The Family Hustle) Can Go Forward


From Peterson v. Harris, determined Friday by the California Courtroom of Enchantment, in an opinion by L.A. Superior Courtroom Decide Audri Mori, joined by Justice Audrey Collins and L.A. Superior Courtroom Decide Helen Zukin:

In January 2021, plaintiff Sabrina Peterson posted a video and messages to her Instagram account accusing defendants Clifford and Tameka Harris (entertainers who carry out beneath the stage names “TI” and “Tiny”) of varied types of sexual and bodily abuse. Peterson additionally accused Clifford of beforehand threatening her with a handgun. Clifford, Tameka, and Tameka’s buddy, codefendant Shekinah Jones Anderson, responded to Peterson by means of their social media accounts.

Peterson sued for libel, false mild, and intentional infliction of emotional misery (amongst different torts); the Harrises filed an anti-SLAPP movement, however the Courtroom of Enchantment concluded that Peterson’s declare can go ahead. First, Peterson’s factual allegations:

Peterson is an award-winning enterprise coach, entrepreneur, and founding father of Glam College, an organization designed to “coach ladies who’re excited by entrepreneurship.” The Harrises are well-known musicians, producers, and tv personalities. Codefendant Anderson is a actuality tv character who has appeared on a tv present protecting the Harrises.

In some unspecified time in the future through the events’ friendship, Peterson acquired into an altercation with Clifford’s assistant. Responding to the altercation, Clifford positioned a gun to Peterson’s head and mentioned, “‘Bitch I am going to kill you.'” Peterson ceased speaking with Clifford however maintained her friendship with Tameka.

In January 2021, Peterson was the sufferer of a carjacking. To deal with this traumatic expertise, on January 26, 2021, Peterson “shared her traumatic expertise with [Clifford] to a bunch of her followers” on Instagram. As established by the evidentiary submissions mentioned under, Peterson additionally posted messages she had acquired from different ladies accusing Clifford and Tameka of varied types of sexual, bodily, and emotional abuse. Clifford, Tameka, and Anderson issued varied statements responding to Peterson’s Instagram posts.

In each reason behind motion, the criticism alleged that Clifford, Tameka, and Anderson “posted sure statements on the general public web website Instagram to their greater than 23.6 million followers” and sought to carry all three answerable for the statements. The criticism identifies the posts or public statements as follows:

[1.] The Posts on the Harrises’ Instagram Accounts

On January 26, 2021 (the identical day Peterson revealed the prior incident involving Clifford), Tameka posted to her Instagram account {a photograph} of Clifford standing alongside Peterson’s eight-year-old son. Hooked up to the {photograph} was the next message:

“‘Maintain up… So that you need your abuser to coach your sons? He was simply uncle 2 years in the past … now when did you say my husband assaulted you? Did you modify your thoughts or change it again? What’s up wit you in the present day Pooh? … You unusual. All people know you been particular….”

Tameka’s Instagram account has 6.6 million followers.

In an announcement launched to the general public January 29, 2021, the Harrises “’emphatically den[ied] within the strongest manner potential the egregiously appalling allegations being made in opposition to them by [ ] Peterson.” The identical day, Clifford posted a video to his Instagram account through which he acknowledged:

“‘No matter we ever have performed has been performed with consensual adults …. [¶] We ain’t by no means pressured no person, we ain’t by no means drugged no person in opposition to their will. We ain’t by no means held no person in opposition to their will. We by no means made no person do something. We by no means [sexually] trafficked any[body]…. [¶] I additionally need you to know there’s evil at play…. We have had a historical past in coping with the actual particular person in query.'”

Clifford’s Instagram account has 13.5 million followers.

[2.] The Publish on Anderson’s Instagram Account

Additionally on January 29, 2021, Anderson posted a video to her Instagram account. Within the video, Anderson acknowledged:

“‘She’s searching for fucking consideration. She needs [Tameka]. She has intercourse with [Tameka], she needs [Tameka] to be her girlfriend. Now hear, that is my factor, [s]he got here out and [Clifford] pulled a gun on her….

“‘She has an issue. However she ain’t speaking about how she fucked Tamika [sic] too. I mentioned what I mentioned. Why she ain’t speaking about she performed sucked his dick and fucked her in her pussy…. I am attempting to determine why she ain’t inform ya’ll about how a lot pussy she ate? Why she did not inform ya’ll about she needed the ladies who used to go recruit the bitches for him to fuck?

“‘What’s up? … Go ask her why [she] ain’t let you know she did not get fucked and he or she went to the residence? Why she did not inform ya’ll if she performed had anyone that did too?'”

Anderson’s Instagram account has 3.5 million followers….

[In response to the anti-SLAPP motion, the Harrises submitted] court docket data from a prison matter involving Peterson in 2011. These data mirrored a responsible plea [to a federal false statements charge] through which Peterson admitted she had “denied know[ing] a person named ‘P. Denis,’ when the truth is she knew of and had lived with [this] particular person.” …

The court docket concluded that Peterson’s speech was on a matter of public curiosity, so the anti-SLAPP statute doubtlessly utilized:

Clifford and Tameka are completed musicians and producers, and each have a tv present protecting their lives. Peterson herself is a profitable entrepreneur and enterprise coach who has been featured in well-known publications. The controversy beneath which this case arose immediately considerations gun violence and sexual abuse by these within the leisure trade. The various articles protecting this controversy clearly set up the general public’s curiosity in it.

Even assuming the statements didn’t implicate a public problem or problem of public curiosity, they’re nonetheless protected as exercise encouraging participation “within the context of an ongoing controversy.” Peterson voluntarily thrust herself into the general public eye by accusing Clifford of gun violence and the Harrises of varied types of sexual, bodily, and emotional abuse. All the statements showing within the criticism have been attentive to Peterson’s personal public revelations in opposition to the Harrises. As such, Peterson has “subjected herself to inevitable scrutiny … by the general public and the media.”

Lastly, the exercise of Clifford, Tameka, and Anderson all occurred in a public discussion board for functions of part 425.16, subdivision (e)(3). With one exception, all of their statements have been printed on Instagram and may very well be readily accessed by 3.5 to 13.5 million followers.

However the court docket additionally held that Peterson’s case may transfer ahead, as a result of her allegations have been legally sufficient (their factual accuracy could find yourself being a matter for the jury). As to defamation, the court docket reasoned:

Peterson marshaled proof suggesting each statements have been provably false. As to the implied assertion Peterson had lied in regards to the gun incident, Peterson averred she had endured the “traumatic expertise” involving Clifford putting a gun to her head, and he or she acknowledged the Harrises’ denials have been “false.” The Harrises provided no proof contradicting these averments. Seen in context, the Harrises’ statements implied a provably true or false assertion that Peterson had lied in regards to the gun incident.

The Harrises don’t focus on any of this proof and as a substitute argue that their statements that Peterson had lied have been the truth is true. Citing Peterson’s prior prison matter in 2011, the Harrises contend Peterson “is, the truth is, a confirmed liar.” However whereas Peterson’s prison data could set up Peterson lied about one thing in 2011, they don’t conclusively set up that she lied about Clifford threatening her with a gun.

Concerning the salacious sexual accusations, Peterson declared she had “by no means engaged in sexual acts with both of the Harrises nor have I ever recruited lady [sic] to have interaction in sexual acts with the Harrises.” These allegations are additionally able to being confirmed true or false….

We additionally conclude that, opposite to the Harrises’ arguments, Peterson made the requisite exhibiting of precise malice as a restricted public determine….

The court docket concluded that the false mild claims have been merely “cumulative [of her defamation claim] and can add nothing to her claims for aid.” However the court docket additionally concluded that her intentional infliction of emotional misery declare can proceed, as to the allegations of her sexual conduct with the Harrises:

[W]e agree with the Harrises that the implied assertion Peterson had lied in regards to the gun incident, even when insulting or unflattering, didn’t represent excessive or outrageous conduct. Nonetheless, the salacious sexual accusations in opposition to Peterson, made in graphic element, could correctly be thought of excessive and outrageous by a factfinder.

Congratulations to Rodney S. Diggs (Ivie McNeill Wyatt Purcell & Diggs), who represents plaintiff.