Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Wednesday, December 29, 2021

 

Page 1

 

Billionaire Loses Second Appeal in Two Weeks

Anti-SLAPP Motion Properly Denied in Action Alleging

Outrageous Conduct Toward Woman Employee

 

By a MetNews Staff Writer

 

Billionaire Alkiviades David yesterday suffered his second loss in two weeks at the Court of Appeal for this district, with Div. Four declaring that an anti-SLAPP motion filed by him and his company, Hologram USA, Inc., was properly denied by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rafael A. Ongkeko in a case asserting outrageous conduct toward a female employee.

The plaintiff is Elizabeth Taylor, one of two former account executives who sued based on alleged bizarre actions and communications by David. Taylor’s lawsuit ended in a mistrial.

The appeal decided yesterday, in an unpublished opinion by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gary Micon, sitting on assignment, is from Ongkeko’s order denying a challenge, under Code of Civil Procedure §425.16, to Taylor’s supplemental complaint.

$10.7 Million Judgment

Chastity Jones was the other woman to sue David and Hologram. She prevailed at trial and on Dec. 14, Div. Four, in an opinion by Justice Audrey B. Collins, affirmed a $10.7 million judgment in favor of Jones, with $8 million of that sum having being awarded against David.

That case was tried on a theory of “gender violence.”

Taylor’s supplemental complaint alleges:

“Mr. David’s sadistic and retaliatory attacks against Ms. Taylor took the form of physical threats, online cyberbullying, profane outbursts and meritless cross-claims.”

Macon’s opinion chronicles profane, repulsive, and threatening statements attributed to David.

Limited Issues

Not all of the alleged misconduct is at issue, however, he said, setting forth:

“[A]ppellants’ anti-SLAPP motion challenged only some of the allegations of Taylor’s supplemental complaint: (1) the article posted on David’s ShockYa website accusing Taylor of extortion; (2) the three posts to David’s Instagram account (consisting of the mid-trial videos where David filmed Taylor in the courthouse, said he had wanted to fire her right away because she was mental, and where he called her a whale); and (3) his mid-deposition barrage of insults and his courtroom statement that he would bury Taylor.

“On appeal they have once more limited the issues to these allegations. This leaves unchallenged several other alleged statements and conduct by David that the trial court did reach: the several direct messages allegedly sent by David on phony Instagram accounts that included a variety of threats and crude and insulting comments, and the post on his Instagram account captioned #SLAYTHE DRAGON underneath photos of Taylor and her lawyer, with the letter X and blood on their faces. As a result, these issues are waived, and to the extent the trial court’s order was based on those allegations, it is affirmed.”

Contention Waived

Macon said the defendants’ contention that statements made at a deposition and in the courtroom were protected under §425.16(e) because they were made in a “or judicial proceeding” was waived because, in the trial court, they relied only on the litigation privilege—which Ongkeko found to be inapplicable because David’s alleged slurs were not made in connection with the litigation.

The pro tem justice agreed.

The defendants argued that three social media posts were protected (under the first prong of §4255.16) because they concerned matters of public interest: the #MeToo movement and Taylor’s attorney, Lisa Bloom, who was portrayed as a celebrity.

“Nothing in the supplemental complaint or the anti-SLAPP motion suggests the posts contained any substantive information about the trial itself or the #metoo movement in general,” Macon wrote. “To the contrary, the posts appear to consist solely of David’s negative views of Taylor personally.”

Wiley Quoted

He quoted Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr. as saying in Woodhill Ventures, LLC v. Yang, handed down on Sept. 3:

“Agile thinkers always can create some kind of link between a statement and an issue of public concern. All you need is a fondness for abstraction and a knowledge of popular culture.”

With respect to Bloom, he said:

“Taylor correctly points out that David’s comments about Bloom do not serve as the basis for her supplemental claims against appellants.”

If other comments are protected speech, Macon said, the second prong of §425.16—a probability of prevailing on the merits—has not been shown by the defendants as to the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The case is Taylor v. David, B307954.

Attorneys on appeal were Dana M. Cole of Cole & Loeterman, for the defendants and Bloom, Alan Goldstein and Arick Fudali of The Bloom Firm for Taylor.

 

Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company