Dickinson v. Cosby
California Court of Appeal
17 Cal. App. 5th 655, 225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 430 (2017)
- Written by Samuel Omwenga, JD
Facts
Janice Dickinson (plaintiff) publicly accused William H. Cosby, Jr. (defendant) of rape. Several news outlets contacted Cosby asking for his position on Dickinson’s rape allegation. Cosby responded by having his attorney Martin Singer issue (1) a letter demanding that the news outlets not air or publish the story and (2) a press release in which Cosby forcefully denied the allegations. Both the demand letter and the press release communicated unequivocally that Cosby did not rape Dickinson and that Dickinson was lying. The demand letter stated unconditionally that the rape allegations by Dickinson were an “outrageous and defamatory lie.” The press release was equally unconditional and used the same language in denying the allegations. The demand letter threatened litigation if the recipients did not comply with the demands. Dickinson sued Cosby for defamation. Cosby responded by filing an anti-SLAPP motion to strike on grounds that neither the demand letter nor the press release was actionable. Dickinson filed an amended complaint to include Singer. Cosby and Singer successfully moved to strike the amended complaint. The court granted the anti-SLAPP motion as to the demand letter but denied it as to the press release. Both Dickinson and Cosby appealed, with Dickinson seeking reinstatement of her first amended complaint and Cosby appealing as to his partially denied anti-SLAPP motion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rubin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 778,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
