Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Richard Simmons must pay National Enquirer $130,000

  1. #1
    Bronze alpha1243's Avatar
    Reputation
    88
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    174
    Blog Entries
    18
    Load Metric
    65662606

    Richard Simmons must pay National Enquirer $130,000

    Name:  Untitled.jpg
Views: 192
Size:  117.7 KB

    Six months after dismissing Richard Simmons' libel-invasion of privacy suit against the National Enquirer, Radar Online and their publisher over stories claiming he was undergoing a sex change, a judge ordered the exercise guru to pay nearly $130,000 in attorneys' fees to the media defendants, court papers obtained Monday show.

    Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gregory Keosian issued his ruling Friday. He had taken the defense motion for attorneys' fees under submission after hearing arguments on Jan. 31. Keosian's $128,625 award consists of an underlying amount of $110,250 for the general costs of preparing the dismissal motion and the remainder to compensate the defendants for attorneys' fees.

    The defendants had sought $220,000, which Simmons' lawyers criticized as a "billing fiesta.'' In his Sept. 1 ruling dismissing Simmons' case, Keosian said it appeared to be one of "first-impression.'' He said falsely reporting that a person is transgender does not necessarily "have a natural tendency'' to hurt one's reputation.

    Simmons is appealing the dismissal motion. In his lawsuit filed May 8, Simmons contended the series of articles falsely suggested that he was transitioning from male to female, and that the stories were based on phony information provided by a former assistant.

  2. #2
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,626
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65662606
    The Enquirer won the attorney's fees through the anti-SLAPP provision in California law. Normally losing plaintiffs do not have to pay attorneys fees in California.

    Anti-SLAPP law exists to prevent frivolous lawsuits meant to discourage public discourse.

    Specifically, it allows defendants to (somewhat) cheaply and easily get lawsuits against them dismissed, if the purpose of such lawsuit is simply to silence public speech which the plaintiff does not like. Even if the lawsuit appears to be about something else on its surface, if the subsequent discovery makes it likely that the lawsuit actually seeks to silence critical speech, Anti-SLAPP actions will cause the lawsuit to be dismissed.

    California has especially strong anti-SLAPP statutes.

    Nevada now also has strong anti-SLAPP statutes, which are based upon the much more extensive California statutes. A recent legal challenge to anti-SLAPP in Nevada was defeated.

    Upon the dismissal of a lawsuit via an anti-SLAPP hearing, the plaintiff is responsible to pay all or most of the defendant's legal fees.

    Since Simmons is a public figure, it is much tougher for him to claim libel. As a public figure, you can only successfully claim libel if it occurred with malice, meaning the defendant KNEW at the time he wrote the defamatory content that it was false. If the defendant erroneously thought it was true, and thus wrote incorrect and damaging things, the public figure could not win a libel case.

    In this case, the Enquirer claimed it believed that what they wrote about Simmons was true at the time of the article, and also claimed that being transgender is not defamatory.

    Since Simmons' lawsuit seeked to punish the Enquirer for publishing a story about him, it triggered the "free speech interference" requirement of anti-SLAPP, and thus the Enquirer won their attorney's fees.

    With that said, this isn't really the intended usage of anti-SLAPP -- where deep-pocketed publications can force individuals to pay for their expensive in-house lawyers, after they write untrue gossip about them.

    Anti-SLAPP was actually meant to do the reverse -- to protect individuals from large corporations or rich people from silencing them under the threat of a defamation/libel suit.

     
    Comments
      
      sonatine: interesting.

  3. #3
    Canadrunk limitles's Avatar
    Reputation
    1653
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    In Todd's head
    Posts
    17,638
    Blog Entries
    1
    Load Metric
    65662606
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    The Enquirer won the attorney's fees through the anti-SLAPP provision in California law. Normally losing plaintiffs do not have to pay attorneys fees in California.

    Anti-SLAPP law exists to prevent frivolous lawsuits meant to discourage public discourse.

    Specifically, it allows defendants to (somewhat) cheaply and easily get lawsuits against them dismissed, if the purpose of such lawsuit is simply to silence public speech which the plaintiff does not like. Even if the lawsuit appears to be about something else on its surface, if the subsequent discovery makes it likely that the lawsuit actually seeks to silence critical speech, Anti-SLAPP actions will cause the lawsuit to be dismissed.

    California has especially strong anti-SLAPP statutes.

    Nevada now also has strong anti-SLAPP statutes, which are based upon the much more extensive California statutes. A recent legal challenge to anti-SLAPP in Nevada was defeated.

    Upon the dismissal of a lawsuit via an anti-SLAPP hearing, the plaintiff is responsible to pay all or most of the defendant's legal fees.

    Since Simmons is a public figure, it is much tougher for him to claim libel. As a public figure, you can only successfully claim libel if it occurred with malice, meaning the defendant KNEW at the time he wrote the defamatory content that it was false. If the defendant erroneously thought it was true, and thus wrote incorrect and damaging things, the public figure could not win a libel case.

    In this case, the Enquirer claimed it believed that what they wrote about Simmons was true at the time of the article, and also claimed that being transgender is not defamatory.

    Since Simmons' lawsuit seeked to punish the Enquirer for publishing a story about him, it triggered the "free speech interference" requirement of anti-SLAPP, and thus the Enquirer won their attorney's fees.

    With that said, this isn't really the intended usage of anti-SLAPP -- where deep-pocketed publications can force individuals to pay for their expensive in-house lawyers, after they write untrue gossip about them.

    Anti-SLAPP was actually meant to do the reverse -- to protect individuals from large corporations or rich people from silencing them under the threat of a defamation/libel suit.

    The purpose of the lawsuit would be to silence a nationwide publication from lying. The Enquirer front page is not necessarily public discourse, critical speech or fair comment. In this case it's fabrication from which they have profited. Whatever the claim, if it's a lie, it's defamation and this judgement is hereby overturned.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Tavis Smiley and Russel Simmons named today's sexual predators
    By BlunderMaker in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-13-2017, 04:05 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-23-2015, 03:13 AM
  3. ESPN Suspends Bill Simmons
    By Hockey Guy in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-26-2014, 01:11 AM
  4. Bill Simmons article on PED's
    By cla in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 02-05-2013, 04:55 PM
  5. Richard Dawson is DD
    By LLL in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-03-2012, 12:52 PM

Tags for this Thread