De Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC - 21 Cal. App. 5th 845, 230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 625 (2018)

Rule:

A special motion to strike under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, is a procedural remedy to dispose of lawsuits brought to chill the valid exercise of a party's constitutional right of petition or free speech. The purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute is to encourage participation in matters of public significance and prevent meritless litigation designed to chill the exercise of First Amendment rights. The statute must be construed broadly to that end. An appellate court, whenever possible, should interpret the First Amendment and § 425.16 in a manner favorable to the exercise of freedom of speech, not its curtailment.

Facts:

Actress Olivia de Havilland sued defendants, the creators and producers of a television docudrama in which she was depicted, asserting claims based on the statutory right of publicity (Civ. Code, § 3344), misappropriation, and false light invasion of privacy. The trial court denied defendants' special motion to strike the complaint under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, concluding that the docudrama was not entitled to First Amendment protection because it was not transformative, in that it tried to portray the actress as realistically as possible. The defendants challenged the decision. 

Issue:

Was the docudrama entitled to First Amendment protection, thereby warranting the grant of defendant’s anti-SLAPP special motion to strike the complaint? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court of Appeal reversed the order and directed the trial court to grant the motion to strike. According to the Court, U.S. Const., 1st Amend., protected defendants from the claims based on the statutory right of publicity and misappropriation. The portrayal was transformative, even though it attempted to portray the actress realistically, and it was not necessary to purchase the rights to the actress’s name or likeness. The actress did not show that she would probably prevail on the false light claim because the challenged scenes, in which she was depicted giving a fictitious interview on the theme of powerful men misusing women in Hollywood and making a lighthearted reference to another celebrity’s drinking, were not defamatory.