Attorney at Law
4578 Travertine Street
Lancaster, California 93536
Voice 661-916-1248
FAX 661-801-81
Attorney for: (Defendant) (Plaintiff): Defendant/Plaintiff name
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
(Court Name Here)
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
| Melanie Kohler
Plaintiff, vs. Brett Ratner Defendant |
)
) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Case No.: 16UA0000
TRIAL BRIEF Date: Time: 8:30 Division: |
Defendant Melanie Kohler accepts this memorandum of law in the provision of her motion to discharge and strike the allegation filed by Plaintiff Mr Ratner.
Dated: April 4, 2018
_______________________
Ryan Cochran,
Attorney for Melanie Kohler
Statement of facts
In his grievance, Mr Ratner defines himself as a gifted and renowned movie director who lives in Los Angeles. Ms Kohler is presently an inhabitant of Hawaii. In October 2017, several men and women came out boldly to reveal their narratives of sexual manipulations. Ms Kohler wrote a post on her Facebook account stating that she was raped by Mr Ratner several years earlier when she was residing in Los Angeles. November 2017, the Los Angeles Times wrote an article describing six unlike allegations by women of sexual harassment all by Mr Ratner. The report was later printed in many other papers such as New York Times, USA Today among many others. Mr Ratner filed a complaint hours after the allegations first appeared.
Complaints by Mr Ratner contain the following essential allegations. Starting in October 2017, the defendant had irresponsibly or deliberately displayed a post on Facebook stating that Brett Ratner violated her. Ratner “on one night in the Hollywood about 12 years ago was a rapist” and Ratner “targeted me as a drunk woman and drove himself on me”. The second allegation was “Plaintiff challenges the defendant’s account as mentioned above is completely untrue, made-up and imaginary.” Thirdly, plaintiff argues that the respondent’s report as mentioned above was printed by the respondent with the awareness that is was false, malicious and intending to destroy the Plaintiff’s fame and character.
The complaint does not give any other actual claims implying that Ms Kohlers account is untrue. He does not provide any allegations justifying the reason why Ms Kohlers, who eight years ago relocated to Hawaii and stays there with her spouse and children, was inspired to lie concerning a meeting with Mr Ratner. The complaint does not give any specific accusations concerning Ms Kohler, or regarding any association, she may have had with Mr Ratner. For instance, there is no claim that Ms Kohler at any time worked for Mr Ratner, knew him, made any threats to go to court, cheated to benefit whatsoever from Mr Ratner or any specific motive to harm Mr Ratner.
There is no reasonable explanation as to why Ms Kohler who lives with her family in Hawaii, would have anything to benefit from by lying concerning a sexual offence by Mr Ratner which had occurred years ago in Los Angeles. The complaint omits a large part of Ms Kohler’s statement on Facebook. The law court ought to deliberate the grievances in their totality in addition to extra resources that the court’s judges typically when ruling.
Main argument
Ms Kohler’s request to dismiss ought to be given for several reasons. One, Mr Ratner is unsuccessful at meeting the necessary persuasive requirements for an offence allegation. Secondly, Mr Ratner’s accusation is a tactical lawsuit in contradiction of public contribution and is therefore banned by California’s anti-SLAPP law.
The grievance should be dismissed under rule 12(b) (6). Mr Ratner is a public character. Therefore, he cannot legally chill talk concerning his behaviour by filing a grievance that merely recounts the features of his basis of action. His allegations are blank and do not have any actual complaints from which the court can conclude that Ms Kohlers Facebook post was false.
The legal standard for sufficiently appealing for a defamation allegation. The Supreme Court made it confident that the accuser must ask for sufficient details to maintain a charge of relief that is reasonable on its surface. Under this requirements, ineffective presentations of the features of a reason of action reinforced by conclusory accounts, are not enough. Where the right components of an allegation give the outline for an objection, it is mandatory that they must be reinforced by actual complaints. Based on the standards, it is agreed that a public character cannot imply a reasonable malice allegation except if he has presented sufficient details to conclude that the claim could be plausible. These standards fully apply to this lawsuit and lead to the decision that Mr Ratner is unsuccessful in declaring a request.
Mr Ratner’s complaint must be dismissed based on California’s Anti- SLAPP statute. The law court ought to reject the allegation since it is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The mark of a SLAPP claim is that it brings with it the objectives of gaining a financial lead above a civilian participant by raising the expense of the lawsuit to the extent where the civilian party’s argument will be undermined or forsaken and suspending any other charges.
The court must utilise California’s anti-SLAPP statutes. The reason is that the possible cost to Ratner was grounded in California. The Hawaii anti-SLAPP statutes are restricted to the public’s testimony. The Hawaii courts look at several factors in making their judgements. One is where the events took place, second, where the parties live and third where any of the parties has a specific tie to one jurisdiction or the other. In this case, these factors favour application of the California laws. First, the rape happened in California. Secondly, Mr Ratner is a resident of California, and Ms Kohler was a resident of California at the time of the abuse. Lastly, Mr Ratner has solid and substantial ties to California.
Ms Kohler’s post on Facebook is in a position that is accessible to the public and is regarded as a problem of public interest. The case is deliberated to discourage the respondent’s application of constitutional or petition rights. The court must infer the First Amendment and section 425.16 in a way that will be advantageous to the practice of freedom of speech. Therefore the complaint should be disregarded if the plaintiff presents a weak legal argument for this case.
From the arguments written above, Defendant Melanie Kohler with respect appeals the law court to discharge the allegations against her with predisposition and strike the accusations under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute and reach a judgement of the case in her favour.
Brett Ratner’s trial against an MS Kohler who reported him of sexual harassment on Facebook will proceed. U.S District Judge Hellen Gillmor ruled that Ratner’s allegations will continue. She alleged that it was necessary to use California’s statutes and called for Mr Ratner to show the possibility of winning on his claims before permitting the lawsuit to continue further. Both sides were pleased by the ruling. Mr Ratner’s team emphasises that the court found his complaints to be enough. On the other hand, Kohler’s lawyers celebrated Gillmor’s decision to allow the application of California law in the case which means that Mr Ratner must to show that Ms Kohler is lying against him. Mr Ratner and Ms Kohler have the chance to manage a few answers ahead of Gillmor ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion in this case.
References
Mc Crudden, C. (2017) CEDAW in National Courts: A Case Study in Operationalizing Comparative International Law Analysis in a Human Rights Context.
Roth, A.L. (2016) Upping the Atte: Rethinking Anti-SLAPP Laws in the Age of the internet. BTU L. rev., 741
