Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/14/2022 12:00 AM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by V. Sino-Cruz,Deputy Clerk

1 ALAN A. GREENBERG, State Bar No. 150827

AGreenberg@GGTrialLaw.com
2 WAYNE R. GROSS, State Bar No. 138828
WGross@GGTrialLaw.com
3 MICHAEL H. STRUB, JR., State Bar No. 153828
MStrub@GGTrialLaw.com
4 COLIN V. QUINLAN, State Bar No. 332225
CQuinlan@GGTrialLaw.com
5 GREENBERG GROSS LLP
650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1700
6 Costa Mesa, California 92626
Telephone: (949) 383-2800
7 Facsimile: (949) 383-2801

8 Attorneys for Defendant Phoebe Bridgers

9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

11

12 CHRIS NELSON, an individual, Case No. 21STCV35635

13 Plaintiff, Assigned for All Purposes to:

Hon. Curtis A. Kin, Dept. 72
14 v.
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’
15 PHOEBE BRIDGERS, an individual; and NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
16 COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P.
Defendants. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF
17 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT THEREOF
18
Filed Concurrently with Declarations of
19 Phoebe Bridgers, Darin Harmon, Chloë
Walsh, and Michael H. Strub, Jr. in Support;
20 and Proposed Order

21 Hearing:
Date: March 10, 2022
22 Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept: 72
23
Reservation No.: 004054770030
24
Action Filed: September 28, 2021
25 Trial Date: None Set
26

27

28

DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 10, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as

3 counsel may be heard, in Department 72 of the above-entitled Court, located at 111 North Hill

4 Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, defendant Phoebe Bridgers will and hereby does bring this special

5 motion to strike the First Amended Complaint of plaintiff Chris Nelson pursuant to California

6 Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. This Motion is made on the grounds that Mr. Nelson’s

7 Amended Complaint falls squarely within the scope of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16,

8 subdivision (b)(1), because all his causes of action arise from an act in furtherance of Ms.

9 Bridgers’ right of free speech in connection with a public issue. Consequently, the burden shifts
10 to Mr. Nelson to present admissible evidence establishing a probability that he will prevail on his

11 claims. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) Mr. Nelson cannot meet this burden. Mr.

12 Nelson has held himself out as a public figure and voluntarily interjected himself into this dispute.

13 Therefore, he is a limited purpose public figure who must prove that Ms. Bridgers acted with

14 actual malice, which he cannot do.

15 For these reasons, Mr. Nelson cannot meet his burden under section 425.16, subdivision

16 (b)(1), and his Amended Complaint should be stricken. Should Ms. Bridgers prevail on the

17 Motion, she will also seek an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Code of

18 Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1).

19 This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion; on the attached Memorandum
20 of Points and Authorities; on the Declarations of Ms. Bridgers, Darin Harmon, Chloë Walsh, and

21 Michael H. Strub, Jr.; on all matters of which this Court may take judicial notice; on all pleadings,

22 files, and records in this action; on any reply memorandum; and on such other argument or

23 evidence that may be presented at the hearing on this Motion.

24

25

26

27

28
-2-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 DATED: February 11, 2022 GREENBERG GROSS LLP

3
By:
4 Alan A. Greenberg
Wayne R. Gross
5 Michael H. Strub, Jr.
Colin V. Quinlan
6
Attorneys for Defendant Phoebe Bridgers
7

9
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
-3-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
2

3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ...................................................................8

4 I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................8

5 II. SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ..............................................10

6 A. Ms. Bridgers, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Bannon. ...........................................................10

7 B. Alleged defamation. .................................................................................................12

8 C. Complaints and releases to the media. .....................................................................13

9 III. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................15

10 A. California’s anti-SLAPP statute. ..............................................................................15

11 B. Mr. Nelson’s cause of action arises from protected activity. ...................................15

12 1. Instagram is a public forum. .........................................................................15

13 2. Ms. Bridgers’ statements were on an issue of public interest. .....................16

14 C. Mr. Nelson is a limited purpose public figure who must prove that
Ms. Bridgers acted with malice. ...............................................................................18
15
1. Mr. Nelson is a limited purpose public figure. .............................................18
16
2. Mr. Nelson cannot prove actual malice. .......................................................20
17
D. Mr. Nelson cannot show a probability of prevailing on his other claims. ...............21
18
IV. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................21
19
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
-4-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 Page(s)
3 Cases

4 Annette F. v. Sharon S.

5 (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1146 ............................................................................................ 17, 19

6 Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith v. Superior Court

(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1072 .................................................................................................... 19
7
Balla v. Hall
8 (2021), 59 Cal.App.5th 652 ..................................................................................................... 19
9 Barrett v. Rosenthal
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 33.......................................................................................................... 13, 15
10

11 Cabrera v. Alam
(2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1077 .................................................................................................. 19
12
Castillo v. Barrera
13 (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1317 .................................................................................................. 16
14 Chaker v. Mateo
(2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1138 .................................................................................................. 18
15

16 Christian Research Institute v. Alnor

(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 71 ...................................................................................................... 21
17
Coleman v. Grand
18 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2021, No. 18CV5663ENVRLM) 2021 WL 768167............................... 17

19 Copp v. Paxton
(1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 829 ...................................................................................................... 19
20
Cytodyn, Inc. v. Amerimmune Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
21
(2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 288 .................................................................................................... 16
22
Denney v. Lawrence
23 (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 927 ........................................................................................................ 9

24 Elliott v. Donegan
(E.D.N.Y. 2020) 469 F.Supp.3d 40 ......................................................................................... 17
25
Field Research Corp. v. Patrick
26 (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 603 ....................................................................................................... 20
27
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
28 (1974) 418 U.S. 323 ................................................................................................................ 19
-5-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 Gilbert v. Sykes
(2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 13 ...................................................................................................... 19
2
Hall v. Time Warner, Inc.
3 (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1337 .................................................................................................. 18
4
Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher Organization
5 (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 450 .................................................................................................... 16

6 Jackson v. Mayweather
(2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240 ........................................................................................ 15, 17, 18
7
Kieu Hoang v. Phong Minh Tran
8 (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 513 ...................................................................................................... 16
9 Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC
10 (9th Cir. 2013) 715 F.3d 254 ................................................................................................... 18

11 McGarry v. Univ. of San Diego

(2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 97 ................................................................................................ 19, 20
12
Navellier v. Sletten
13 (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82................................................................................................................ 15
14 Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula

15 (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1027 ............................................................................................ 16, 17

16 Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court

(1984) 37 Cal.3d 244 ............................................................................................................... 20
17
Reed v. Gallagher
18 (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 841 .................................................................................................... 20
19 Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp.
(2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 798 ................................................................................................ 17, 21
20

21 Sipple v. Found. For Nat. Progress

(1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 226 ...................................................................................................... 17
22
Statutes
23
47 U.S.C. § 230 ............................................................................................................................. 13
24
Civ. Code, § 425.16 ............................................................................................... 15, 16, 17, 18, 21
25
Code Civ. Proc., § 415.16 ........................................................................................................... 8, 9
26

27

28
-6-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 Other Authorities

2 1 LAW OF DEFAMATION § 2:31 (2d ed. Nov. 2021)....................................................................... 19

3 U.S. Const., amend. I .................................................................................................... 8, 10, 17, 19

4 https://downtownwomenscenter.org/ ............................................................................................ 12

5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instagram........................................................................................ 15
6
https://pitchfork.com/news/phoebe-bridgers-covers-merle-haggard-if-we-make-it-
7 through-december-listen/ ........................................................................................................ 12

8 https://twitter.com/Metallica/status/ 1426230619583959045 ....................................................... 11

9 https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/phoebe-bridgers-teenager-marilyn-
manson-house-9521235/ ......................................................................................................... 11
10

11 https://www.billboard.com/music/rock/phoebe-bridgers-covers-that-funny-feeling-
benefit-texas-abortion-funds-9639350/ ................................................................................... 11
12
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/arts/music/ryan-adams-women-sex.html ......................... 11
13

14

15

16

17

18

19
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
-7-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 I. INTRODUCTION

3 This case presents a straightforward application of the anti-SLAPP statute, section 415.16

4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in connection with a dispute between public figures concerning a

5 matter of public interest: domestic abuse. The plaintiff, Chris Nelson, has accused the defendant,

6 Phoebe Bridgers, of defamation, but rather than serving his complaint, he has used the media to

7 widely publicize his claims. Mr. Nelson is seeking to chill Ms. Bridgers’ allegations of abusive

8 conduct, which are protected by the First Amendment. Mr. Nelson is a limited purpose public

9 figure, based both on his admitted notoriety and his decision to voluntarily inject himself into
10 broad public discourse of his dispute with Ms. Bridgers, and he must prove that Ms. Bridgers

11 acted with actual malice – that is, that she knew that the statements that she made about him were

12 false. Ms. Bridgers has submitted a declaration affirming her subjective belief in the truth of her

13 statements, so Mr. Nelson cannot meet his burden. (Declaration of Phoebe Bridgers (“Bridgers

14 Decl.”) ¶¶ 13-14.) The Court therefore should grant this special motion to strike pursuant to

15 section 415.16.

16 ***

17 The defendant, Ms. Bridgers, is a well-known musical artist who, among other things, has

18 been the musical guest on Saturday Night Live and was nominated for four Grammy Awards in

19 2020. The plaintiff, Mr. Nelson, claims that he is a well-known record producer and collector of
20 musical instruments who has worked with many well-known artists and actively promotes

21 women’s and LGBTQ rights. (Plaintiff Chris Nelson’s Verified First Amended Complaint

22 (“Amd. Cmplt.”) ¶¶ 7-10.) Ms. Bridgers, Mr. Nelson, and Emily Bannon had been in a

23 relationship together. Ms. Bannon ended her relationship with Mr. Nelson, and, in 2020, made a

24 number of statements criticizing Mr. Nelson’s character and behavior. Ms. Bridgers then

25 independently posted an Instagram story stating that she had witnessed Mr. Nelson’s abusive

26 behavior and warned those considering working with him to review Ms. Bannon’s post. As with

27 all Instagram stories, it disappeared twenty-four hours later.

28 Based on her Instagram story, Mr. Nelson filed a complaint against Ms. Bridgers that
-8-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 contained very detailed and unnecessarily salacious statements and photographs concerning the

2 sexual relationship among Ms. Bridgers, Ms. Bannon, and Mr. Nelson. Mr. Nelson never served

3 nor attempted to serve that complaint. Instead, he disseminated it to the media, and the allegations

4 of his complaint were picked up by a number of online publications and print publications in the

5 United States and Europe, including Rolling Stone and TMZ. At a December 27, 2021 hearing on

6 an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file a proof of service,

7 Mr. Nelson’s counsel told the Court that Mr. Nelson would file and serve an amended complaint

8 that same day. Instead, Mr. Nelson filed an amended complaint, which was identical to the

9 original complaint but attached over 100 pages of text messages with Ms. Bridgers, but did not
10 attempt to serve it. He again distributed this amended complaint to the media before it was even

11 filed. This is beyond dispute. The version of the complaint that Ms. Bridgers’ representatives

12 received from Rolling Stone magazine was not file-stamped and was different from the version

13 that ultimately appeared on the Court’s public docket. (Declaration of Chloë Walsh (“Walsh

14 Decl.”) ¶ 2 & Ex. A.) Then, despite his counsel’s representation to the Court, Mr. Nelson waited

15 another six weeks before attempting to serve the amended complaint on Ms. Bridgers.

16 (Declaration of Michael H. Strub, Jr. (“Strub Decl.” ¶ 8 & Ex. F, ¶ 9.)

17 To prevail on this anti-SLAPP motion, Ms. Bridgers must establish that the statements that

18 she made relate to an issue of public interest and thus are protected speech. (Code Civ. Proc.,

19 § 415.16(e).) If she does so, the Court should grant the motion unless Mr. Nelson can show a
20 probability that he will prevail on the claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.16(b)(1).) Ordinarily,

21 Mr. Nelson would need to adduce some evidence that Ms. Bridgers’ statements were false, but

22 “persons who have . . . voluntarily injected themselves into a particular public controversy”

23 become a “limited purpose public figure” and have a higher burden of showing actual malice.

24 (Denney v. Lawrence (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 927, 934.)

25 There is no doubt that Ms. Bridgers has satisfied the first prong in her anti-SLAPP motion.

26 California courts consider several factors when evaluating whether a statement relates to an issue

27 of public interest, including whether the subject of the statement at issue was a person or entity in

28 the public eye and whether the statement contributed to debate on a topic of widespread public
-9-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 interest. Instagram is a public forum, Mr. Nelson has said that he is in the public eye, and the

2 statements by Ms. Bridgers, a prominent artist, about Mr. Nelson’s business practices and abuse is

3 a matter of public concern protected by the First Amendment.

4 In addition, Mr. Nelson is a limited purpose public figure as a matter of law. He has

5 alleged in his complaint that he is a prominent music producer and world renowned music

6 collector, and his actions have shown that his primary interest is in debating these issues of social

7 justice in the public forum rather than in seeking compensation for alleged harm to him in a civil

8 forum. Mr. Nelson has no evidence that Ms. Bridgers acted with actual malice, because

9 Ms. Bridgers has testified that she subjectively believes that the statements that she made were
10 true. (Bridgers Decl. ¶¶ 13-14.) Therefore, the Court should grant this motion.

11 II. SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

12 A. Ms. Bridgers, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Bannon.

13 Mr. Nelson filed his initial complaint on September 28, 2021. (Strub Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. A.)

14 In it, Mr. Nelson alleges that he “is a well-established record producer, musician, and

15 businessman.” (Amd. Cmplt. ¶ 7.)1 He also alleges that “[n]umerous well-known artists and

16 musicians have worked with Plaintiff or worked at [his company] Sound Space.” (Id. ¶ 8.) He

17 further alleges that he is “a respected expert musical instrument collector” whose expertise is

18 recognized “across the United States and abroad.” (Id. ¶ 10.) Finally, Mr. Nelson introduces the

19 topic of race and gender equality with the following allegation:

20 Plaintiff strives to promote diversity in music and intentionally seeks
to work with people of color, women, and members of the LGBTQ
21 community on music projects in order to provide equal opportunities
to all musicians regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual
22 orientation.

23 (Id. ¶ 9.)

24 Ms. Bridgers is a young, internationally recognized recording artist. (Bridgers Decl. ¶ 2.)

25 She released her debut studio album, Stranger in the Alps, in 2017, at the age of 23, and three

26 years later, she released her follow-up album, Punisher. (Ibid.) Both albums were commercially

27
1
28 For the limited purposes of this motion, Ms. Bridgers accepts as true the allegations in Mr.
Nelson’s initial complaint and his amended complaint.
-10-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 successful and received critical acclaim, and she received four nominations at the 63rd Annual

2 Grammy Awards, including Best New Artist. (Bridgers Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) Bridgers was the musical

3 guest on Saturday Night Live, and, again, received critical praise for her performances. (Bridgers

4 Decl. ¶ 4.)

5 Mr. Nelson admits that “Defendant Bridgers is a social advocate.” (Amd. Complt. ¶ 14.)

6 Ms. Bridgers is openly bisexual and has been an outspoken advocate for women’s rights and an

7 outspoken critic of racist, xenophobic, and misogynistic behavior. (Bridgers Decl. ¶ 5.) She was

8 one of the victims of the abusive behavior of Ryan Adams, a musician, and her description of that

9 relationship was published by the New York Times as part of a broader piece on Mr. Adams. (See
10 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/arts/music/ryan-adams-women-sex.html; see also Bridgers

11 Decl. ¶ 6.) Ms. Bridgers also “vocalized her support for the women who’ve come forward with

12 abuse allegations against Marilyn Manson and recalled her experience at his house when she was a

13 teenager” and witnessed his pattern of abuse. (See https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/

14 phoebe-bridgers-teenager-marilyn-manson-house-9521235/; see also Bridgers Decl. ¶ 7.) In short,

15 she has established a clear pattern of using her platform as an artist to support women who are

16 victims of abuse.

17 Ms. Bridgers also has raised money for numerous charities that support women’s issues.

18 She a supporter of Planned Parenthood, and in 2021, she released a song and directed that all

19 proceeds from that work go to Texas Abortion Funds, calling attention to this important issue.
20 (https://www.billboard.com/music/rock/phoebe-bridgers-covers-that-funny-feeling-benefit-texas-

21 abortion-funds-9639350/; see also Bridgers Decl. ¶ 8.)

22 She supports RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network), and donated $1 from

23 every ticket from her 2021 Reunion Tour to this organization, contributing over $87,000 in total.

24 (Bridgers Decl. ¶ 9.) She also released a song in conjunction with the Metallica Blacklist project

25 and selected RAINN to benefit from the proceeds. (https://twitter.com/Metallica/status/

26 1426230619583959045; see also Bridgers Decl. ¶ 9.)

27 In addition, she is a major contributor and supporter of the Downtown Women’s Center in

28 Los Angeles, “the only organization in Los Angeles focused exclusively on serving and
-11-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 empowering women experiencing homelessness and formerly homeless women.”

2 (https://downtownwomenscenter.org; see also Bridgers Decl. ¶ 10.). In 2020, she released a song

3 and directed that all proceeds from that song in perpetuity go to the Downtown Women’s Center

4 in Los Angeles, calling attention to the important work they do in empowering women

5 experiencing homelessness and who have suffered abuse. (https://pitchfork.com/news/phoebe-

6 bridgers-covers-merle-haggard-if-we-make-it-through-december-listen/; see also Bridgers Decl.

7 ¶ 10.)

8 B. Alleged defamation.

9 Ms. Bridgers previously was in a relationship with Mr. Nelson and Ms. Bannon. (Amd.
10 Cmplt. ¶¶ 16-17.) After Ms. Bannon ended her relationship with Mr. Nelson, Ms. Bannon posted

11 a number of accusations against Mr. Nelson to her Instagram account.2 (Id. ¶ 24.) Ms. Bridgers

12 was not involved in the composition of Ms. Bannon’s post. (Bridgers Decl. ¶ 11.)

13 Mr. Nelson’s complaint against Ms. Bridgers is based solely on one thing. Mr. Nelson

14 asserts that in October 2020, Ms. Bridgers posted a story to Instagram in which she stated that “I

15 witnessed and can personally verify much of the abuse (grooming, stealing, violence) perpetuated

16 by Chris Nelson, owner of a studio called Sound Space….” (Amd. Cmplt. ¶ 22, ellipsis in

17 Amended Complaint.) He also alleges that Ms. Bridgers directed the public to Ms. Bannon’s

18 public Instagram account by publishing an Instagram story stating, “For anyone who knows

19 [Plaintiff], is considering working with him, or wants to know more, there is an articulate and
20 mind blowing account on @emilybannon’s page as a highlight. TRIGGER WARNING for

21
2
22 According to Mr. Nelson, Ms. Bannon alleged that: a. Plaintiff “beat a young Latinx man to
death after provoking him with a racial slur”; b. Plaintiff “killed the young man”; c. Plaintiff
23 “bludgeoned at least one other man with a baseball bat … and left him to bleed out in an
alleyway”; d. Plaintiff committed racially-motivated hate crimes, including “intentionally rear-end
24 drivers of color and then challenging them to call the police, knowing that his white privilege
would protect him from any consequences whatsoever but expose his victims to a prohibitive level
25 of risk (of deportation, incarceration, or brutality) by forcing them to interact with cops”;
e. Plaintiff “defrauded [a] neighbor out of an estimated $100,000-$130,000”; f. Plaintiff “forging
26 [sic] [the neighbor’s] signature and then stealing $50,000 from” the neighbor; g. Plaintiff “robbed
[a] storage unit of an estimated tens of thousands of dollars of belongings”; h. Plaintiff sells stolen
27 gear and “manufactures fake ‘rare’ guitars to defraud collectors and museums … and uses all
manners of devious engineering to trick unwitting … buyers into paying a premium for modified
28 junk”; and i. Plaintiff “was hacking [defendant Bannon] and other women’s email accounts.”
(Amd. Cmplt. ¶ 24, brackets in original.)
-12-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 basically everything triggering.” (Id. ¶ 23.) In contrast to Mr. Nelson’s publications of these

2 stories to the media, which exist indefinitely, Ms. Bridgers’ Instagram story disappeared after

3 twenty-four hours, as all Instagram stories do. (Bridgers Decl. ¶ 13.)

4 Ms. Bridgers cannot be liable for directing her Instagram followers to Ms. Bannon’s post.

5 (See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) [“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be

6 treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content

7 provider.”]; id. § 230(e)(3) [“No cause of action may be brought and no liability imposed under

8 any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.”]; Barrett v. Rosenthal (2006) 40

9 Cal.4th 33, 62 [“By declaring that no ‘user’ may be treated as a ‘publisher’ of third party content,
10 Congress has comprehensively immunized republication by individual Internet users.”].)

11 Therefore, it is only her specific Instagram stories that are at issue.

12 C. Complaints and releases to the media.

13 Mr. Nelson filed his initial complaint on September 28, 2021. (Strub Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. A.)

14 The initial complaint includes a number of explicit details about Ms. Bridgers and her relationship

15 with Ms. Bannon and Mr. Nelson. For example, Mr. Nelson alleges that “in or around 2018,

16 Plaintiff and his girlfriend at the time, Emily Bannon (‘Bannon’), began having consensual sexual

17 encounters with defendant Bridgers, which generally involved unprotected penetrative, oral, and

18 anal sex.” (Cmplt. ¶ 16; see also Amd. Cmplt. ¶ 16.) Nelson interspersed his sensational,

19 exploitative, and derogatory narrative with photographs of Ms. Bridgers, as well as screenshots of
20 her personal and private communications. (See, e.g., Cmplt. ¶¶ 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 42, 59.) He

21 repeated those same assertions in his subsequent amended complaint. (Amd. Cmplt. ¶¶ 14, 16, 17,

22 19, 20, 45, 62.)

23 1. Mr. Nelson did not serve this initial complaint on Ms. Bridgers, nor did he even

24 attempt to serve the complaint. (Declaration of Darin Harmon (“Harmon Decl.”) ¶ 2.) Instead, he

25 released the complaint to the media, where it was promptly picked up and republished by a

26 number of written publications, entertainment oriented websites, and blogs in both the United

27 States and Europe, including TMZ, Rolling Stone, Vulture, People Magazine, USA Today, The

28 Guardian, NME, Reddit, and The Sun. (Harmon Decl. ¶ 3.) This, ipso facto, verifies Mr. Nelson’s
-13-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 abusive behavior. Because Mr. Nelson never attempted to serve the initial complaint, the Court

2 set a hearing for December 27, 2021 on an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not be

3 imposed for failure to file a proof of service. (Strub Decl. ¶ 3.) According to the Minute Order,

4 Mr. Nelson’s “[c]ounsel indicate[d] that an amended complaint will be filed and served today

5 [December 27, 2021].” (Strub Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. B.)

6 Ms. Bridgers’ counsel continuously monitored the Court’s docket on December 27 and

7 December 28 for an amended complaint, and it did not appear. (Strub Decl. ¶ 4.) Instead, on

8 December 28, 2021, Ms. Bridgers’ representative received a copy of a purported amended

9 complaint from Rolling Stone. (Walsh Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. A.) At that time, no complaint had yet
10 appeared on the Court’s docket. (Strub Decl. ¶ 5.) Thus, Rolling Stone could not have obtained

11 the complaint by tracking public records. (Strub Decl. ¶ 5; see also Walsh Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3.) Indeed,

12 Rolling Stone posted its story concerning the amended complaint approximately 40 minutes

13 before the amended complaint was filed, and, of course, Rolling Stone would have had to have

14 received the amended complaint well before the story was posted. (Strub Decl. ¶ 5.)

15 Ultimately, an amended complaint appeared on the docket, but it was different from the

16 version of the complaint that Rolling Stone sent to Ms. Bridgers’ representative, which was not

17 file-stamped and failed to include the word “Amended” in the caption. (Strub Decl ¶ 5 & Exs. C,

18 D; see also Walsh Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex A.) Thus, it is clear that Mr. Nelson voluntarily and

19 intentionally published his “amended” complaint to the media before it was even filed in a
20 transparent attempt to embarrass Ms. Bridgers and to get attention for his dispute with her.

21 The amended complaint copied the initial complaint with one significant exception.

22 Mr. Nelson attached to his amended complaint over 130 pages of text messages involving

23 Ms. Bridgers and Ms. Bannon with further details about their relationship. (Strub Decl. ¶¶ 5-6 &

24 Exs. D, E, and F.) These messages, of course, have no relevance to Mr. Nelson’s claim for

25 defamation but were intended simply as titillation to get more attention to the controversy. On

26 December 29, 2021, Ms. Bridgers’ counsel asked Mr. Nelson’s counsel to remove that material

27 from the public record, but he refused to do so. (Strub Decl. ¶¶ 6-7 & Exs. E, F.) Although

28 Mr. Nelson’s counsel learned that Ms. Bridgers had legal representation on December 29, 2021,
-14-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 Mr. Nelson waited six more weeks before attempting to serve the amended complaint, which was

2 four months after the lawsuit initially was filed. (Strub Decl. ¶¶ 7-9 & Exs. F, G, and H).

3 III. ARGUMENT

4 A. California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

5 The basis for an anti-SLAPP motion is set out in section 425.16 of the Code of Civil

6 Procedure. “Section 425.16 posits . . . a two-step process for determining whether an action is a

7 SLAPP. First, the court decides whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the

8 challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity.” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29

9 Cal.4th 82, 88.) If the court finds that such a showing has been made, the burden shifts to the
10 plaintiff to demonstrate “a probability of prevailing on the claim.” (Ibid.)

11 B. Mr. Nelson’s cause of action arises from protected activity.

12 Ms. Bridgers’ Instagram posts qualify for protection under section 425.16 as a “written or

13 oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with

14 an issue of public interest.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)(3).) Further, Ms. Bridgers’

15 statements also qualify for protection as “conduct in furtherance of the exercise of . . . the

16 constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.”

17 (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)(4).)

18 1. Instagram is a public forum.

19 Instagram is a “photo and video sharing social networking service” with over a billion
20 users that has been a platform to share social commentary. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

21 Instagram.) It therefore is “a place open to the public or a public forum” within the meaning of

22 section 425.16, subdivision (e)(3). (See Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240,

23 1252 [“Mayweather’s postings on his Facebook page and Instagram account and his comments

24 about Jackson during a radio broadcast were all made ‘in a place open to the public or a public

25 forum’ within the meaning of section 425.16, subdivision (e)(3).”]; see also Barrett v. Rosenthal,

26 supra, 40 Cal.4th 33, 41, fn. 4 [collecting cases holding that websites accessible to the public are

27 “public forums” for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute].)

28
-15-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 2. Ms. Bridgers’ statements were on an issue of public interest.

2 “Like the SLAPP statute itself, the question whether something is an issue of public

3 interest must be ‘construed broadly.’” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (a) [provisions “shall be

4 construed broadly” to safeguard “the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of

5 speech and petition for the redress of grievances”]; Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher

6 Organization (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 450, 464 [some internal quotation marks omitted].) “The

7 directive to construe the statute broadly was added in 1997, when the Legislature amended the

8 anti-SLAPP statute ‘to address recent court cases that have too narrowly construed California’s

9 anti-SLAPP suit statute.’” (Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1039.)
10 “‘[A]n issue of public interest’ within the meaning of section 425.16, subdivision (e)(3) is any

11 issue in which the public is interested.” (Id. at p. 1042.)

12 A public issue exists if “the subject statements . . . concerned a person or entity in the

13 public eye.” (Kieu Hoang v. Phong Minh Tran (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 513, 527 [billionaire was

14 public figure in the Vietnamese community and article that accused him of, among other things,

15 exploiting young girls was issue of public interest].) Mr. Nelson has admitted in his complaint

16 that he is a public figure (Amd. Cmplt. ¶¶ 7-8, 10), and that admission is binding on him. (See

17 Castillo v. Barrera (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1324 [allegations in a complaint “constitute[]

18 judicial admissions”]; CytoDyn, Inc. v. Amerimmune Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2008) 160

19 Cal.App.4th 288, 299, fn. 9 [“allegations in a plaintiff’s complaint constitute judicial admissions,
20 and are ‘conclusive concessions of the truth of a matter and have the effect of removing it from the

21 issues.’” [Citation].) Mr. Nelson’s admission, in and of itself, brings the entirety of the amended

22 complaint within the protections of section 425.16.

23 In addition, Ms. Bridgers’ challenged statements concerned allegations that Mr. Nelson

24 was abusive, which contradicts Mr. Nelson’s public portrayal of himself as a well-known figure in

25 the music industry who uses his position to support the LBGTQ community and women’s rights.

26 (Cf. Amd. Cmplt. ¶ 9.) Abusive behavior toward women and minorities by figures within the

27 entertainment industry is a matter of public concern. Since October 2017, “sexual impropriety and

28 power dynamics in the music industry, as in others,” has been “indisputably an issue of public
-16-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 interest.” (Coleman v. Grand (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2021, No. 18CV5663ENVRLM) 2021 WL

2 768167; see also Elliott v. Donegan (E.D.N.Y. 2020) 469 F.Supp.3d 40, 51–52 [“#MeToo

3 catapulted into the public’s consciousness in October 2017. . . . The Weinstein allegations

4 inspired widespread and difficult conversations about what constitutes inappropriate behavior in

5 professional settings and how to construe consent in sexual relationships between prominent

6 industry players and those seeking opportunities within that industry.”].) “Domestic violence is an

7 extremely important public issue in our society.” (Sipple v. Foundation For Nat. Progress (1999)

8 71 Cal.App.4th 226, 238.) Thus, Ms. Bridgers’ statements were “[c]ommenting on a matter of

9 public concern,” which “is a classic form of speech that lies at the heart of the First Amendment.”
10 (Annette F. v. Sharon S. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1162.)

11 To the extent that Mr. Nelson seeks to denigrate the significance of the social impact of

12 Ms. Bridgers’ statements, it will not assist him, because courts have consistently held that

13 “‘tabloid’ issues,” like the ones Mr. Nelson is fomenting, are “protected by the anti-SLAPP

14 statute.” (Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 1042.) For example, in

15 Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 798, 808, the court held that

16 discussions on a radio show about contestants on a television program titled Who Wants to Marry

17 a Multimillionaire concerned matters of public interest covered by section 425.16, subdivision

18 (e)(3), because the public was interested in the television program. In Sipple v. Foundation For

19 National Progress, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th 226, 238, the court held that “allegations of physical
20 and verbal abuse against a prominent media strategist by two former wives” also were a matter of

21 public interest.

22 The decision in Jackson v. Mayweather, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at page 1254, is further

23 instructive. In that case, Shantel Jackson brought an action against her ex-boyfriend, Floyd

24 Mayweather, for invasion of privacy, defamation, and other causes of action based on, among

25 other things, Mr. Mayweather’s statements that Ms. Jackson had cosmetic surgery and an abortion.

26 (Ibid.) Although Mr. Mayweather was more well-known than Ms. Jackson, the court held that the

27 issue was of public interest based on the notoriety of their relationship:

28
-17-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 [T]he evidence unequivocally established, as Jackson concedes, that
she and Mayweather are both high profile individuals who were
2 subject to extensive media scrutiny. As such, Mayweather’s
postings and comments concerning his relationship with Jackson, as
3 well as Jackson’s pregnancy, its termination and her cosmetic
surgery, were ‘celebrity gossip’ properly considered, under
4 established case law, as statements in connection with an issue of
public interest.
5

6 (Ibid.; see also Hall v. Time Warner, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1347 [“The public’s

7 fascination with [Marlon] Brando and widespread public interest in his personal life made

8 Brando’s decisions concerning the distribution of his assets a public issue or an issue of public

9 interest.”].)
10 Finally, the fact that Ms. Bridgers’ statements were made in connection with warning

11 consumers about doing business with Mr. Nelson further establishes that the statements qualify as

12 speech on an issue of public interest. (See, e.g., Chaker v. Mateo (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1138,

13 1146 [“The statements posted to the Ripoff Report Web site about Chaker’s character and business

14 practices plainly fall within in the rubric of consumer information about Chaker’s

15 ‘Counterforensics’ business and were intended to serve as a warning to consumers about his

16 trustworthiness.”]; cf. Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC (9th Cir. 2013) 715 F.3d 254, 263

17 [“Because at least some of Makaeff’s statements were made with the intent to warn consumers

18 about the educational experience at Trump University, we agree with the district court that Trump

19 University’s counterclaim arises from an act protected under the anti-SLAPP statute.”].)
20 C. Mr. Nelson is a limited purpose public figure who must prove that

21 Ms. Bridgers acted with malice.

22 1. Mr. Nelson is a limited purpose public figure.

23 Because Ms. Bridgers’ story was a protected activity, Mr. Nelson must prove that there is a

24 probability that he will prevail on his claim. (Civ. Code, § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) A critical

25 question in this analysis is whether the plaintiff is a public figure.

26 The courts have “defined two classes of public figures. The first is
the ‘all purpose’ public figure who has ‘achiev[ed] such pervasive
27 fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes
and in all contexts.’ The second category is that of the ‘limited
28 purpose’ or ‘vortex’ public figure, an individual who ‘voluntarily
-18-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and
thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues.’”
2

3 (McGarry v. Univ. of San Diego (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 97, 113.)

4 As discussed above, Mr. Nelson has admitted that he is a limited purpose public figure, but

5 even if he had not, he has voluntarily interjected himself into this controversy. “There is little

6 question that the extent to which the plaintiff voluntarily injects himself or herself into a particular

7 public controversy is one of the single most important factors in determining public figure status.”

8 Plaintiff’s voluntary involvement—In general, 1 LAW OF DEFAMATION § 2:31 (2d ed. Nov. 2021).

9 An individual thus “becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues” when he “voluntarily
10 injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy.” (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

11 (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 351.)

12 Numerous cases provide examples of situations in which plaintiffs have voluntarily

13 injected themselves into a dispute and thereby became limited purpose public figures. For

14 example, in Annette F. v. Sharon S., supra, 119 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1165, the court held that a

15 woman who was covered in the media on issues of legal rights of gay and lesbian parents and the

16 legitimacy of second-parent adoptions was a limited purpose public figure in connection with

17 statements her former partner made about her during a custody dispute. In Cabrera v. Alam

18 (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1092, the court determined that a past school board president was a

19 limited purpose public figure in connection with statements made by a defendant who was a
20 current school board candidate. In Balla v. Hall (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 652, 676, a real estate

21 developer was found to be a limited purpose public figure when he “voluntarily inject[ed] himself”

22 into controversy surrounding the construction of a train station. In Anti-Defamation League of

23 B’nai B’rith v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1090, the court held that political

24 activists over Israeli-Palestinian relations were limited purpose public figures for purposes of the

25 First Amendment. In Copp v. Paxton (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 829, 846, an earthquake safety expert

26 was a limited purpose public figure for purposes of discussing earthquake disaster mitigation when

27 he organized local conferences on the matter in his city. Finally, in Gilbert v. Sykes (2007) 147

28 Cal.App.4th 13, 26, the court held that the plaintiff’s “sought-after prominence as an expert in and
-19-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 advocate for plastic surgery as a means of personal enhancement transformed him into a limited

2 purpose public figure,” and that “[a]s such, statements alleging that his surgical procedures

3 resulted in disfigurement or required expensive multiple corrective surgeries are entitled to

4 constitutional protection.”

5 Here, Mr. Nelson has hidden behind the cloak of the litigation privilege to publicly

6 disclose private and arguably embarrassing information regarding Ms. Bridgers and to debate

7 Ms. Bridgers’ and Ms. Bannon’s statements about him in the court of public opinion. He has

8 made strenuous efforts to capture media attention but delayed even attempting to serve the

9 complaint or amended complaint for over four months. (Strub Decl. ¶ 9.) He has voluntarily
10 injected himself into this controversy and made it a public dispute.

11 2. Mr. Nelson cannot prove actual malice.

12 A public figure plaintiff must prove actual malice by the defendant:

13 When the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she may not recover

defamation damages merely by showing the defamatory statement
14 was false. Instead, the plaintiff must also show the speaker made
the objectionable statement with malice in its constitutional sense
15 “that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard
of whether it was false or not.” [Citation.] The test is “a subjective
16 test, under which the defendant’s actual belief concerning the
truthfulness of the publication is the crucial issue. [Citation.] This
17 test directs attention to the ‘defendant’s attitude toward the truth or
falsity of the material published [,] . . . [not] the defendant’s attitude
18 toward the plaintiff.’ [Citation.]”

19 (McGarry v. Univ. of San Diego, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at p. 114 [brackets, ellipsis, and second
20 citation omission in original].) Thus, Mr. Nelson must demonstrate that Ms. Bridgers “published

21 the challenged statements with knowledge of their falsity or while entertaining serious doubts as to

22 their truth.” (Reed v. Gallagher (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 841, 862.) Actual malice is “a subjective

23 test, under which the defendant’s actual belief concerning the truthfulness of the publication is the

24 crucial issue.” (Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 257.)

25 Mr. Nelson must prove “actual malice” by clear and convincing evidence. (See Reed v.

26 Gallagher, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 862 [discussing “clear and convincing evidence” standard

27 and holding statement by winning candidate for California Assembly that losing candidate was a

28 “crook” and an “unscrupulous attorney” subject to anti-SLAPP motion]; Field Research Corp. v.
-20-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 1 Patrick (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 603, 608 [actual malice must be proven by clear and convincing

2 evidence].) Proof that the defendant subjectively believed that the information was untrue must be

3 “‘sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.’” (Christian

4 Research Institute v. Alnor (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 71, 85.)

5 Ms. Bridgers has testified that she believes that the statements that she made in her

6 Instagram story and the statements that Ms. Bannon made in her Instagram post are true.

7 (Bridgers Decl. ¶¶ 13-14.) Therefore, Mr. Nelson cannot satisfy his burden with respect to the

8 second prong of the anti-SLAPP statute.

9 D. Mr. Nelson cannot show a probability of prevailing on his other claims.

10 Mr. Nelson’s remaining claims all rely on the allegedly defamatory statements. Because

11 Mr. Nelson cannot show that the allegedly defamatory statements are actionable, his other claims

12 should be dismissed as well. (See Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at

13 p. 812 [where “all of plaintiff’s causes of action arise from and depend upon” defamation claims,

14 motion to strike should be granted as to the “entire complaint”].)

15 IV. CONCLUSION

16 For the reasons set forth above, it is clear that all of Mr. Nelson’s claims arise from Ms.

17 Bridgers’ valid exercise of her constitutional right of free speech, and he cannot show that there is

18 a probability that he will prevail on the merits of his claims. Therefore, the Court should grant this

19 Motion, strike Mr. Nelson’s First Amended Complaint in its entirety, and find that Ms. Bridgers is
20 a prevailing party entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs under subdivision (c)(1) of

21 section 425.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

22

23 DATED: February 11, 2022 GREENBERG GROSS LLP

24
By:
25
Alan A. Greenberg
26 Wayne R. Gross
Michael H. Strub Jr.
27 Colin V. Quinlan
Attorneys for Defendant Phoebe Bridgers
28
-21-
DEFENDANT PHOEBE BRIDGERS’ NOTICE OF SPECIAL MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
 Journal Technologies Court Portal

Court Reservation Receipt

Reservation
Reservation ID: Status:
004054770030 RESERVED
Reservation Type:
Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti- Number of Motions:
SLAPP motion) 1
Case Number: Case Title:
21STCV35635 CHRIS NELSON vs PHOEBE BRIDGERS
Filing Party: Location:
Phoebe Bridgers (Defendant)
Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 72
Date/Time: Confirmation Code:
March 10th 2022, 9:30AM CR-DNMT5X8AC3WTI56U7

Fees
Description Fee Qty Amount

First Paper Fees (Unlimited Civil) 435.00 1 435.00

Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) 11.96 1 11.96

TOTAL $446.96

Payment
Amount: Type:
$446.96 AmericanExpress
Account Number: Authorization:
XXXX4045 246284

 Back to Main    Print Page  

Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved.