The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Ninth Circuit Lets #TheyLied Suit Against Lawyer Lisa Bloom Go Forward
The lawsuit was brought by casino developer Steve Wynn, over a press release put out by Bloom related to a sexual harassment claim that Bloom's firm brought on behalf of a dancer.
An interesting decision from last week, Wynn v. Bloom, decided by a Ninth Circuit panel (Richard Clifton, Jacqueline Nguyen, and Mark Bennett):
Defendants-Appellants Lisa Bloom and the Bloom Firm … appeal from the district court's denial of their [anti-SLAPP] Special Motion to Dismiss ….
Wynn has demonstrated a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Bloom Defendants acted with actual malice [i.e., knowledge or reckless disregard as to falsehood] in publishing the Press Release…. To constitute reckless disregard, the defendant must have published a false statement with a "high degree of awareness of [its] probable falsity," or "entertained serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication.".
The Press Release suggests that Wynn instructed—personally or through a third party—female ShowStoppers performers "to strip down to bras and panties, put on heels, and apply extra makeup so as to be sexually appealing" to him and that Wynn directly or indirectly retaliated against Angelina Mullins when she refused to comply.
However, neither Mullins nor Samuel Cahn-Temes told Bloom Defendants that they heard Wynn give the instructions or had knowledge that the instructions came from Wynn. In fact, at her deposition, Mullins testified that although she assumed the instructions came from Wynn, she "made it clear" to Bloom Defendants that she had no personal knowledge that they did.
Furthermore, Mullins and Cahn-Temes gave Bloom Defendants reason to doubt that Wynn was responsible. Both Mullins's and Cahn-Temes's depositions highlighted the differences between New York Broadway and Los Angeles Commercial styles of performance and how performers' styles and professional experiences may have shaped their understandings of appropriate attire and behavior. While Mullins's style was New York Broadway, choreographer Marguerite Derricks's style was Los Angeles Commercial.
Mullins testified that she told the Bloom Firm, before the Press Release was issued, that other dancers that worked for Derricks in the past thought that it "seemed very normal … to be asked to wear what they were wearing for [Derricks] in this context" and that those performers' understanding of "what is acceptable for Broadway style show rehearsals and … go-go or burlesque dancing was sort of blurred." Cahn-Temes testified that he told Bloom Defendants that Mullins and Derricks had a "clash" of personalities and style—New York versus Los Angeles—and that Mullins was pushed to the back or removed from numbers, at least in part, due to that clash. {Jordan Oslin, a Bloom Firm attorney, testified that he recalled Cahn-Temes telling him about the clash between the New York Broadway and Los Angeles Commercial styles but asserted that Cahn-Temes made it clear to him that the retaliation was a result of Mullins's refusal to sexualize herself for Wynn. Cahn-Temes's testimony contradicts Oslin's.}
Bloom Defendants chose to publish the Press Release inculpating Wynn after learning that none of the witnesses could confirm that Wynn played any role in giving the instructions and without considering alternative explanations or investigating further. Under these circumstances, though the result may not be certain or perhaps even likely, a reasonable jury could find that Bloom Defendants acted with actual malice in publishing the Press Release….
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So they are stripping this case to the bare essentials ....
Allegations between people who know each other should be presumed false. Also, if you get into Mike Tyson's lomo at 3 AM, take a long elevator ride to his hotel room, you have implied consent. It is part of lawyer idiocy that Tyson committed hundreds of violent crimes without any arrest, but he goes to jail for a false allegation.
Bill Cosby should never have been prosecuted. All PC is case, and the lawyer profession must be crushed to save our nation.
Bill Cosby is creepy.
I met him in person once, before all of the reports about him broke, and he tripped every warning that I have. He is *NOT* the person he pretends to be on TV or stage.
I don't think he got a fair trial or anything close to one, and I find it very troubling how none of this came out until he started talking about Black self-responsibility, but, umm, I think he's guilty...
As an aside, he was sentenced to 3-10, with this September being year #3, and he's got a pending appeal on both the other women and the deposition, so this could get interesting.
Wife was friends with the Cosby family 40 or so years ago, running the flower shop in the hotel they stayed in and he played at. She would routinely sneak them in through the store to avoid crowds. Invited up to their suite on multiple occasions to drink champagne. He and Elvis were the only of the many celebrities she met at that time who were perfect gentlemen. Cosby never ever hit on her, nor responded to the overtures of other women she brought along to meet him and his family. I could probably list at least a dozen celebrities, whose names would be recognizable here, who tried to use their fame to get a date with her - and Cosby stuck out because he never came close to crossing that line.
Oh, and Winn himself was a hound dog back then. He used to divert his entourage from across the casino to her when he would see her, so he could ask her out. At least once she diverted his attention by asking him if she should ask his wife, whom she had talked to at the gym that morning. All the casino bosses and their boys were that way. She knew a number of cases where out of wedlock children by female employees by them ended up with nice settlements and chid support. She even shortly dated the illegitimate son of one of these women - he was of course working in his father’s casino by then in a position that would normally have been well beyond his years. Boy didn’t apparently know though about his paternity.
What I don't understand is if you are hired as a dancer, how it is sexual harassment for your employer to specify your outfit. So what if Wynn specified heels? Or that they strip down to underwear?
It's like telling a woman hired for the Ice Capades that she has to skate backwards while bent over because that's what the skit requires -- even if all the adult males accompanying the small children definitely notice it.
It is like a woman wanting to be a Dallas Cowboy's Cheerleader (do they still exist?) but to wear a Burka while doing it. No...
Real story. Wife’s mother was a dance teacher and choreographer in Las Vegas when she was growing up there. Mother put her in toe shoes at a couple years of age (yes - normally too young, but they had their reasons). By HS she was dancing 3-4 hours a day. Dancing in the Vegas shows was glamorous, so she wanted to look into it. About 16, her mother (who choreographed those shows) got a friend of hers, a producer, to interview her. He really liked her dancing, and her looks. Next step, he told her, was a little T&A. That was when she woke up to the seamier side of dancing in Las Vegas. Not for her. Not for her. She did something similar for her son, who is a very talented drummer. Got him a job in a band playing in a bar at maybe 16 or so. A couple nights of that, and he went a different direction with his music.
Back to the point at hand. There has long been a quid pro quo in the entertainment and casino industries. Women routinely,and happily trading sex for jobs and advancement. Or, if not actual sex, at least the willingness to flaunt their sexuality in front of a casino’s customers (running wars over time between the casinos and their unionized cocktail waitresses over dress). The thing is, is that if one woman doesn’t want to participate, a dozen standing behind her in line would want to.
Lisa Bloom has credibility problems from multiple press stories covering both clients and defendants.
A lot of feminists do, and I'd love to see one finally pay...
Isn't the offending press release in the court record? Why isn't it quoted here? Is EV worried Wynn will sue him for libel?
Maybe he doesn't like repeating lies.
@Stephen Lathrop: As others have already noted, Prof. Volokh's post summarized, and quoted from, the Ninth Circuit decision. If you follow the link to the decision, it contains everything you need to find the district court's casefiles on PACER, which is available to the public but which charges for access. The press release is of course Exhibit 1 to Wynn's complaint; at a cost of $3, I've downloaded it from PACER and posted it to my own server space, where you or anyone can access it for free. You're welcome.
The Ninth Circuit opinion fairly summarizes the press release, and Prof. Volokh's post accurately quotes the decision. I don't think anyone has any basis for speculating that Prof. Volokh is worried about being sued.
I wasn't afraid, just lazy! Here the Ninth Circuit wrapped up the details in a simple, short, and seemingly pretty accessible opinion; I thought I'd just pass it along.
"Isn’t the offending press release in the court record? Why isn’t it quoted here?"
Because this post quotes a single decision and not the entire court record.
How does her mother end up being on TV with every skank accuser? How does a lawyer do that?
I saw her on TV with a Cuomo accuser. Is she licensed in NY?
Prof. Volokh, thanks for posting this. This decision deserves a great deal more publicity among members of the trial bar, as a cautionary tale to practicing lawyers.
So why did the Ninth Circuit list it as "Not for Publication"?
Just means that its not selected for publication in an official report because it doesn't mean the 7 factors in Cir. Rule 36-2. It has nothing to do with the merits of the ruling
Right: It's application of pretty well-settled law to fact, so the court thought there was no need to make it binding precedent. For the benefit of nonlawyers out there, "not for publication" in appellate decisions generally just means "nonprecedential," or at least not binding precedent.
In the pre-web era the distinction was more important. I remember a section of shelves in my school library devoted to printed copies of Federal Reporter (published decisions only) and Federal Register. Also in those days some courts prohibited citing unpublished opinions.
If you are a gambler and you urgently need to earn a lot of money, then I would advise you to try yourself in a very decent and proven online casino by many players https://pledooo.casino/ ! I won more than two hundred thousand dollars from them! I really enjoyed playing there