Defendant’s Comments Were Protected Activity As They Were Made In A Public Forum Concerning A Public Interest.
In Bellino v. Beador, Case No. G057255, consolidated with Case No. G058129 (4th Dist., Div. 3 October 23, 2020) (unpublished), Shannon Beador and Tamra Judge, two cast members of the reality show the “Real Housewives of Orange County,” were sued by James Bellino, the ex-husband of a former RHOC cast member, and his company.
Plaintiffs’ lawsuit for defamation and other related claims stemmed from defendants’ appearance on a gossip podcast wherein they made comments about plaintiffs. Defendant Beador’s comments were that she had heard plaintiffs no longer had their trampoline parks because they had been sued, that people get paralyzed at trampoline parks, and that she would not allow her children to go to trampoline parks for that reason.
When Defendant Beador SLAPPed back against plaintiffs’ complaint, the trial court granted her motion in its entirety – reasoning Beador’s statements were protected speech – and subsequently awarded her attorney fees and costs of $137,340.25 out of a requested $220,894.55.
Plaintiffs appealed both orders, but the 4/3 DCA affirmed.
In the first of two steps used to determine an anti-SLAPP motion – whether the underlying activity that led to the lawsuit is protected – the appellate court found that Beador’s comments were protected activity. Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(3) and (e)(4), Beador’s comments were an exercise of her constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue of public interest. In an opinion authored by Justice O’Leary, the 4/3 DCA explained that because Plaintiff Bellino had appeared on RHOC, had been depicted as a businessman on the show, and allowed his lifestyle and divorce to be fodder for public interest, the statements made by Beador were “statements made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.”
As to the second step, the appellate panel found plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing minimal merit. Beador’s statement that she heard plaintiffs sold their trampoline parks because they were sued was substantially true as plaintiffs sold trampoline park locations after being sued for personal injuries sustained at one of their trampoline parks. Additionally, Beador’s statement that she will not allow her children to go to trampoline parks because they are dangerous was also true, and was an exaggeration of the potential worst-case scenario of harm that could come from a trampoline park – not a declarative statement of fact – and, therefore, constitutionally protected.
Finally, the 4/3 DCA found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award of fees/costs given Beador prevailed in her anti-SLAPP motion and the trial court properly considered the detailed records submitted by Beador’s attorneys, Beador’s attorneys’ experience, the complexity of the case, reasonableness of rates, and procedural history.
Comments