[ad_1]
A Virginia judge allows Amber Heard to partially pursue counterclaims, but not the one that targeted her ex-husband for allegedly deploying robots against her.
Johnny Depp failed to take advantage of a new law that could be partially attributed to him. On Monday, a Virginia court judge dismissed the actor’s request for immunity for statements made about Depp’s ex-wife Amber Heard. As a result, if the case goes to trial later this year, Depp will face counterclaims after his lawyer told media that Heard’s domestic violence story was a “hoax.”
About 18 months ago, Virginia judge Bruce D. White authorized Depp to sue Heard despite the fact that none of the litigants were domiciled in the state. Why Depp chose Virginia to sue Washington post op / ed that she had written? Perhaps because Virginia did not have an anti-SLAPP law at the time, a mechanism by which defendants can quickly evade a frivolous litigation over First Amendment rights. Consequently Depp v. Heard (plus Rep. Devin Nunes’ vexation), Virginia lawmakers passed a new law targeting SLAPPS (Strategic Public Participation Prosecutions) in February 2020.
Guess who became one of the first to try using it?
It would be Depp, soon to be grappling with a counter-suit brought by Heard in the same case.
Heard alleges that her ex-husband deployed social media bots against her in alleged violation of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act. She says he has led a concerted effort to tarnish her career and interfere with acting endorsements and concerts in retaliation for what she has publicly said about their troubled marriage. As for Heard’s abuse story, after Depp’s attorney Adam Waldman told media it was “wrong” and that it was all part of a “sexual violence hoax,” Heard also included counterclaims for defamation.
Now comes White’s first major ruling on those counterclaims – a decision that represents the most significant legal development since a UK judge dismissed Depp’s lawsuit against a UK tabloid. The November ruling that Heard’s physical assault story was “essentially true” hurt Depp’s career.
While Depp can’t now prevail over his anti-SLAPP move (more on that in a moment), he at least manages to ward off Heard’s counter-suit. Heard cannot pursue a declaratory immunity ruling on the statements in the editorial because the Virginia judge considers that the claim duplicates his defense against Depp’s trial and does not merit jurisdiction. And the actress loses her claim about the alleged smear campaign on social media. The judge concludes that Heard did not sufficiently allege the elements of a computer crime, in particular the communication of obscene language.
But Depp will continue to face his $ 100 million claim for the statements made by Waldman to the Daily mail in 2020. (Prior declarations are deemed to be outside the limitation period.)
White says Depp is not entitled to anti-SLAPP immunity because he has not shown the statements to be matters of public interest. (No matter how much attention this case has attracted.) Even otherwise, the judge adds that Heard alleged sufficient facts to support his libel claims, in particular “that Mr. Depp may have made these statements with actual knowledge. or implied or recklessly recklessly as to whether they are false. “
The judge provides more details in another section of the notice.
White concludes that the “hoax” statements “imply that Ms Heard lied and perjured herself when she appeared in court in 2016 to obtain a temporary restraining order against Mr Depp. Further, they imply that she lied about being a victim of domestic violence. In light of the #MeToo movement and the current social climate, falsely claiming that abuse would be [Ms. Heard’s] reputation in the common esteem of mankind. “”
White adds that Waldman’s statement does not constitute a protected opinion because “whether Mr. Depp abused Ms. Heard is a fact which can be proven true or false.”
To the argument that the statement is nevertheless privileged as a “fair and accurate account” of legal proceedings, the judge concludes otherwise. “While much of what Mr. Depp says is also contained in his complaint, the statements do not appear to have been made in the context of an attempt to recount litigation,” White writes. “Instead, Mr. Depp is making factual claims that do not quite and accurately summarize the litigation that has taken place.”
Finally, at least at this point, Depp cannot claim any shield of “self-defense” because of Heard’s allegations of malice.
“In support of her accusation of malice, Ms. Heard alleged that the GQ The reporter, Mr Heath, said Mr Depp invited him to interview the actor because he was ‘angry – angry about a lot of things – and he was vengeful’, “says the opinion.” In addition, Ms. Heard alleged that Mr. Depp intends to ruin his career; citing statements he made to friends demonstrating malicious intent. Further, Mr Depp admitted his intention to destroy Ms Heard’s career by stating that he wanted to replace her on Aquaman. Therefore, Ms. Heard has sufficiently pleaded malicious intent, which precludes a ruling on self-defense privilege at this stage of the litigation. “
Here is the full opinion …
[ad_2]
Source link