

43:50

up for a one dollar per

43:52

month trial period at shopify.com flash

43:54

laundered. Remember that far case to

43:56

go to shopify.com/laundered and grow your

43:58

business no matter what stage. N

44:00

shopify.com/line and get ready to

44:02

start hearing this. Defendant

44:06

submitted twenty declarations with

44:08

their moving papers. That.

44:11

Was followed by plaintiffs ever them three

44:13

objections to each of those declaration. Remember.

44:16

The Court. In. The last episode

44:19

I did talking about Scientology where the Minute

44:21

Order literally said enough is enough. This

44:23

court just put it in their ruling. And. In

44:26

reply, defendants responded to each of

44:28

the objections to their declaration enlarge

44:30

their own objections. Are defendants

44:32

are likely aware. The number of

44:35

declaration submitted here was unnecessary.

44:37

One. Declaration by a person with

44:39

personal knowledge detailing irrelevant situation is

44:42

sufficient on emotion where the standard

44:44

for summary judgment apply. The

44:46

court observes the defendant emphasize the

44:48

fact that they submitted twenty declarations

44:50

in reply. But. This is

44:53

not a numbers game as long as

44:55

plane of submit one declaration that disputes

44:57

the material facts and defendants twenty declarations

44:59

the burden on the second prong and.

45:03

Accordingly, the number of declarations is

45:05

of no moment to the court

45:07

at this stage. Indeed,

45:09

even at trial jurors are instructed

45:11

not to quote make any decision

45:14

simply because they were more witnesses

45:16

on one side then the other.

45:18

If you believe it is true, the

45:20

testimony of a single witness is enough

45:23

to prove a fact. How many times

45:25

have I said that in closing arguments?

45:27

A lot? I've used the testimony of

45:29

one single witness. Is. Enough

45:31

to prove of fact. The. Court

45:33

goes on to say that is

45:35

all more pertinent here where as

45:37

discussed below the court cannot way

45:40

the evidence as jurors must The

45:42

court can make an educated guess

45:44

as to why so many decorations

45:46

were filed. The court would ask

45:48

that such not real curse unless

45:50

there is some kind of legal

45:52

justification for it. Legal is a

45:54

chalice. The. Here's

45:57

what it's giving for me. it's giving

45:59

you Did. The store pr

46:01

you put in twenty

46:03

declarations. To get all

46:05

of your side out in court

46:08

filings but it was not legally

46:10

justified or you need at that's

46:12

my reading between the lines. The.

46:15

Court said no more need be

46:17

said on this point at present.

46:20

So the court said do not

46:22

submit when to declarations to me

46:24

in the future. And

46:26

this is different than a motion for summary

46:29

judgment. The court is not weighing the facts

46:31

in the case and determining these facts outweigh

46:33

those facts. were going to get to the

46:35

standard here and just a minute because the

46:38

court's not done talking to with Us attorney's

46:40

yet. Equally troubling. Defendants. Approach

46:42

resulted in an avalanche. Yup,

46:44

in an avalanche of evidentiary

46:46

objections by plaintiffs. The court

46:49

has reviewed the objections. The

46:51

vast majority are at least

46:53

partly made on the basis.

46:55

Of relevance. The. Court

46:58

this favors such objections.

47:01

I don't use disfavor enough. In.

47:04

My everyday life. And you to

47:06

start doing it and is it's are telling my kids. I.

47:10

Deceiver. It. When.

47:12

You fight me. At bedtime.

47:14

Strongly. Disfavor. It's

47:16

when you lodge objections as to

47:19

bed time. Strongly.

47:21

Discouraged. By. Definition.

47:24

If the proper to evidence is irrelevant

47:26

then it can have no part in

47:28

the courts analysis. Objection are no. On.

47:31

The other hand, if the evidence is relevant than

47:33

the objection is not well taken. This

47:35

is not to say that the evidence

47:37

and question is in fact relevant and

47:39

the material to the courts analysis. It

47:41

is only to say that is it

47:43

is discussed below them. by definition, the

47:45

court finds that it is relevant although

47:47

not necessarily weighty or dispositive. If it

47:49

is not discussed below, then it forms

47:51

know dispositive part of the court's reasoning

47:53

and the objection is moot. The.

47:55

Parties should refrain from making

47:58

relevance or three. 3.52

48:00

objections in motions in the future absent

48:03

some good reason to do so. And

48:06

then in parentheses says, and interestingly,

48:08

a relevance objection is never waived

48:10

in motion practice. It is

48:13

error for the court to consider evidence that

48:15

has no propitive value, whether or not an

48:17

objection is made. The court is like, let

48:19

me do my job. You

48:23

stop it. I'm going, I'm going

48:25

to do my job. So what I need

48:27

you to do is file less shit. Literally

48:32

say less. Aside from

48:34

that, the court will not rule on the individual

48:36

objections. The court's like, if I mention it, I

48:39

considered it. If I don't mention it, I didn't.

48:42

But please stop. You're

48:44

not going to bury me in motion

48:46

work. Aside from that, the

48:49

court will not rule on individual objections. Many

48:52

of the objections are to immaterial

48:54

evidence. So you're objecting

48:56

to shit that doesn't even matter. Planets

49:00

are reminded of our Supreme Court statement

49:02

in Reed versus Google that

49:04

only meritorious objections should be

49:06

raised and even then only

49:09

to evidence that makes a difference. Here

49:11

the objections do not meet that

49:14

standard and constitute the quote, blunderbuss

49:17

objections to virtually every item

49:19

of evidence that the Reed

49:21

court explicitly warned against. Any

49:25

meritorious objections are lost

49:27

within the pages of

49:29

unmeritorious objections. So

49:31

the judge has said, say less to the plaintiff and

49:34

say less to the defense and said

49:36

that all of the

49:39

meritorious objections were lost by

49:41

the scattershot approach of

49:43

objecting to literally every fucking

49:45

thing. It goes on to say

49:48

this is not to say that the court has accepted

49:50

defendant's evidence carte blanche. Many of

49:52

the declarations contain hearsay and statements without

49:54

foundation or personal knowledge. The

49:56

Court has not considered statements that suffer from

49:59

these defects. But that does. not leave a

50:01

whole and defendants evidence for. generally there was

50:03

at least some evidence. For. Each

50:05

of the material points bay by the defense

50:07

and the court does not way the evidence

50:10

at that stage. Defendants. Also,

50:12

filed evidentiary objections are apply. The

50:14

court declined to rule on defendants

50:16

numerous objections to him material evidence

50:18

for the same reason. With.

50:21

That said, we're the material portions.

50:23

Of the declaration suffer from issues on

50:25

personal knowledge like one plane of a

50:27

testing to something another plane of experience.

50:29

The gap as easily filled because the

50:31

plane up with personal knowledge also submit

50:33

a declaration detailing a point of view.

50:36

The. Declarations are not conclusively as they provide

50:38

sufficient explanation for why plaintiffs felt the

50:41

way they did are perceived certain actions

50:43

as pretext tool. For. The same

50:45

reasons the decorations are not speculative. Most

50:47

of the hearsay objection like merits and.

50:49

Some. Statements are by people

50:52

authorized. By the party to make the

50:54

statements. See. Evidence Code

50:56

Twelve Twenty Two. Those.

50:59

That have merit. Are. Rarely to

51:01

material evidence. The.

51:03

Court is so annoyed with

51:05

the attorneys on both sides.

51:08

That the court has reminded both.

51:10

Sides: Do not waste my time.

51:13

With. Pointless objections to sit. That doesn't

51:15

matter, Like you. Need to

51:17

see the forest or the trees at this point of

51:20

litigation. This. Should not be

51:22

a carpet bombing approach. You

51:24

need to. Hit your

51:26

strategic targets of shit. That

51:29

matters and only. Only.

51:33

Object to that. And. The court

51:35

then gets into talking about objections

51:37

made to the declaration because plane

51:39

of to not specifically state where

51:41

they executed the declaration they only

51:43

put i declare under penalty of

51:45

perjury for the state of California

51:48

that the above is true and

51:50

crack and the courts. Is. Not

51:52

throwing out the declarations based on

51:54

that signature. Here's my suggestion to

51:56

the courts and State of California.

51:59

With. The Law. According to Emily, If.

52:01

You just. Used.

52:04

Further, As the and say it's

52:07

not. Like. The state

52:09

of South Carolina. Maybe we would avoid

52:11

these issues because it's just so powerful.

52:13

I mean it's it's it's it's just

52:15

lox drama. I declare under penalty of

52:17

perjury for the state of California that

52:19

the above a shrink right does not

52:22

have the same weight and chutzpah as

52:24

further up the and say if not.

52:27

That's. My suggestion. To.

52:29

The courts in the State of California.

52:31

Maybe we just change. Maybe we just

52:33

changed the penalty of perjury declaration. Gets.

52:36

A suggestion. Either way, the court's

52:38

not throwing up the decorations. We

52:40

get to the legal standards. The

52:43

California legislature has authorized that a

52:45

special most into strike may be

52:47

filed in lawsuits that seek to

52:49

quote Silva, valid exercise of the

52:51

constitutional rights of freedom of speech

52:53

and petition for the redress of

52:55

grievances. The. Cope provides quote a

52:57

cause of action against a person

52:59

arising from any acts. Of that

53:02

person in furtherance of the person's right

53:04

to petition or free speech under the

53:06

United States Constitution or the California Constitution

53:08

in connection with a public issue shall

53:10

be subject to a special motion to

53:12

strike Unless the court determined that the

53:14

plaintiff has established that there is a

53:17

probability that the plaintiff will prevail on

53:19

the claim that the two parts of

53:21

this task we're going to go over

53:23

them briefly, up on over them, and

53:25

a lot of other cases. Almost all

53:27

the California. Kind. Of defamation cases

53:29

and cases coming out of action

53:31

and speech at some point involve

53:34

a. Anti slap slap motion.

53:37

Flapping. Strategic Litigation Against Public

53:39

Participation The Cork. A lot to say

53:42

accordingly. The code is based on a

53:44

two step process for determining whether the

53:46

Sms. Not. Text message special

53:48

motion to strike should be granted. First.

53:51

The court decides whether the defendant made

53:53

a threshold showing that the town's claims

53:56

are causes of action arise from protected

53:58

activity. A

54:00

defendant. It's this burdened by demonstrating that

54:02

the act to the plaintiffs cause sits.

54:05

In. One of the category spelled out

54:07

in the section including free speech. the

54:09

Supreme Court to summarize the analysis as

54:11

follows: At that said, we said the

54:13

moving party must identify the axe alleged

54:16

and the complaint, as it asserts, are

54:18

protected and what claim for relief are

54:20

predicated on them. In turn, the court

54:22

should examine whether those acts are protected

54:24

and supply the basis for any claims.

54:26

It does not matter that other unprotected

54:29

acts may also been alleged with in

54:31

what has been labeled. A single

54:33

cause of action. These. Are disregarded

54:35

at this stage. If the

54:37

defended make that threshold showing than the

54:39

burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish

54:41

a likelihood of prevailing on the complaint

54:43

which had sometimes referred to as a

54:45

minimal marriage. So you have to show

54:47

one. That. The. Activity:

54:49

Being sued for the shit the

54:51

descendants alleged to have done arises

54:54

out of protected activity and if

54:56

it does then the plaintiff has

54:58

to show that they are. You.

55:00

Know. Reasonably likely to prevail

55:03

on the complaint that there is

55:05

some minimal merit to it, and

55:07

the whole purpose of this is

55:09

to stop complaints that are just

55:12

seeking to bully people into silence

55:14

when they assert their. Arm.

55:16

Right to petition government, First Amendment

55:18

Rights to free speech and the

55:21

like. It's to cut that keith

55:23

off before it even goes to

55:25

discovery, which can really. And

55:27

the keys in it's tracks before

55:29

it even get started. But that's

55:31

the point. And the keys before

55:34

it even gets to discovery. This

55:36

can be difficult when people who

55:38

have less. Financial. Means

55:40

are suing those with greater financial means

55:42

to not get stuck in this anti

55:44

slap process and have their case cut

55:46

out from under them before they even

55:49

get discovery. It is. Truly a

55:51

double edge sword. It. Goes on to

55:53

say the burden on the plane of is like the

55:55

burden imposed to defeat a summary judgment most and. The

55:57

plaintiff must admit admissible evidence showing.

56:00

that it can prevail. And now we're

56:02

going to get to the court's ruling and analysis. Defendants

56:05

move to strike paragraphs of the

56:07

complaint and then it lists them

56:10

all. And the reason that

56:12

this is done in the anti-slap is if you

56:14

pull those particular paragraphs out, if they get struck,

56:17

there might not be enough left to actually

56:19

build a cause of action in the case

56:21

that cause of action can get dismissed. It

56:25

goes on to say the allegations concern

56:27

all nine causes of action and can

56:29

be split into general categories of wrongful

56:31

conduct as discussed below. If the

56:33

motion is granted in full, the court

56:36

believes that there is nothing

56:40

left of the complaint and that an outright

56:42

dismissal would be in order. Acts

56:45

in furtherance of the defendant's right to

56:47

petition or free speech, prong one. Defendants

56:49

argue that the acts complained of in

56:51

the complaint all consist of activity that

56:53

is part of the

56:55

creative process and therefore is protected.

56:58

What constitutes a statement made in connection with

57:00

the issue of public interest is the same

57:02

under different subdivisions of the code. And there

57:04

is another two step test to determine this

57:06

issue. First, we ask what is

57:09

a public issue or in the public interest that

57:12

the speech in question implicates here.

57:15

The defendants

57:17

insist that the television show and Lizzo's

57:19

own fame are within the public interest.

57:21

So the defense is arguing everything Lizzo

57:23

does because she's so famous is within

57:26

the public interest. So even what's going

57:28

on behind the scenes at dance

57:30

rehearsal or in the banana bar

57:33

in Amsterdam is all within

57:36

the public interest because

57:38

of her film. Defendants

57:40

point out that Lizzo's concerts, television shows

57:42

and public statements on certain issues are

57:45

in the public interest due to her

57:47

status as a major celebrity.

57:49

Yes, it actually says major

57:51

celebrity. The court agrees

57:54

in Nygaard. This court held that quote an

57:56

issue of public interest is any issue in

57:58

which the public is interested. In other

58:00

words, the issue need not be quote

58:03

unquote significant to be protected by the

58:05

anti-slap statute. It is enough that it

58:07

is one in which the public takes

58:09

an interest. Planets argue in

58:11

opposition that Lizzo's status as a celebrity

58:13

alone is insufficient because there can be

58:15

no claimed public interest in cast meetings

58:17

and outings, prayer groups, or things like

58:20

that. Stripped out of

58:22

context, plaintiffs are correct. But when the

58:24

issue becomes Lizzo's cast meetings and outings,

58:26

prayer groups, and things like that while

58:28

on tour, the analysis is different. It

58:30

is Lizzo's celebrity that elevates these

58:33

perhaps mundane issues into those average

58:35

citizens want to know more about.

58:37

As to the second step, defendants

58:39

assert that acts that further the

58:41

creative process are protected. Quote, courts

58:44

have held that acts that advance

58:46

or assist the creation and performance

58:48

of artistic works are acts in

58:50

furtherance of the right to free

58:52

speech for anti-slap purposes. This

58:55

is true, but defendants argument overstates

58:57

the connection between certain acts and

58:59

the creative process. While many of

59:01

these acts occurred during tour and

59:03

in preparation for it, that alone

59:05

does not satisfy the second step.

59:08

And they're quoting the film on case.

59:11

The second step requires a consideration

59:13

whether a defendant through public or

59:15

private speech or conduct participated in

59:17

or furthered the discourse that makes

59:20

an issue one of public interest. What

59:23

a court scrutinizing the nature of

59:25

speech in the anti-slap context must

59:27

focus on is the speech at

59:29

hand rather than the prospect that

59:31

such speech may conceivably have indirect

59:33

consequences for an issue of public

59:35

concern. Thus, while the court understands

59:38

the argument and agrees that the fact that

59:40

this case involves a well-known mega celebrity brings

59:43

a lot of conduct into

59:45

constitutionally protected ambit, that

59:47

would not otherwise be there. It

59:50

is not without bound. The court

59:52

must look closely at the actual things alleged

59:54

and the evidence presented to determine

59:56

if it is fairly within our

59:58

outside of the constitutionally protected speech

1:00:01

or the public interest. So

1:00:03

the court goes deeply

1:00:05

into whether or not an

1:00:08

outing to a bar in

1:00:11

Amsterdam is part of the creative process

1:00:16

and what is or isn't part of the

1:00:18

creative process to bring

1:00:20

that behavior within protected

1:00:23

activities. So while things

1:00:25

at dance rehearsal might, outings

1:00:27

might not. The court believes

1:00:29

this protection extends to providing feedback

1:00:31

to dancers during various meetings, as

1:00:33

well as the re-audition process. All

1:00:36

of this is part of creating the performance that

1:00:38

the artist envisions in her head. The

1:00:41

private meeting with Davis is protected too, as

1:00:43

alleged and as evidence supports the meeting

1:00:46

centered around Davis's personality changes

1:00:48

during the tour. Davis alleges

1:00:50

that was feigned concern as a veiled

1:00:53

reference to her weight gain. Maybe

1:00:55

so, the court goes on to

1:00:57

say, but the allegations still indicate

1:00:59

this meeting was related to Davis's

1:01:01

job performance on tour. Lizzo

1:01:04

attests that she worried that the tour was too much

1:01:06

for Davis and wanted to check in with her. This

1:01:09

bears a relationship to Davis's health on

1:01:11

tour. And according to even plaintiffs, Davis's

1:01:13

job safety. It says that

1:01:15

the soft hold and comments within the

1:01:18

context of retainer negotiations are also protected.

1:01:20

While dancers are on break between performances

1:01:22

and not on retainer, tour management will

1:01:24

sometimes be informed about dates dancers might

1:01:27

be working on the

1:01:29

tour in the future and will therefore ask the dancers to

1:01:31

be placed on a quote unquote soft hold for those dates. The

1:01:33

negotiations for a soft hold retainer are protected

1:01:36

because they concern staffing for the tour.

1:01:39

Joshi's comments during negotiations are also

1:01:41

protected because they communicate lacks job

1:01:43

performance during concerts and note that

1:01:45

this is grounds for termination. The

1:01:47

same applies to comments calling black

1:01:49

members of the dance team, lazy,

1:01:51

unprofessional and snarky. The court goes

1:01:53

on to say, while the comments

1:01:55

are alleged to be racist, the

1:01:57

court cannot let plaintiffs allegations of

1:01:59

motive. control the analysis on

1:02:02

the first prong. On the first

1:02:04

prong, the court must examine the conduct

1:02:06

of defendants without relying on whatever improper

1:02:08

motive the plaintiff alleges. As

1:02:11

our Supreme Court reasoned in Navilier, the

1:02:14

preamble to the statute does not

1:02:16

reflect a purpose to protect the

1:02:18

valid exercise of speech and petition

1:02:20

rights, but the legislature's expression of,

1:02:22

quote, a concern in the

1:02:25

statute's preamble with lawsuits that chill

1:02:27

the valid exercise of First Amendment

1:02:29

rights does not mean that a

1:02:31

court may read a separate proof

1:02:33

of validity requirement into the operative

1:02:35

section of the statute. These comments

1:02:37

were purportedly made by management within

1:02:39

the context of retainer negotiations on

1:02:41

tour. Comments on job performance

1:02:43

are in furtherance of the creative process. The

1:02:47

prayer circle also passes the first

1:02:49

prong, although in the court's mind

1:02:51

it is a closer call. There is

1:02:54

more than one declaration indicating that this

1:02:56

is industry practice or meant to settle

1:02:58

nerves prior to a performance. And

1:03:00

then they go on to quote, I'm usually

1:03:03

backstage with the stage performance in Lizzo before

1:03:05

each show. The group prayer led by

1:03:07

Lizzo before the show is primarily a way

1:03:09

for everyone to connect with one another more

1:03:12

deeply and touch base in preparation for their

1:03:14

performance, while also seeking protection and safety for

1:03:16

everyone who put on the show and

1:03:18

everyone attending. That bears a

1:03:20

functional relationship to the creative process.

1:03:23

Quigley's religious and sexual comments during

1:03:26

rehearsals are more difficult. As

1:03:28

noted above, plaintiffs' allegations regarding Quigley's intent

1:03:30

do not control, but even with that

1:03:32

said, the court does not understand how

1:03:35

the comments are connected to the creative

1:03:37

process. Defendants generally argue

1:03:39

that it's part of the creative process,

1:03:41

which is fine to the extent these

1:03:43

are comments made during the dance practice

1:03:46

by a dance captain, but as plaintiffs

1:03:48

point out in opposition, there has to

1:03:50

be more. It is not enough that

1:03:52

the comments were made during the general

1:03:54

creative process these actions at issue must

1:03:56

advance the creative process. There is nothing

1:03:58

from the bear allegation. regarding Quigley's

1:04:00

comments about religion and sexuality that indicate

1:04:03

they advance or assist the dancer's performance.

1:04:06

Notably, not a single one of the

1:04:08

20 declarants states that the comments contributed

1:04:10

to the creative process. They are comments

1:04:12

on how this was part of, quote

1:04:14

unquote, girl talk that plaintiffs

1:04:16

have taken out of context. And

1:04:18

then the court quotes the declaration saying,

1:04:21

the reality is that we were part of

1:04:23

a group of women who were together all

1:04:25

the time, traveling, rehearsing, socializing on tour, and

1:04:28

we talked about, quote unquote, girl talk, including

1:04:30

things like our sexuality. We did not talk

1:04:32

about this all the time, but it certainly

1:04:34

was a topic that we covered. Quigley joined

1:04:36

those conversations too, but she certainly did not

1:04:39

talk about sex, sexual acts,

1:04:41

or sexual fantasies all the time. But

1:04:43

she talked about it some of the time. The

1:04:45

court goes on to say, but saying it

1:04:48

is, quote unquote, girl talk, or

1:04:50

that plaintiffs are not telling the truth,

1:04:52

does not equate to furthering the creative

1:04:54

process. Defendants have not met their burden

1:04:56

as to this facet of the complaint.

1:04:59

The same applies to Quigley's reported proselytizing

1:05:01

during the tour. So

1:05:03

the court has gone through each kind

1:05:05

of line of allegations to talk

1:05:08

about what is and is not part of

1:05:10

the creative process with a fine tooth

1:05:12

comb. The court goes on to say, the

1:05:15

court also does not see the functional relationship

1:05:17

between banana and bar and crazy horse

1:05:19

and the performances. Plaintiffs

1:05:21

allege that this was voluntary in

1:05:24

name, but not in reality for

1:05:26

job security. Lizzo attests that

1:05:28

these events are for team building so

1:05:30

everyone can spend more time together in

1:05:32

a relaxed environment. She adds

1:05:35

that the crazy horse invitation was meant to

1:05:37

inspire the dancers' creativity and improve their

1:05:39

overall performance of the show. Lizzo

1:05:42

notes that other major stars such as

1:05:44

Beyonce have incorporated elements from the crazy

1:05:46

horse show. Why

1:05:48

are you bringing Beyonce into this? Like,

1:05:50

leave, leave Beyonce, what?

1:05:55

Ma'am, the court is

1:05:58

not sure how voluntary off-the-clock time... at

1:06:00

a club bears a functional relationship

1:06:02

to performance of a set dance

1:06:04

routine. Of course, the court understands

1:06:07

it as a general matter in that seeing

1:06:09

others can inspire a person to work harder

1:06:11

or lead to new ideas. At

1:06:14

least one declarant says these events helped

1:06:16

improve the show because everyone could bond.

1:06:19

But this activity was, according to

1:06:21

defendants, voluntary. Not

1:06:25

all the dancers were required to attend clubs to

1:06:27

aid their performance of pre-choreographed numbers, given that

1:06:29

the court is not sure how something that

1:06:32

no one had to say no to is

1:06:35

going to aid the creative process. Further,

1:06:38

Lizzo's declaration as to her intent undercuts

1:06:40

defendant's theory. Quote, To be frank, I

1:06:42

was enjoying a night out at a

1:06:44

banana bar with friends and did not

1:06:46

have any expectations about who would attend

1:06:49

or how long they would stay. The

1:06:52

functional relationship between this voluntary off-the-clock

1:06:54

club activity and the concert performance

1:06:56

is missing. The court

1:06:59

notes, though, that this is a close

1:07:01

question. For that reason, the

1:07:03

court addresses prong 2 as to these

1:07:05

activities below in the margin.

1:07:07

So even the court is like,

1:07:10

I could see where you might argue to

1:07:12

the appellate court that

1:07:15

going to the

1:07:17

all-new club and the banana

1:07:19

bar might

1:07:21

have some tangential relationship to

1:07:24

a creative performance. So I'm

1:07:26

not going to just cut it off at prong 1. I'm

1:07:29

going to say it was close, but

1:07:31

I'm still going to go to prong 2. So

1:07:33

the court is giving like the arguendo argument on

1:07:35

this. Without more, arguing with

1:07:38

someone or attempting to hit them does not

1:07:40

further the creative process. Given the

1:07:42

above analysis, defendants satisfy their burden on the

1:07:44

first prong in part, the motion is denied.

1:07:47

However, to the allegations regarding

1:07:49

Quigley's religious and sexual comments, management's

1:07:52

failure to address sexual harassment issues,

1:07:54

attendance at banana bar and Crazy

1:07:56

Horse, Davis's false imprisonment, and Lizzo's

1:07:59

purported assault, This necessarily means

1:08:01

the motion is denied to the eighth

1:08:03

and ninth causes of action. The court

1:08:05

does not discuss them on the second

1:08:07

prong analysis. The burden shifts on the

1:08:09

remaining allegations. So the court

1:08:12

denied everything as to the alleged

1:08:15

assault, the sexual harassment, management's

1:08:17

failure to deal with the sexual harassment, the

1:08:19

stuff at the banana bar, the crazy horse,

1:08:22

and the false imprisonment, which of all of

1:08:24

these is a, the false imprisonment is going

1:08:26

to be real difficult to get around unless

1:08:28

they settle this. That's so much more

1:08:31

cut and dry than the rest

1:08:33

of these issues that are going to get into

1:08:35

a really difficult gray zone. So the

1:08:37

court has gone through prong

1:08:39

one and said, some of these don't even meet

1:08:41

prong one. So get

1:08:43

out, just absolutely get out. Then

1:08:46

the burden shifts to the likelihood of

1:08:49

success on prong two. Prong

1:08:51

two being, hey, this is protected

1:08:53

activity. So because it's

1:08:55

protected activity, now the plaintiff needs

1:08:57

to show that what the defendant

1:08:59

did is still something they can

1:09:01

sue over and they're likely to

1:09:03

succeed. In summarizing the court's

1:09:06

ruling with regard to the nude photo shoot,

1:09:08

this is what the court has to say.

1:09:11

These cases illustrate that there are a variety

1:09:13

of ways to establish discrimination due

1:09:16

to sex, but as is

1:09:18

likely clear from the summaries, none

1:09:20

of these evidentiary methods apply here.

1:09:23

There is no indication of any sexual interest

1:09:25

in the plaintiffs nor any widespread sexual favoritism.

1:09:28

So those evidentiary issues

1:09:30

are closed. There was no evidence

1:09:32

indicating that plaintiffs and Davis in particular have

1:09:34

been treated differently due to their sex or

1:09:36

that men would have been treated differently as

1:09:38

to the portions of the motion that made

1:09:40

it to prong two. Nor a

1:09:43

single one of the plaintiff's declarations stayed as

1:09:45

much or even supports that inference. Nor

1:09:48

is there any evidence indicating that

1:09:50

the female defendants were motivated by

1:09:52

a general hostility to women in

1:09:54

dealing with plaintiffs. Both

1:09:56

cases that they cite are clear that there must

1:09:58

be some evidence of discrimination. discrimination due

1:10:01

to sex, due

1:10:03

to your sex, and there

1:10:05

is none here. The motion is granted as

1:10:07

to the nude photo shoot allegations in the

1:10:09

first cause of action. And then there's a

1:10:12

footnote footnote five to the extent that the

1:10:14

nightclubs though had passed muster

1:10:16

under prong one plaintiffs would have succeeded

1:10:18

on prong two. There was at least

1:10:20

some evidence that males working for Lizzo

1:10:22

were either not pressured to go to

1:10:24

the clubs or at least not pressured

1:10:26

to participate in any explicit activities while

1:10:28

there. Accordingly, the declaration supporting that activity

1:10:31

would have been sufficient even under the

1:10:33

Lyell analysis saying that

1:10:35

with regard to the discrimination, you have to

1:10:37

show that the discrimination is based on sex.

1:10:40

And with regard to the nude photo

1:10:42

shoot, everyone participating was women. The defendants

1:10:44

were women. They were not treated differently

1:10:47

because they were women. And so those

1:10:49

allegations about the nude photo shoot are

1:10:51

getting cut out of the complaint cause

1:10:53

the anti-slap has been granted

1:10:55

as to those allegations. The

1:10:57

second allegation failure to prevent sexual

1:10:59

harassment. There can be no claim

1:11:01

for failure to take reasonable steps necessary

1:11:04

to prevent sexual harassment when an essential

1:11:06

element of sexual harassment liability has not

1:11:08

been established. The court then

1:11:11

says the motion is granted as the nude

1:11:13

photo shoot allegations. Third cause

1:11:15

of action, religious discrimination. The

1:11:17

court rules for purposes of this motion

1:11:19

though, the court believes that plaintiffs have

1:11:21

put forth enough evidence to

1:11:23

live to fight another day. The motion is denied

1:11:25

as to this cause of action. And that's all

1:11:28

of the stuff that went on

1:11:30

with Quigley treating different

1:11:33

members of the dance team differently based

1:11:35

on their virginity status, based on their

1:11:37

religion, based on her proselytizing to them.

1:11:40

So those allegations all stay

1:11:42

in the complaint. Fourth

1:11:45

cause of action, failure to prevent

1:11:47

religious discrimination. The court says

1:11:49

the parties spend time arguing about Quigley's actions,

1:11:51

but that is not material here as her

1:11:53

actions did not make it past the first

1:11:55

prong. Had they though, the court believes that

1:11:57

the evidence would have been sufficient to overcome

1:11:59

the motion. The motion is denied

1:12:01

as to the prayer circle allegations. Fifth

1:12:04

cause of action for racial discrimination. At

1:12:06

issue are the comments that the dance

1:12:08

team members were, quote, lazy, unprofessional, snarky,

1:12:11

and generally had bad attitudes. Planus,

1:12:14

Davis, and Williams present enough evidence to

1:12:16

establish that they were subject to racial

1:12:18

harassment. They established that they are part

1:12:20

of a protected class subject to unwelcome

1:12:22

and racist comments that were mostly pointed

1:12:24

at Black members of the dance team and

1:12:27

that the harassment interfered with their work

1:12:29

environment. These comments came about

1:12:31

in response to the dancer's request

1:12:33

for retainer, where Joshi berated them

1:12:35

as well as other instances of

1:12:37

such comments by management. In

1:12:40

reply, dependents contend that a single email is

1:12:42

not sufficient to establish a pervasive

1:12:45

atmosphere of discrimination. The

1:12:47

court notes, but it's not just

1:12:49

a single email. Two plaintiffs also

1:12:51

state that there was increased tension

1:12:53

thereafter. Further, Davis states

1:12:55

that BGBT management treated the

1:12:57

Black members of the dance

1:12:59

team wildly different than other

1:13:01

members, for they called

1:13:04

us lazy, unprofessional, and told us that

1:13:06

we had bad attitudes. These remarks were

1:13:08

made by white members in management. The

1:13:10

implication is that it happened more than

1:13:13

once, whether that is true as

1:13:15

a question for the trier of fact. The

1:13:17

court says, frankly, this is not the strongest

1:13:19

evidence of racial animus impact on

1:13:22

the working environment or prevalence the court has

1:13:24

ever seen. But in making

1:13:26

inferences in the plaintiff's favor, it is

1:13:28

sufficient. For example, turning

1:13:31

to the email, Joshi claims, such a

1:13:33

retainer is not industry standard for dancers,

1:13:35

but it is for others. Well, Davis

1:13:37

says a retainer is industry standard. That

1:13:40

automatically sets up a triable issue

1:13:42

of material fact on

1:13:44

the industry standard, which leaves the

1:13:46

question on differential treatment on the

1:13:49

retainer, an open question. Defendants

1:13:51

evidence that other Black dancers did

1:13:53

not experience racism only establishes a

1:13:55

trial issue of material fact. The

1:13:57

court cannot accord more weight to

1:13:59

one. person's experience on this motion,

1:14:01

the motion is denied. So that

1:14:03

cause of action is going forward

1:14:06

as to all of the allegations

1:14:08

of racial discrimination. As to

1:14:10

the disability discrimination causes of action, and this

1:14:12

has to go along with

1:14:14

the recording of the meeting by

1:14:16

one of the plaintiffs, the court

1:14:18

says the temporal proximity between the

1:14:21

meeting and Davis' termination is interrupted

1:14:23

by Davis' voluntary confession to

1:14:25

recording the meeting and sending it to

1:14:27

Williams and the immediate termination of her

1:14:29

employment and response. The court emphasizes that

1:14:32

the recording of the session would not

1:14:34

be enough to overcome plaintiff showing were

1:14:36

that the only issue. But the fact

1:14:38

that Davis admitted not only to recording

1:14:40

the session, but also sending it to

1:14:42

Williams, who had just been fired by Lizzo

1:14:45

and sending the recording to Williams had nothing to

1:14:47

do with any disability. That was

1:14:50

the purported reason for the termination and

1:14:52

Davis offers no explanation as to why

1:14:54

the conduct would not be grounds for

1:14:56

termination. So the recording is

1:14:58

not the problem. The

1:15:00

sending it to Williams is the problem

1:15:03

and therefore it undermines the entire claim

1:15:05

and the court grants the motion for

1:15:07

that cause of action. With regard to

1:15:09

the intentional interference with prospective economic advantage,

1:15:12

this deals with the hold or the

1:15:14

soft hold on the dancers. So they

1:15:16

can't take other jobs while waiting to

1:15:18

go on tour, probably because they don't

1:15:20

want them to get injured doing other things.

1:15:22

The court says that plaintiffs have not established

1:15:24

that the soft hold is wrongful in and

1:15:27

of itself to the extent

1:15:29

that the soft hold was motivated by racial

1:15:31

animus that is dealt with in the Fijo

1:15:33

claim discussed above the racial claim we just

1:15:35

talked about. The motion is granted as to

1:15:37

this cause of action summary.

1:15:40

So numerous causes of action

1:15:42

did get cut, certain allegations did get

1:15:44

cut and the rest lives to fight

1:15:46

another day. Here's the court's conclusion

1:15:49

and summary. If your head is spinning, it's

1:15:51

a lot, but not everything is

1:15:53

going to go forward in this lawsuit

1:15:56

against Lizzo and the company and the

1:15:58

dance captain, which means the

1:16:00

cases in a better position to potentially

1:16:02

settle. Summary, this case presents a number

1:16:04

of difficult issues, although not every allegation

1:16:07

involves protected activity or matters of public

1:16:09

interest, many do. And the

1:16:11

courts are rightfully wary of injecting themselves

1:16:13

into the creative process. Speech,

1:16:15

including entertainment or other forms

1:16:17

of expression, are protected

1:16:19

rights and the law wisely

1:16:22

disfavors chilling such conduct. Indeed,

1:16:25

that is one of the drivers

1:16:27

behind the legislature's enactment of the

1:16:29

SMS. Also, it's one of the

1:16:31

reasons it's so strong in California,

1:16:33

because California is the hub of

1:16:35

quite a lot of creativity. And,

1:16:38

you know, music and film and the rest of it.

1:16:41

A lot of that's moving. But

1:16:44

when this was all written, it was. On the

1:16:46

other hand, the fact that the alleged

1:16:49

incidents take place in the entertainment or

1:16:51

speech world is no shield of invulnerability

1:16:53

or license to ignore laws enacted for

1:16:55

the protection of California citizens. Finding

1:16:58

the right balance is often no

1:17:00

easy task. And this case is a

1:17:02

perfect example. It is dangerous for the

1:17:05

court to weigh in, ham-fisted, into constitutionally

1:17:07

protected activity. But it

1:17:09

is equally dangerous to turn a

1:17:11

blind eye to allegations of discrimination

1:17:13

or other forms of misconduct merely

1:17:15

because they take place in a

1:17:17

speech-related environment. The court has

1:17:19

tried to thread this needle, although the

1:17:21

court, being a trial court only, is

1:17:23

well aware that this is likely only

1:17:26

the first stop on this case's journey.

1:17:28

And there is the court saying, I'm curious

1:17:32

as to what the court of appeals will

1:17:34

have to say about this. The

1:17:37

court is saying, look, these are the

1:17:39

interests I balanced. I have tried to

1:17:41

thread the needle. Hello,

1:17:43

appellate court. This will be

1:17:45

appealed. We'll see what you have to say. The

1:17:49

court also notes that although it's discussed above,

1:17:51

the SMS standard is similar to the summary

1:17:54

judgment standard. There are differences. Summary judgments comes

1:17:56

after discovery. Some things are easy enough to

1:17:58

allege or even to clear, but may

1:18:00

not stand up following a review of

1:18:02

the documents or the crucible of

1:18:05

deposition examination. As

1:18:07

to the portions of this motion that were

1:18:09

denied, the court does not mean to suggest

1:18:12

that the defendants are precluded from bringing a

1:18:14

summary judgment motion either as

1:18:16

a legal or even as a practical matter.

1:18:18

Of course, the court does not know how

1:18:20

it will rule. Should such a

1:18:22

motion be brought, it is only to say that

1:18:25

the court's mind as to what the record will

1:18:27

show at that stage is open. In

1:18:29

the light of the foregoing, the defendant's

1:18:31

motion is granted as to the nude

1:18:34

photo shoot allegations in the first and

1:18:36

second causes of action, is granted as

1:18:38

to the sixth cause of action for

1:18:40

disability discrimination, and the seventh cause

1:18:42

of action for intentional interference with

1:18:44

prospective economic relationship. It is denied

1:18:46

as to the remainder. So

1:18:49

this is now a slightly

1:18:53

less causes of action lawsuit,

1:18:55

but the majority of the

1:18:57

lawsuit is still going forward.

1:19:00

What impact does it have? Well, it tailors down

1:19:02

the lawsuit a bit, takes out some of the

1:19:04

things they can talk about at trial. The

1:19:07

allegations about the photo shoot gets

1:19:09

pulled out. Whether or not the

1:19:11

causes of action will stand without it, we will see if a

1:19:14

demur is made alleging that

1:19:16

on the complaint now it's insufficient facts

1:19:18

to survive. Whether or

1:19:20

not they will choose to do that or just choose

1:19:22

to start their conversations about settling

1:19:25

this matter, we will see. But this

1:19:27

needed to happen first because from

1:19:29

the defense's perspective, if

1:19:31

the entire case gets thrown out on

1:19:33

an anti-slap motion, they

1:19:36

also get lawyer's fees. And

1:19:38

of course, we saw the statements from Lizzo's

1:19:41

attorneys saying that these were all

1:19:43

overblown allegations, that these were not

1:19:46

true. So had

1:19:48

they won the entire anti-slap, the lawsuit would be over

1:19:50

and they would have gotten attorney's fees. Now

1:19:53

they have to face discovery, deposition, and

1:19:55

the rest of it, and that might

1:19:57

change the conversation with regard to the

1:19:59

court. to settling this case a little bit.

1:20:01

This ruling just came down January 30th, so it

1:20:03

is still fairly new and the parties are going

1:20:06

to have to sort out what to do next.

1:20:08

But I will be keeping an eye on

1:20:10

it and circling back when we have more

1:20:13

rulings from the court on this

1:20:15

case. But partly granted,

1:20:17

partly denied, if your head is

1:20:19

spinning, this is civil

1:20:22

litigation. Does this kind of stuff happen

1:20:24

in criminal litigation? Not quite like this. No,

1:20:26

no. This anti-flat motion is specific to

1:20:29

civil litigation. And hopefully

1:20:31

you understand the two prongs of flat motions a

1:20:33

little bit better. And for all the lawyers

1:20:35

in the audience, I hope you enjoyed

1:20:37

your self-study CLEs with this episode. And

1:20:39

with that, Lornered, thank you for

1:20:42

being here. Thank you for being a Lornered. I will talk to you

1:20:44

soon. What do I need to say? I need to say the

1:20:47

podcast-y things. May your

1:20:49

wifi be strong. May your

1:20:51

toilet paper be plentiful. May you

1:20:53

be able to roll over in your sleep without your

1:20:55

neck going into complete spasm and then taking days and

1:20:57

days and days to recover. Maybe

1:21:00

that's just really personal to me. I'm, I'm just wishing

1:21:02

that to me. May your family be

1:21:04

well and may the odds be ever in your favor.

1:21:07

I will see you in the next one. Thursdays,

1:21:26

I recap all of that for

1:21:28

you in quick bits on Monday. And of course

1:21:30

the Emily show drops on Wednesdays. And

1:21:32

for being a Lornered.