7488-2 1 DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
MARTIN D. SINGER (SBN 78166) mdsinger@lavelysinger.com MICHAEL E. WEINSTEN (SBN 155680) mweinsten@lavelysinger.com MELISSA Y. LERNER (SBN 285216) mlerner@lavelysinger.com LAVELY & SINGER P.C.
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90067-2906 Telephone: (310) 556-3501; Fax: (310) 556-3615 Attorneys for Defendants MELISSA JEFFERSON pka LIZZO and BIG GRRRL BIG TOURING, INC.
1748 Preuss Road Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 399-8585; Fax: (310) 399-8686 Attorneys for Defendant SHIRLENE QUIGLEY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT
ARIANNA DAVIS, as an Individual; CRYSTAL WILLIAMS, as an Individual; and NOELLE RODRIGUEZ, as an Individual; Plaintiffs, vs. BIG GRRRL BIG TOURING, INC., a Delaware Corporation; MELISSA JEFFERSON (pka “LIZZO”), as an Individual; SHIRLENE QUIGLEY, as an Individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 23SMCV03553 [Hon. Mark H. Epstein, Santa Monica Courthouse, Dept. I]
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
[Declarations of Melissa Jefferson pka Lizzo, Shirlene Quigley, Zuri Appleby, Asia Banks, Michel’le Baptiste, RaVaughn Brown, Molly Gordon, Doshiniq Green, Dallas Greene, Carlina Gugliotta, Ashley Joshi, Melissa Locke, Kiara Mooring, Tanisha Scott, Jayla Sullivan, Chawnta Van, Alaini Walker, Alishia Williams, Ashley Williams, Lynette Williams and Melissa Y. Lerner; [Proposed] Order filed concurrently herewith]
DATE:
November 22, 2023
TIME:
9:00 a.m.
DEPT.:
I
Reservation ID: 254547090713
Complaint Filed: August 1, 2023
7488-2 2 DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
that on November 22, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard in Department I of the above-entitled Court, located at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401, Defendants Melissa Jefferson pka Lizzo (“Lizzo”), Big Grrrl Big Touring, Inc. (“BGBT”) and Shirlene Quigley (“Quigley”) (collectively, “Defendants”) will and hereby do move to strike the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams, and Noelle Rodriguez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and each cause of action alleged therein pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code Section 425.16, also known as the anti-SLAPP statute (the “Motion”). In the alternative, Defendants will and hereby do move to strike certain allegations in the Complaint pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute: 1.
Paragraphs 12, 16-19, 21-25, 35-39, 45-46, 48-51, 53, 55-57, 59, 64-65, 83, 92, 111-112, and 135 in their entirety. 2.
Page 10, paragraph 34, lines 27-28 through page 11, lines 1-2, reading, “As it turns out, LIZZO had planned a night out in Amsterdam’s notorious Red-Light District, known for its abundance of sex theaters, sex shops, and clubs and bars where nudity is on full display. The main event of the night was a club called Bananenbar, where patrons are allowed to interact with completely nude performers.” 3.
Page 15, paragraph 47, lines 7-9, reading, "Ms. DAVIS was required to finish the rehearsal, dancing in front of male crew members who were known to sexualize the dances under less revealing scenarios, while wearing completely transparent shorts and no undergarments." 4.
Page 22, paragraph 73, lines 18-20 and lines 21-23, reading, “BGBT management was fully aware and in fact in attendance at Bananenbar. Furthermore, Ms. QUIGLEY’s sexually explicit comments were inescapable. . . . Ms. DAVIS made it known to BGBT management and security that she was incredibly uncomfortable with being pressured into touching the nude breasts of a performer at Bananenbar. Nothing was done.” 5.
Page 24, paragraph 81, lines 15-17, reading, “Plaintiffs were subjected to a hostile work environment due to, including but not limited to, Ms. QUIGLEY’s unceasing mission to force Plaintiffs to conform to Ms. QUIGLEY’s religious beliefs.” 6.
Page 25, paragraph 84, lines 4-9, reading, “Ms. QUIGLEY also attempted to strong arm Ms. RODRIGUEZ into conforming to Ms. QUIGLEY’s dogmatic beliefs. Despite Ms. RODRIGUEZ continually making it clear that she did not want to share Ms. QUIGLEY’s beliefs or appreciate Ms. QUIGLEY’s proselytizing, Ms. QUIGLEY became irate. Ms. QUIGLEY proclaimed to other members of the dance cast that it was Ms. QUIGLEY’s personal mission to minster to Ms. RODRIGUEZ and make her a believer.” 7.
Page 27, paragraph 93, lines 2-7, reading, “Ms. QUIGLEY also attempted to strong arm Ms. RODRIGUEZ into conforming to Ms. QUIGLEY’s dogmatic beliefs. Despite Ms.
7488-2 3 DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728RODRIGUEZ continually making it clear that she did not want to share Ms. QUIGLEY’s beliefs or appreciate Ms. QUIGLEY’s proselytizing, Ms. QUIGLEY became irate. Ms. QUIGLEY proclaimed to other members of the dance cast that it was Ms. QUIGLEY’s personal mission to minster to Ms. RODRIGUEZ and make her a believer.” 8.
Page 31, paragraph 110, lines 4-7, reading, "Furthermore, after Ms. DAVIS was made so anxious during her re-audition that she believed she was not allowed to leave the stage, leading to her losing control of her bladder, it should have been wildly apparent that Ms. DAVIS was grappling with some stressor in her life." 9.
Page 34, paragraph 126, lines 3-10, reading, “During the meeting in which Ms. DAVIS was fired, LIZZO became increasingly more irate. When Ms. RODRIGUEZ explained that she did not appreciate how LIZZO handled Ms. DAVIS’s termination and was therefore resigning, LIZZO approached Ms. RODRIGUEZ aggressively, yelling profanities, cracking her knuckles, and balling her fists apparently preparing herself attack Ms. RODRIGUEZ. LIZZO exclaimed, “You’re lucky. You’re so fucking lucky!” Ms. RODRIGUEZ feared LIZZO intended to hit her and would have done so if one of the other dancers had not intervened. LIZZO was restrained and pulled away before she could contact Ms. RODRIGUEZ.” The Motion is made on the following grounds: 1. The allegations and requested relief in Plaintiffs’ Complaint constitute an attempt to suppress and chill Defendants’ conduct in furtherance of their constitutional rights of petition and/or free speech (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 425.16(a), (b)(1)); and 2. Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of establishing, through competent and admissible evidence, a “probability” that they will prevail on their claims alleged in the Complaint (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1)). Defendants can satisfy the first prong of the anti-SLAPP statute because each of Plaintiffs’ nine asserted causes of action arise from statements and “other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of . . . the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(e)(4). Specifically, the Complaint arises from conduct helping to advance or assisting in Defendants’ exercise of their constitutional right of free speech with respect to protected expressive works: the creation, development and production of the reality competition series “Watch Out For The Big Grrrls” (“WOFTBG”) and the development, production, operation and performance of Lizzo’s international stadium tour, “The Special Tour.” This conduct concerns issues of public interest including, without limitation Lizzo’s popularity and celebrity as a musician, dancer, actress, tastemaker and social justice advocate; the commercial and critical acclaim of her music and