'Borat' Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration After 'Reality' Anti-SLAPP Ruling
By Leslie Simmons
Wednesday, March 7 2007
Wednesday, March 7 2007
Published on AllBusiness.com
Attorneys for two fraternity brothers who sued the producers of "Borat" are asking the judge who dismissed their lawsuit to take a second look at the case in light of a recent California appellate court decision holding that producers of "Reality Bites" were not protected by the state's anti-SLAPP statute.
Olivier Taillieu claims that the facts decided in the Feb. 26 decision by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Dyer v. Childress, B187804, mirror those in his clients' case, Doe I v. One America Prods., SC091723, including young plaintiffs who were not in the public eye but claimed their names and likenesses were used without permission.
Additionally, the lead attorney for Universal Pictures in Childress and 20th Century Fox in One America, Louis Petrich of Leopold Petrich & Smith, relied on the same cases to support the "public interest" prong of the anti-SLAPP statute, the motion argues.
"I think they're exactly the same and the 'Borat' decision must be vacated in light of Dyer," said Taillieu of Beverly Hills' Zuber & Taillieu.
California's anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation statute bars claims based on speech concerning matters of public interest unless the plaintiff can show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the case.
Taillieu's clients, Christopher Rotunda and Justin Seay, who initially filed the case as "Doe" plaintiffs, claim producers for "Borat" got them drunk and then duped them into signing broad releases before being filmed making offensive comments on race and sexual issues.
In early February, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Biderman ruled the anti-SLAPP statute argued by the defendants applied, finding the film relates to topics of public interest. He went on to decide the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of their case and struck the complaint in its entirety.
But two weeks later, the 2nd District decided producers of the 1994 film "Reality Bites" were not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute because the defendants -- including writer Helen Childress, producer Danny DeVito and director Ben Stiller -- were unable to connect a public interest with the defamation and false light claims.
In that case, Troy Dyer attended USC film school with Childress, who went on to write the movie and name a "rebellious slacker" character, played by Ethan Hawke, after him.
Dyer claims he never gave Childress permission to use his name and that it has affected his business as a financial consultant in Wisconsin.
The defendants argued that the film, which focused on the lives of Generation X college graduates,
Olivier Taillieu claims that the facts decided in the Feb. 26 decision by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Dyer v. Childress, B187804, mirror those in his clients' case, Doe I v. One America Prods., SC091723, including young plaintiffs who were not in the public eye but claimed their names and likenesses were used without permission.
Additionally, the lead attorney for Universal Pictures in Childress and 20th Century Fox in One America, Louis Petrich of Leopold Petrich & Smith, relied on the same cases to support the "public interest" prong of the anti-SLAPP statute, the motion argues.
"I think they're exactly the same and the 'Borat' decision must be vacated in light of Dyer," said Taillieu of Beverly Hills' Zuber & Taillieu.
California's anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation statute bars claims based on speech concerning matters of public interest unless the plaintiff can show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the case.
Taillieu's clients, Christopher Rotunda and Justin Seay, who initially filed the case as "Doe" plaintiffs, claim producers for "Borat" got them drunk and then duped them into signing broad releases before being filmed making offensive comments on race and sexual issues.
In early February, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Biderman ruled the anti-SLAPP statute argued by the defendants applied, finding the film relates to topics of public interest. He went on to decide the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of their case and struck the complaint in its entirety.
But two weeks later, the 2nd District decided producers of the 1994 film "Reality Bites" were not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute because the defendants -- including writer Helen Childress, producer Danny DeVito and director Ben Stiller -- were unable to connect a public interest with the defamation and false light claims.
In that case, Troy Dyer attended USC film school with Childress, who went on to write the movie and name a "rebellious slacker" character, played by Ethan Hawke, after him.
Dyer claims he never gave Childress permission to use his name and that it has affected his business as a financial consultant in Wisconsin.
The defendants argued that the film, which focused on the lives of Generation X college graduates,
