Rowell SLAPP

Case 2:15-cv-02442-JAK-AGR Document 91 Filed 05/13/15 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:615
JOHN P. LECRONE (State Bar No. 115875)

johnlecrone@dwt.com
ELIZABETH
J. CARROLL (State Bar No. 234751)
2
betsycarroll@dwt.com
3 MATTHEW D. PETERSON (State Bar No. 251490)
matthewpeterson@dwt.com
1
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

5 865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017-2566
6 Telephone: (213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
7
Attorneys for Defendant

8 SONY PICTURES TELEVISION INC.,
SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT INC.
9 and CBS CORPORATION
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
SONY PICTURES TELEVISION INC., ))
SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT, )
INC., BELL DRAMATIC SERIAL
)
COMPANY, L.P., BELL-PHILLIP
)
TELEVISION PRODUCTION INC.,
CORDAY PRODUCTIONS, INC., and ))
CBS CORPORATION,
)
)
Defendants.
)
VICTORIA ROWELL,
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035
Case No. 15-cv-02442 JAK (AGRx)

DEFENDANTS SONY PICTURES
TELEVISION INC., SONY
PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT
INC. AND CBS CORPORATIONS
NOTICE OF MOTION AND
Date:
Time:
Courtroom:
September 21, 2015

8:30 a.m.
750
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 21, 2015 at 8:30 a.m., or as soon
3
4
thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Courtroom of the Honorable John A.
Kronstadt of the United States District Court, Central District, Courtroom 750, 255
East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, Defendants Sony Pictures
Television Inc., Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. and CBS Corporation
(Defendants) will move the Court for an Order, pursuant to Californias anti-
SLAPP law, California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, et seq., striking
10
and/or dismissing Plaintiffs claims asserted against Defendants under California Fair
11
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), California Government Code section
12
12940, et seq., based on an alleged failure to hire or rehire Plaintiff, on the grounds
13
that Plaintiffs claims seek to punish Defendants for their casting decisions and
14
decisions about the content of their television programs, which is protected
15
expressive conduct and speech under the First Amendment to the United States
16
Constitution and the California Constitution.

The Motion will be based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of
17
18
Points and Authorities and Declaration of Elizabeth J. Carroll in support thereof, the
19
pleadings and other files herein; and such other written and oral argument as may be
20
presented to the Court.
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
25
26
27
28
1
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566
(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
1
2
This motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3
which took place on May 5, 2015.
3
4
DATED: May 13, 2015
5
6

JOHN P. LECRONE
ELIZABETH J. CARROLL
MATTHEW D. PETERSON
By:
/S/
John P. LeCrone
SONY PICTURES TELEVISION INC.,
SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT
INC. and CBS CORPORATION
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
2
3
I.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 1
II.
SECTION 425.16 APPLIES TO PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS ........................... 3
A.
Section 425.16 Must Be Interpreted Broadly. ...................................... 4
B.
Plaintiffs FEHA Claims Arise From Conduct Protected Under

Section 425.16. ..................................................................................... 5
III.
PLAINTIFF CANNOT DEMONSTRATE A PROBABILITY OF

PREVAILING ON HER CLAIMS. ............................................................. 11
A.
Plaintiffs Claim that Sony and CBS Denied Her Employment on

Y&R Fails Because Plaintiff Was Not Denied an Open Position
on that Program .................................................................................. 11
B.
Plaintiffs Claim that CBS Denied Her Employment on B&B

Fails Because Plaintiff Was Not Denied an Open Position on that
Program, Either................................................................................... 13
C.
Plaintiffs Failure-to-Hire Claims are Barred by the First

Amendment and the California Constitution ..................................... 14
10
11
12
13
14
1.
The First Amendment and the California

Constitution Prohibit Civil Claims That Restrict or
Compel Speech......................................................................... 14
2.
Casting Decisions are Creative Expression Protected

by the First Amendment ........................................................... 15
15
16
17
18
IV.
CONCLUSION. ............................................................................................ 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
2
3
4
5
Cases
Braun v. Chronicle Publg Co.,
52 Cal. App. 4th 1036 (1997) .................................................................................. 3
6
7
Briggs v. Eden Council,

19 Cal. 4th 1106 (1999) ........................................................................................... 4
Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim,

9
42 Cal. App. 4th 628 (1996) ................................................................................ 4, 5
10
City of Cotati v. Cashman,

29 Cal. 4th 69 (2002) ........................................................................................... 4, 6
11
12
Claybrooks v. ABC, Inc.,

898 F. Supp. 2d 986 (M.D. Tenn. 2012) .................................................... 15, 16, 17
13
14
15
16
Cross v. Cooper,
197 Cal. App. 4th 357 (2011) ................................................................................ 10
Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club,
85 Cal. App. 4th 468 (2000) .................................................................................. 10
17
18
19
20
Dible v. Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc.,

170 Cal. App. 4th 843 (2009) .................................................................................. 7
Doe v. Gangland Prods., Inc.,
730 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................... 8
21
Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc.,

15 Cal. App. 4th 536 (1993) .................................................................................. 10
22
23
Equilon Enterprise, LLC v. Consumer Cause,

29 Cal. 4th 53 (2002) ........................................................................................... 4, 5
24
25
26
27
Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino,

89 Cal. App. 4th 294 (2001) .................................................................................... 7
Gene Thera, Inc. v. Troy & Gould Professional Com.,
171 Cal. App. 4th 901 (2009) .................................................................................. 4
28
ii
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Gomez v. American Bldg. Maintenance,

940 F. Supp. 255 (N.D. Cal. 1996) ........................................................................ 13
2
3
4
5
Grosjean v. American Press Co.,

297 U.S. 233, 56 S. Ct. 444 (1936) ........................................................................ 15
Guz v. Bechtel Natl, Inc.,
24 Cal. 4th 317 (2000) ............................................................................... 12, 13, 14
6
7
Hall v. Time Warner, Inc.,

153 Cal. App. 4th 1337 (2007) .......................................................................... 5, 10
Hunter v. CBS Broad., Inc.,

9
221 Cal. App. 4th 1510 (2013) .................................................................. 6, 7, 9, 17
10
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group Of Boston,

515 U.S. 557, 115 S. Ct. 2338 (1995) .................................................................... 16
11
12
Ingels v. Westwood One Broadcasting Services, Inc.,

129 Cal. App. 4th 1050 (2005) .................................................................. 15, 16, 17
13
14
15
16
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson,

343 U.S. 495 (1952) ............................................................................................... 15
Kronemyer v. Internet Movie Database Inc.,
150 Cal. App. 4th 941 (2007) .................................................................................. 7
17
18
19
20
Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc.,

110 Cal. App. 4th 156 (2003) .................................................................................. 7
Macias v. Hartwell,
55 Cal. App. 4th 669 (1997) .................................................................................. 11
21
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,

22
411 U.S. 792 (1973) ............................................................................................... 12
23
Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar,

611 F.3d 590 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................... 8
24
25
26
27
28
NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.,

458 U.S. 866, 102 S. Ct. 3409 (1982) .................................................................... 14
Navellier v. Sletten,
29 Cal. 4th 82 (2002) ........................................................................................... 4, 5
iii
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Nelson v. McClatchy Newspapers,

131 Wash. 2d 523 (Wash. 1997) ............................................................................ 16
2
3
4
5
New.Net, Inc. v. Lavasoft,

356 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ................................................................... 4
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,
376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710 (1964) ........................................................................ 14
6
7
Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula,

159 Cal. App. 4th 1027 (2008) .............................................................................. 10
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commn,

9
475 U.S. 1, 106 S. Ct. 903 (1986) .................................................................... 16, 17
10
Passaic Daily News v. NLRB,

736 F.2d 1543 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................. 16
11
12
Patterson v. McLean Credit Union,

491 U.S. 164 (1989) ............................................................................................... 12
13
14
15
16
Raine v. City of Burbank,

135 Cal. App. 4th 1215 (2006) .............................................................................. 13
Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc.,
511 U.S. 298, 114 S. Ct. 1510 (1994) .................................................................... 12
17
18
19
20
Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Med. Ctr.,

56 Cal. App. 4th 138 (1997) ...................................................................... 12, 13, 14
Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim,
452 U.S. 61, 101 S. Ct. 2176 (1981) ...................................................................... 15
21
Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp.,

22
97 Cal. App. 4th 798 (2002) ...................................................................... 5, 7, 9, 10
23
Shulman v. Group W Productions. Inc.,

18 Cal. 4th 200 (1998) ......................................................................................... 6, 8
24
25
26
27
28
Snyder v. Phelps,
562 U.S. 443, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011) .................................................................... 15
Stewart v. Rolling Stone LLC,
181 Cal. App. 4th 664 (2010) .................................................................................. 4
iv
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.,

193 Cal. App. 4th 133 (2011) .................................................................. 5, 8, 10, 17
2
3
4
5
Thomas v. Collins,
323 U.S. 516, 65 S. Ct. 315 (1945) ........................................................................ 15
Tuszynska v. Cunningham,
199 Cal. App. 4th 257 (2011) .............................................................................. 7, 8
6
7
8
Vergos v. McNeal,
146 Cal. App. 4th 1387 (2007) ................................................................................ 8
Statutes
9
10
42 U.S.C. 1981 ............................................................................................... 2, 12, 15
C.C.P.
425.16(a) ............................................................................................................... 4
12
425.16(e)(2)-(4)................................................................................................... 6
425.16(e)(4)......................................................................................................... 10
13
11
14
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16(b)(1) ....................................................................... 4, 11
15
Cal. Govt Code 12940. ............................................................................................. 2
16
17
California Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 ............................................................... 3

Rules
18
19
Rule 12(b)(6) ............................................................................................................... 11
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
v
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Defendants Sony Pictures Television Inc., Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.
(collectively Sony Pictures), and CBS Corporation (CBS), respectfully submit
this memorandum of law in support of their special motion to strike and/or dismiss
pursuant to the California anti-SLAPP law, Plaintiff Victoria Rowells (Plaintiff)
claims in her First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserted under the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), based on an alleged failure to hire or
rehire Plaintiff.
I.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Choosing whom to cast in a movie, television program, or stage production,
9
10
and writing scripts and creative story lines that comprise such productions, are major
11
decisions a producer of expressive content must make, and they lie at the core of the
12
creative process. The choice of actors, and the characters they play, determines what
13
viewers see, how lines are delivered, how characters relate to one another, and what
14
the tone of a production is, adding intangible qualities to the way a story is told. This
15
lawsuit seeks to wrest control of that decision from Defendants, and to invoke
16
Californias anti-discrimination law in an attempt to force two television soap operas
17
to alter their story lines to accommodate the wishes of one actress. There can be little
18
doubt that such governmental interference invites First Amendment scrutiny.

Plaintiff Victoria Rowell (Plaintiff) was an actress on the daytime soap
19
20
opera known as The Young and the Restless (Y&R) for more than 17 years, from
21
1990 to 2007, when she left the program voluntarily to pursue other interests. FAC
22
1, 20, 35.1 She alleges that beginning in early 2010, she sought to be rehired on
23
Y&R, and additionally sought employment on another daytime soap opera, The Bold
24
and the Beautiful (B&B). Id. 56. Her efforts continued through 2014. Id. 58-
25
84. Yet, Plaintiff admittedly never actually applied or auditioned for any role on
26
27
Sony Pictures and CBS accept Plaintiffs allegations for purposes of this Motion
only.
28
1
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Y&R after leaving in 2007. Id. 57; see generally, id. 58-84. Instead, she alleges
that she asked Defendants on several occasions if they would create a new position
for her by writing the character she had formerly played, Drucilla Winters, back in to
the Y&R story line. Id. 56, 58, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 77, 83. Specifically,
Plaintiff wanted Defendants to create a story line for the character Drucilla Winters,
and to cast her in the role, and Defendants never agreed to do so. Id.
While Plaintiff also alleges that her agent submitted her for a role on B&B in
7
8
May 2013, she concedes that role never actually made it on the show. Id. 82.
Plaintiff never applied for any other role on B&B. Id. 57; see generally, id. 58-
10
84. She alleges that Defendants have rejected [Plaintiffs] attempts to be re-
11
employed to resume her character . . . on Y&R, and have rejected her attempts to
12
obtain crossover re-employment to resume her [Y&R] character . . . on B&B or to
13
take on a new character on B&B, and that she has been refused for consideration for
14
employment on Y&R and B&B. Id. 113-114, 120-121.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims for retaliation in violation
15
16
of FEHA, Cal. Govt Code 12940, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. section 1981 (Section
17
1981), a portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. She seeks multiple forms of relief,
18
including an order directing Defendants to re-employ [Plaintiff] on Y&R and an
19
order directing CBS to re-employ [Plaintiff] on B&B, along with various
20
damages. FAC at p. 34. 2
21
The main thrust of Plaintiffs lawsuit is an attempt to compel changes to the
22
plots of Y&R and B&B in order to accommodate her desired comeback to daytime
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff asserts, for the first time in the FAC, an additional claim, purportedly
under FEHA, related to alleged events occurring in Alabama after this litigation
commenced. See FAC 98-110. As discussed more fully in the concurrently filed
Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff fails to plead sufficient facts in support of this apparent
claim, and in any case, the allegations that are included establish that Plaintiff cannot
recover under this theory and that FEHA does not apply. Accordingly, this
additional claim should be dismissed as well. However, the instant Motion is
directed only towards the failure to hire/rehire claims brought under FEHA.
2
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
television, eight years after she left voluntarily. Plaintiff consistently claims that her
suit arises from a refusal to write her character back onto Y&R or to create a new
character she can play on B&B. FAC 58-84, 113-114, 120-121. These decisions,
which are both casting decisions and decisions about the plot and content of the
programs, are decisions that Defendants have made in furtherance of their production
of expressive content content that is squarely within the protection of the First
Amendment.
8
9
10
11
Accordingly, this lawsuit, which seeks to punish Defendants for their speech,
is properly the subject of Californias anti-SLAPP law, California Code of Civil
Procedure section 425.16 et seq. (Section 425.16).
Because this suit is subject to Section 425.16, in order to prevent immediate
12
dismissal of her FEHA hire/rehire claims, Plaintiff must show a probability of
13
success on the merits. She cannot do so. First, she does not, and cannot, state claims
14
for violation of FEHA because she does not allege that she applied for an open
15
position on Y&R or B&B. Second, Plaintiffs FEHA hire/rehire claims are barred by
16
the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution, which
17
prohibit government interference with expressive activities. In this case, Plaintiff not
18
only seeks such a restraint on the casting and creation of Y&R and B&B she also
19
seeks to have the Court apply state anti-discrimination law to compel significant
20
changes to the programs, demanding that the Court order Defendants to resurrect a
21
character for Plaintiff to play or to create a new one.
22
Plaintiffs FAC is a transparent effort to control Defendants writing and
23
creative, expressive choices about the direction of the programs. Thus, her lawsuit
24
properly is subject to a Special Motion to Strike and should be stricken or dismissed.
25
26
II.
SECTION 425.16 APPLIES TO PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS
The purpose of Californias anti-SLAPP law is to nip SLAPP litigation in the
27
bud[,] by quickly disposing of claims that target the exercise of free speech rights.
28
See Braun v. Chronicle Publg Co., 52 Cal. App. 4th 1036, 1042, (1997). Under
3
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Section 425.16, any cause of action against a person arising from any act in
furtherance of the persons right of free speech in connection with a public
issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that
the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on
the claim. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code (C.C.P.) 425.16(b)(1). This suit, which seeks to
hold Defendants liable under California law for their alleged casting decisions, is
subject to a Special Motion to Strike.
A.
Section 425.16 Must Be Interpreted Broadly.
In evaluating a defendants threshold showing that the claims arise from
10
conduct in furtherance of free speech, the statute shall be construed broadly.
11
C.C.P. 425.16(a). According to the California Supreme Court, the broad
12
construction expressly called for in [Section 425.16] is desirable from the standpoint
13
of judicial efficiency; by contrast, [a narrow construction] would serve
14
Californians poorly. Briggs v. Eden Council, 19 Cal. 4th 1106, 1120-1121 (1999);
15
see also Equilon Enterprise, LLC v. Consumer Cause, 29 Cal. 4th 53, 61 (2002); City
16
of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal. 4th 69, 76 (2002); Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal. 4th 82,
17
92 (2002).
18
In accordance with the Legislatures unambiguous mandate, to prevent
19
plaintiffs from using artful pleading to evade Section 425.16, the California Supreme
20
Court also has made clear that the statutes application does not depend on the
21
manner in which a plaintiff styles the claim; if a claim arises from conduct in
22
furtherance of free speech, it falls within the scope of the statute regardless of its
23
label.3 See, e.g., Navellier, 29 Cal. 4th at 92 (Section 415.16s definitional focus is
24
25
Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim, 42 Cal. App. 4th 628, 652 (1996),

disapproved
on other grounds, Equilon Enters., 29 Cal. 4th at 53. Thus, courts have
26
held that the statute applies to a variety of claims, including fraud and breach of
27 contract (Navellier, 29 Cal. 4th at 91), negligence (Gene Thera, Inc. v. Troy & Gould
Professional Com., 171 Cal. App. 4th 901, 908 (2009)), and unfair business practices
28 claims (Stewart v. Rolling Stone LLC, 181 Cal. App. 4th 664, 690 (2010) (striking
class action complaint, including 17200 claim); New.Net, Inc. v. Lavasoft, 356 F.
4
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
not the form of the plaintiffs cause of action, but rather, the defendants activity that
gives rise to his or her asserted liability) (original emphasis); Church of Scientology
v. Wollersheim, 42 Cal. App. 4th 628, 652 (1996), disapproved on other grounds,
Equilon, 29 Cal. 4th 53. Consistent with this broad interpretation, courts also have
applied Section 425.16 to claims arising from a variety of expressive works,
including a provocative radio deejays morning show (Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting
Corp., 97 Cal. App. 4th 798 (2002)); a segment of the television program Celebrity
Justice about a famous actors housekeeper (Hall v. Time Warner, Inc., 153 Cal.
App. 4th 1337, 1341 (2007)); and inspirations for characters on CSI: Crime Scene
10
Investigation (Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 193 Cal. App. 4th 133 (2011)).
11
Thus, as discussed further below, both Y&R and B&B, the programs at issue here,
12
easily fall within the statute.
13
In Navellier, the California Supreme Court outlined the two-step process for
14
determining whether an action must be stricken under Section 425.16. 29 Cal. 4th at
15
82, 88. First, the court decides whether the defendant has made a threshold showing
16
that the challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity. Id. at 88.
17
To make this showing, the defendant must demonstrate that the alleged conduct
18
underlying the plaintiffs cause [of action] fits one of the categories spelled out in
19
section 425.16, subdivision (e). Id. Second, if the claim arises from protected
20
conduct, the court must then determine whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a
21
probability of prevailing on the claim. Id. If the plaintiff cannot meet this burden,
22
the claim must be stricken. Id.
23
24
B.
Plaintiffs FEHA Claims Arise From Conduct Protected Under

Section 425.16.
25
Section 425.16(e) describes four categories of conduct that constitute protected
26
activity under the statute, including: any written or oral statement or writing made in
27
Supp. 2d 1090, 1110-1113 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (applying Section 425.16 to strike 17200
28 claim)).
5
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or
judicial body, any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the
public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; any other
conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of free speech in
connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest. See C.C.P.
425.16(e)(2)-(4). See also City of Cotati, 29 Cal. 4th at 78. Plaintiffs allegations
that Defendants somehow violated FEHA by failing to hire or rehire her on the
programs fit squarely into both categories.

1.
the First-Amendment.
10
11
The Production of Soap Operas Is an Activity Protected By
That Y&R and B&B are entitled to full First Amendment protection cannot
12
seriously be disputed. [T]he constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression
13
apply with equal force to the publication whether it be a news report or an
14
entertainment feature. Shulman v. Group W Productions. Inc., 18 Cal. 4th 200, 220
15
(1998) (emphasis added).
16
Television programs require pre-production work, which also constitutes
17
protected activity under Section 425.16. This pre-production work includes script
18
writing and related casting decisions, which are in furtherance of free speech. In the
19
recent California Court of Appeal decision in Hunter v. CBS Broad., Inc., 221 Cal.
20
App. 4th 1510, 1521 (2013), the court held that the selection of who was to report
21
the news on a local television newscast is a form of protected activity under the
22
First Amendment, applying Section 425.16 to a discrimination claim against CBS
23
after it did not hire the plaintiff as a weather news anchor. The Hunter court
24
explained:
25
In assessing whether a cause of action arises from protected
26
activity, we disregard the labeling of the claim [] and
27
instead examine the principal thrust, or gravamen of a
28
plaintiffs cause of action We assess the principal thrust

6
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
by identifying the allegedly wrongful and injury-producing
conduct that provides the foundation for the claim. []
The critical point is whether the plaintiffs cause of action
itself was based on an act in furtherance of the defendants
right of petition or free speech.
Id. at 1520 (original emphasis; citations omitted).4

In Hunter, the court found that the hiring of a weather anchor was conduct that
7
8
helped advance or assist First Amendment activities creating a television show
and reporting the news. 221 Cal. App. 4th at 1521 (citations omitted); see also
10
Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc., 110 Cal. App. 4th 156, 166 (2003) (conduct
11
within the meaning of Section 425.16 is not limited to the exercise of [the] right of
12
free speech, but to all conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the right of free
13
speech (emphasis added)). The court squarely rejected the rationale Plaintiff is
14
likely to advance here: that Section 425.16 did not apply because the act of hiring
15
on-air talent was an employment decision, not the exercise of free speech. Id. at
16
1521-1522.
The same is true here. Any allegation that Defendants decision not to write
17
18
the character of Drucilla Winters into episodes of Y&R or B&B was wrongful does
19
not change the fact that the alleged conduct failing to add Plaintiff to either cast or
20
somehow write a character she formerly played into the shows story lines was in
21
furtherance of Defendants exercise of free speech because it directly impacted the
22
content of the programs.5 See, e.g., Kronemyer v. Internet Movie Database Inc., 150
23
4
See also Tuszynska v. Cunningham, 199 Cal. App. 4th 257 (2011) (gender
discrimination claim was covered by anti-SLAPP statute); Fox Searchlight Pictures,
25 Inc. v. Paladino, 89 Cal. App. 4th 294, 298 (2001) (anti-SLAPP statute applied to an
employers lawsuit against former employee for allegedly disclosing confidential
26 information to her attorneys in connection with wrongful termination claim); Seelig,
97 Cal. App. 4th at 806, 812 (directing trial court to grant anti-SLAPP motion as to
27 claims for negligent hiring, retention and supervision of employees).
24
28
See, e.g., Dible v. Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc., 170 Cal. App. 4th 843, 851
(2009) (rejecting plaintiffs attempt to avoid anti-SLAPP statute based on
7
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Cal. App. 4th 941, 944, 947 (2007) (lawsuit alleging that the defendants web site did
not attribute production credits to plaintiff fell within Section 425.16; because the
listing of credits was protected speech and the constitutional right of free speech
includes the right not to speak.).

And in Tamkin, 193 Cal. App. 4th at 142-143, the plaintiffs asserted claims for
5
6
defamation based on a pre-broadcast casting breakdown for a fictional program that
used their names. The court held that the defendants conduct in preparing and
distributing the breakdown for casting calls was within Section 425.16s protection,
because the defendants acts helped to advance or assist in the creation, casting, and
10
broadcasting of an episode of a popular television show. Id. at 143.6 That same
11
rationale applies here.
12
Further, the mere fact this case arises in the employment context does not take
13
it outside the scope of Section 425.16. See, e.g., Tuszynska, 199 Cal. App. 4th at 270
14
(Section 425.16 applied to gender discrimination claim because petitioning conduct
15
was a necessary component of plaintiffs claim); Vergos v. McNeal, 146 Cal. App.
16
4th 1387, 1397 (2007) (Section 425.16 applied to sexual harassment claim against
17
manager who denied plaintiffs administrative grievances); Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v.
18
Dakar, 611 F.3d 590, 598 (9th Cir. 2010) (Section 425.16 applied because but for
19
the alleged conduct within the scope of the statute, plaintiff would have no claim).
The operative question is whether the protected conduct is merely incidental to
20
21
Plaintiffs allegations, or whether it is an integral and necessary part of Plaintiffs
22
defendants alleged motives; [e]ven if that allegation is true, it is irrelevant to the

23 determination of its status as protected speech.). The salient point is that any
decision to forego the use of Plaintiff as a cast member was in furtherance of
24 Defendants rights of free speech, even if they could have exercised their rights
differently. See, e.g., Shulman v. Group W Prods., Inc., 18 Cal. 4th 200, 229 (1998)
25 (courts do not, and constitutionally should not, sit as superior editors of the press).
6
See also Doe v. Gangland Prods., Inc., 730 F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2013) (Section
425.16 applied to claims arising from alleged pre-broadcast promise about use of
27 interview in television program; pre-publication or pre-production acts such as
investigating, newsgathering and conducting interviews constitute conduct that
28 furthers the right of free speech).
26
8
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
claim. In Hunter, for example, the Court explained that CBSs protected activity
employment decisions regarding its weather anchors is not incidental to Hunters
discrimination claims; indeed, it is the very conduct on which his claims are based.
221 Cal. App. 4th at 1525 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs claims here likewise fall
within Section 425.16 because a decision about which characters to create and write
into a script and whom to cast indisputably is conduct in furtherance of
Defendants free speech rights.
8
9
Plaintiff confirms by the allegations in her FAC that creative, expressive

choices are at the core of the casting and plot decisions she attacks in this lawsuit.
10
Plaintiff alleges that she was told the creative people at Y&R had to be consulted
11
in order to bring her back to the show. FAC 58. Similarly, another executive told
12
her that in order to bring her back, the stories had to move in that direction in the
13
future. Id. 61. Plaintiff even admits that her desired comeback would be
14
dependent on the storylines of the program, stating that the stories always had the
15
opportunity to bring Drucilla back but that the writers would have to contrive story
16
lines. Id. 62, 89. Similarly, she contends it would be easy for the writers for
17
both Y&R and B&B to write for her to recreate her character and reintegrate or
18
integrate the character onto both shows. Id. 91. Furthermore, she alleges that in
19
order to gain employment on B&B, Plaintiff pitched a storyline involving her
20
reemployment. Id. 65. At their heart, the choices to create or to not create a
21
part for a character, and to cast or to not cast an individual, are expressive and
22
Section 425.16 applies to Plaintiffs FEHA claims.
23
24
2.
The Casting of the Programs Is a Matter of Public Interest.
The public interest requirement, like all of section 425.16, is to be
25
construed broadly. Seelig, 97 Cal. App. 4th at 808. Matters of public interest are
26
not limited to traditional news reports; instead, [t]he definition of public interest
27
within the meaning of [Section 425.16] has been broadly construed to include not
28
only governmental matters, but also private conduct that impacts a broad segment of
9
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
society Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club, 85 Cal. App. 4th 468, 479
(2000). An issue of public interest is any issue in which the public is interested ....
In other words, the issue need not be significant to be protected by the anti-SLAPP
statute it is enough that it is one in which the public takes an interest. Nygard, Inc.
v. Uusi-Kerttula, 159 Cal. App. 4th 1027, 1042 (2008) (emphasis omitted). See also
Cross v. Cooper, 197 Cal. App. 4th 357, 372-373 (2011).
Applying these broad precepts, California courts consistently have found that
publications and broadcasts addressing a wide variety of topics fall within the scope
of Section 425.16. For example, in Seelig, the court held that a radio hosts vulgar
10
on-air criticism of a contestant from the reality show Who Wants To Marry A
11
Multi-Millionaire? related to a matter of public interest. 97 Cal. App. 4th at 807-
12
808. The show was of significant interest to the public because of what its advent
13
signified about the condition of American society. Id. Similarly, the casting,
14
production, and broadcast of CBS fictional television program CSI concerned an
15
issue of public interest because the public was demonstrably interested in the creation
16
and broadcasting of that episode[,] as evidenced in part by the shows popularity.
17
Tamkin, 193 Cal. App. 4th at 143. See also Hall, 153 Cal. App. 4th at 1346-1347
18
(movie stars naming of housekeeper as a beneficiary of his will was matter of public
19
interest); Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc., 15 Cal. App. 4th 536, 542-43 (1993) (public
20
interest attaches to popular culture and to real life events which have caught the
21
popular imagination.).
Applying the well-established law described above, it is clear that Y&R and
22
23
B&B, and writing and casting decisions related to the two programs, fall well within
24
the public interest requirement of C.C.P. 425.16(e)(4). Indeed, there is great
25
public interest in Y&R and B&B, the stories of the programs, and the decisions of
26
whom to cast.7 Plaintiffs allegations support this conclusion, as she chronicles in
27
28
There can be no dispute as to the significant public interest in soap operas

generally, or Y&R and B&B specifically. Y&R has been on the air for 41 seasons
10
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
her Complaint the publics alleged obsession with whether or not she will reprise her
role on Y&R, or whether she will gain other roles. FAC 36, 40, 52, 55, 56, 78, 87.
III.
PLAINTIFF CANNOT DEMONSTRATE A PROBABILITY OF
PREVAILING ON HER CLAIMS.
Because decisions regarding the plot, characters, and casting of Y&R and
B&B fall within the scope of Section 425.16, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to present
evidence establishing a probability that she will prevail on her FEHA hire/rehire
claims. C.C.P. 425.16(b)(1). In this respect, a special motion to strike is markedly
different from a Rule 12(b)(6) standard.8 In order to satisfy this second prong of the
10
anti-SLAPP analysis, a plaintiff must present competent and admissible evidence
11
showing that she probably will prevail on her claims. Macias v. Hartwell, 55 Cal.
12
App. 4th 669, 675 (1997) (emphasis added). If the plaintiff fails to satisfy this
13
evidentiary burden, the Court must strike the claim. Cal. Code Civ. Proc.
14
425.16(b)(1).
15
Plaintiff cannot meet her probability-of-success burden under Section 425.16.
16
A.
Plaintiffs Claim that Sony and CBS Denied Her Employment on
17
Y&R Fails Because Plaintiff Was Not Denied an Open Position on
18
that Program
Plaintiff claims that she has been retaliated against because the character she
19
20
formerly played on Y&R has not been reprised since her departure from the program
21
in 2007. FAC 111-117. Plaintiffs claim must fail at the outset because she fails
22
to allege facts to support an essential element of this claim: that she ever actually
23
and in the most recent ratings period, it garnered more than 5.5 million viewers.
24 Supporting Declaration of Elizabeth Carroll, Ex. A. B&B, the No. 2-rated soap,
garnered more than 4.1 million viewers in the most recent ratings period. Id. The
comings
and goings of soap stars and characters are the subject of an entire magazine
25
Soap Opera Digest which has a weekly print audience of over 3.1 million people
26 (soapoperadigest.com garners 451,000 unique monthly visitors, and has 508,000
social-media followers). Id. Ex. B.
27
Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs claims pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concurrently with this motion.
28
11
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
applied for an open position on Y&R. And in fact, Plaintiff concedes she did not. Id.
57.
In order to state a prima facie case for unlawful failure to hire under FEHA,
3
4
a plaintiff must establish the following, specific elements: (1) plaintiff was a member
of a protected class; (2) plaintiff was qualified for the position sought; (3) the denial
of an available job; and (4) some other circumstance suggest[ing] discriminatory
motive. Guz v. Bechtel Natl, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 355 (2000); see also McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973) (prima facie failure to hire case
requires showing that complaining party applied and was qualified for a job for
10
which the employer was seeking applicants) (emphasis added); Sada v. Robert F.
11
Kennedy Med. Ctr., 56 Cal. App. 4th 138, 149 (1997) (prima facie case for failure to
12
hire requires plaintiff to show (i) that he belongs to a [protected class]; (ii) that he
13
applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants;
14
(iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected; and (iv) that, after his rejection,
15
the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from
16
persons of complainants qualifications. (emphasis added, citations omitted)).9

Here, Plaintiff never alleges she ever actually applied for an open position on
17
18
Y&R, and fails to allege that she ever applied for an open position for which she was
19
qualified. See generally, FAC. Indeed, aside from one exception that did not involve
20
Y&R, Plaintiff admits that her efforts to be rehired did not involve applying for an
21
open position. Id. 57. The FAC describes the numerous attempts of Plaintiff and
22
those acting on her behalf to ask Defendants if she could return to Y&R, but she
23
never alleges she actually applied for any position. See e.g., id. 56, 58, 63, 64, 66,
24
9
Although Defendants do not seek dismissal of Plaintiffs claims for violation of 42

U.S.C. section 1981 via this motion, the elements of a failure to hire claim under that
26 statute are the same and thus, Plaintiff cannot prevail on that claim, either. Patterson
v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 186-187 (1989), superseded by statute on
other
grounds as recognized in Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 306
27
309, 114 S. Ct. 1510, 151618 (1994). Defendants raise this fundamental defect in
28 Plaintiffs Section 1981 claim via the concurrently-filed Motion to Dismiss.
25
12
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
67, 68, 69, 77, 83. Thus, Plaintiffs admissions, and the allegations in the FAC show
that Plaintiff did not, in fact, apply for an available position on Y&R. Sada, 56 Cal.
App. 4th at 149.

What Plaintiff appears to have wanted was for Defendants to create a new role
4
5
for her on Y&R. There is no requirement under FEHA that employers create new
positions under any circumstances, including when asked. See generally, Raine v.
City of Burbank, 135 Cal. App. 4th 1215, 1227 (2006) (under FEHA, employer not
required to create a new position to accommodate an employee); Gomez v. American
Bldg. Maintenance, 940 F. Supp. 255, 260 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (same, under Americans
10
with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).

Indeed, that cannot be the law, as it would open the floodgates for plaintiffs to
11
12
manufacture failure to hire claims by requesting positions that do not exist. This is
13
especially the case with regard to the creative and specialized nature of the dramatic
14
works here. Plaintiff never applied for an open position on Y&R and never applied
15
for an open position on Y&R for which she was qualified. Her allegations therefore
16
fail to include enough facts to state a plausible claim for failure to hire discrimination
17
under FEHA, so her claim related to Y&R must inevitably be dismissed. Guz, 24
18
Cal. 4th at 355. For this reason, she will not prevail on her claims.
B.
19
Plaintiffs Claim that CBS Denied Her Employment on B&B Fails
20
Because Plaintiff Was Not Denied an Open Position on that
21
Program, Either
Plaintiff also alleges that CBS retaliated against her by refusing to employ her
22
23
on B&B. FAC 118-124.10 As with her claims related to Y&R, she again fails to
24
allege that she ever actually applied for an open position on B&B for which she was
25
qualified and that eventually went to another applicant. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot
26
prevail on her claims against CBS related to B&B.
27
28
10
The two claims related to B&B are not asserted against either Sony Pictures
defendant.
13
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff describes numerous attempts by
Plaintiff and those acting on her behalf to obtain employment on B&B, but does not
allege she actually applied for any position. See e.g., id. 56, 59, 63, 64, 65.
Plaintiff also identifies a single role on B&B that her agent allegedly submitted her
for. FAC 82. Plaintiff admits, however, that the role never materialized as a
character on the program. Id. Thus, Plaintiff admits that she was not denied an
available job or available position. Guz, 24 Cal. 4th at 355.
Plaintiff further admits that B&B did not continue to seek applicants, and
did not fill the position with another individual, which is also a necessary element of
10
a failure to hire claim under FEHA. Sada, 56 Cal. App. 4th at 149. Based on these
11
deficiencies, Plaintiff again fails to plead enough facts to state a plausible claim
12
related to CBSs alleged failure to hire her on B&B, under FEHA and she will not be
13
able to succeed on this claim.
14
C.
Plaintiffs Failure-to-Hire Claims are Barred by the First
15
Amendment and the California Constitution
16
1.
17
18
The First Amendment and the California Constitution

Prohibit Civil Claims That Restrict or Compel Speech
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution directs that Congress
19
shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. U.S. Const. Amend. I.
20
Similarly, the California Constitution states that A law may not restrain or abridge
21
liberty of speech or press. Cal. Const. Art. I, 2. The First Amendment shields
22
protected speech from private litigation as well as statutory restrictions and criminal
23
penalties. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 277, 84 S. Ct. 710, 724
24
(1964) (What a State may not constitutionally bring about by means of a criminal
25
statute is likewise beyond the reach of its civil law . . .:). Thus, in ruling upon civil
26
lawsuits between private parties, courts cannot apply anti-discrimination laws in a
27
manner that restricts First Amendment freedoms, as doing so constitutes prohibited
28
government action. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 866, 916 n. 51,
14
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
102 S. Ct. 3409, 3427 (1982); see also Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 131 S. Ct.
1207, 1215 (2011) ([t]he Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment . . . can serve
as a defense. . .).
4
5
6
2.
Casting Decisions are Creative Expression Protected by the

First Amendment
As set forth in detail above, television programs, along with motion pictures,
radio broadcasts, and live entertainment are protected . . . and fall within the First
Amendment guarantee. Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 65-66,
101 S. Ct. 2176, 2181 (1981). Media content published and sold for profit is still
10
a form of expression whose liberty is safeguarded by the First Amendment.
11
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 501 (1952) (citing Grosjean v.
12
American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 56 S. Ct. 444 (1936); Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S.
13
516, 531, 65 S. Ct. 315 (1945)).
14
California state courts likewise have held that casting decisions are an exercise
15
of free speech. See, e.g., Ingels v. Westwood One Broadcasting Services, Inc., 129
16
Cal. App. 4th 1050, 1074 (2005), (radio call-in shows decisions about which callers
17
to allow on air were protected by the First Amendment; plaintiffs allegation that he
18
was unlawfully denied air time due to age could not override defendants First
19
Amendment right to control the content of its program).
20
Similarly, in Claybrooks v. ABC, Inc., 898 F. Supp. 2d 986 (M.D. Tenn. 2012),
21
the U.S. District Court in Nashville held that casting decisions are clearly protected
22
under the First Amendment. In that case, the plaintiffs represented by the same
23
attorneys who represent Plaintiff here sued the producers of the reality television
24
programs The Bachelor and The Bachelorette, claiming that the defendants violated
25
federal anti-discrimination laws by not choosing the plaintiffs, African-American
26
males, to be contestants on the Bachelor. See id. at 988-990.
27
28
The Claybrooks court rejected the plaintiffs contention that 42 U.S.C. section
1981 should only be applied where a court determined its enforcement would
15
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
actually affect the particular shows message, as doing so would embroil courts in
questioning the creative process behind any television program or other dramatic
work, and would threaten[] to chill otherwise protected speech. Id. at 997-998.
Instead, the court found that casting decisions are a necessary component of any
entertainment shows creative content, reasoning that the producers of a television
program, a movie, or a play could not effectuate their creative vision, as embodied in
the end product marketed to the public, without signing cast members. Id. at 999.
8
9
The court in Claybrooks relied heavily on the United States Supreme Courts
decision in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group Of Boston, 515
10
U.S. 557, 115 S. Ct. 2338 (1995), in which the Court found that First Amendment
11
trumped the plaintiffs claim that the defendants had violated a Massachusetts
12
antidiscrimination law by refusing to permit members of a gay and lesbian group to
13
participate in a Saint Patricks day parade in Boston. Hurley, 515 U.S. at 559. In
14
Hurley, the Court noted that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his
15
own message, which inherently involves choices of what to say and what to leave
16
unsaid. Id. at 573 (quoting Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commn,
17
475 U.S. 1, 11, 106 S. Ct. 903 (1986)); see also, e.g., Nelson v. McClatchy
18
Newspapers, 131 Wash. 2d 523 (Wash. 1997) (newspapers policy of requiring its
19
reporters to abstain from political activity was protected by the First Amendment and
20
inactionable despite the policy violating state fair campaign laws); Passaic Daily
21
News v. NLRB, 736 F.2d 1543, 1557 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (overturning order of the
22
National Labor Relations Board, which sought to force newspaper to resume printing
23
an employees columns, on First Amendment grounds.). The facts and reasoning in
24
Claybrooks and Ingels are directly applicable here. Plaintiff is attempting to impact
25
the messages of both Y&R and B&B by asking the Court to dictate whom should be
26
cast on the show specifically, herself.
27
28
In fact, Plaintiffs claims impact the First Amendment even more than those of
the plaintiffs in Claybrooks. In Claybrooks, the plaintiffs desired to be cast as the
16
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Bachelor, the central position on a reality television program where women compete
for the affections of a sole man. Claybrooks, 898 F. Supp. 3d at 989. The role of
the Bachelor already existed on the program, and thus the analysis centered on the
plaintiffs complaint that they were not selected to fill that already-existing role. Id.
Here, however, Plaintiff is not complaining that she was not chosen for an existing
part on either Y&R or B&B. Instead, she argues that Defendants must either create a
new character or resurrect one that has not been on the air in almost eight years,
thereby altering the plot of one or both programs, and alleges she has been retaliated
against because Defendants have not done so. FAC 113-114, 120-121, Prayer For
10
Relief A and B.
11
The First Amendment protects Defendants rights to choose the messages of
12
both Y&R and B&B, in both what is said and is not said, including what characters
13
are portrayed and not portrayed and what those characters story arcs are. Pacific
14
Gas & Electric Co., 475 U.S. at 10-12, 106 S. Ct. at 909 (the State is not free to tell
15
a newspaper in advance what it can print and what it cannot); Hunter, 221 Cal.
16
App. 4th at 1521; Tamkin, 193 Cal. App. 4th at 143; Ingels, 129 Cal. App. 4th at
17
1064. If Plaintiff were to receive the relief she requests, Defendants would be
18
compelled to create characters and/or storylines so that Plaintiff can have a role on
19
Y&R or B&B directly influencing the content being portrayed on the programs or
20
be punished for not putting Plaintiff on either show. Thus, Plaintiff seeks to not only
21
affect casting decisions which, per Claybrooks, are protected even when producers
22
decide who will fill a preexisting role, but goes further in attempting to use FEHA to
23
directly influence the broadcast content of Y&R and/or B&B.

*
24
25
Accordingly, Plaintiffs FEHA hire/rehire claims, which seek to inject the state
26
into expressive decisions and coerce speech from Sony Pictures and CBS, must be
27
stricken.
28
17
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
IV.
1
2
CONCLUSION.
For all these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiffs claims
under FEHA, regarding the alleged failure to hire or rehire Plaintiff, be stricken, as
Plaintiff does not, and cannot, allege that the failure to hire or rehire her on Y&R or
B&B violated the law, and because casting decisions in furtherance of the First
Amendment and the California Constitution are protected activities that are largely
immune from laws such as FEHA.
8
9
10
DATED: May 13, 2015
11
12

JOHN P. LECRONE
ELIZABETH J. CARROLL
MATTHEW D. PETERSON
13
By:
/S/
John P. LeCrone
SONY PICTURES TELEVISION INC.,
SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT
INC. and CBS CORPORATION
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
DWT 26810435v1 0032472-000035

(213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899

Rowell SLAPP

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Rowell SLAPP

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 2:15-cv-02442-JAK-AGR Document 91 Filed 05/13/15 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:615

JOHN P. LECRONE (State Bar No. 115875)

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

Case No. 15-cv-02442 JAK (AGRx)

September 21, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-02442-JAK-AGR Document 91 Filed 05/13/15 Page 2 of 26 Page ID #:616

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Television Inc., Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. and CBS Corporation

Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), California Government Code section

decisions about the content of their television programs, which is protected

Constitution and the California Constitution.

presented to the Court.

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

Case 2:15-cv-02442-JAK-AGR Document 91 Filed 05/13/15 Page 3 of 26 Page ID #:617

DATED: May 13, 2015

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

Case 2:15-cv-02442-JAK-AGR Document 91 Filed 05/13/15 Page 4 of 26 Page ID #:618

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 1

SECTION 425.16 APPLIES TO PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS ........................... 3

Section 425.16 Must Be Interpreted Broadly. ...................................... 4

Plaintiffs FEHA Claims Arise From Conduct Protected Under

PLAINTIFF CANNOT DEMONSTRATE A PROBABILITY OF

Plaintiffs Claim that Sony and CBS Denied Her Employment on

Plaintiffs Claim that CBS Denied Her Employment on B&B

Plaintiffs Failure-to-Hire Claims are Barred by the First

The First Amendment and the California

Casting Decisions are Creative Expression Protected

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

Case 2:15-cv-02442-JAK-AGR Document 91 Filed 05/13/15 Page 5 of 26 Page ID #:619

Briggs v. Eden Council,

Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim,

City of Cotati v. Cashman,

Claybrooks v. ABC, Inc.,

Dible v. Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc.,

Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc.,

Equilon Enterprise, LLC v. Consumer Cause,

Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino,

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

Case 2:15-cv-02442-JAK-AGR Document 91 Filed 05/13/15 Page 6 of 26 Page ID #:620

Gomez v. American Bldg. Maintenance,

Grosjean v. American Press Co.,

Hall v. Time Warner, Inc.,

Hunter v. CBS Broad., Inc.,

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group Of Boston,

Ingels v. Westwood One Broadcasting Services, Inc.,

Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson,

Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc.,

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,

Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar,

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.,

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

Case 2:15-cv-02442-JAK-AGR Document 91 Filed 05/13/15 Page 7 of 26 Page ID #:621

Nelson v. McClatchy Newspapers,

New.Net, Inc. v. Lavasoft,

Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula,

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commn,

Passaic Daily News v. NLRB,

Patterson v. McLean Credit Union,