• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Contact
  • Reviews

California Defamation Law Blog

  • Home
  • About
  • Blogs
  • Archive Page
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Services
  • Contact Us
  • (626) 793-8607
You are here: Home / Anti-SLAPP / Kim Kardashian’s Defamation Claim: Smart Or Not?

Kim Kardashian’s Defamation Claim: Smart Or Not?

November 21, 2011 by Adrianos Facchetti Leave a Comment

Faced with a growing backlash from the public for her mini-marriage to NBA basketball player, Chris Humphries, Kim Kardashian has filed a claim for arbitration alleging breach of a confidentiality agreement and defamation.

I won’t recount the details about the wedding extravaganza, which was televised, because I think most people are probably familiar with it (for more background, read this). However, what I will discuss is why I think this latest legal move is probably a good one, assuming that the news accounts accurately describe the nature of the claims.

First, I think this is a good PR move. Not only does it send a strong message that her marriage was NOT bogus or a hoax, but also it allows her to control the story. Now, instead of talking about whether the marriage was fixed or not, people will be talking about the individual who Kardashian claims is defaming her. Further, by pursuing these claims in a private arbitration, she can better control how the story develops in the media. This wouldn’t be the case had she opted to file a lawsuit. Of course, she may not have had much of a choice. The alleged confidentiality agreement probably had an arbitration clause in it.

The second reason this is a good move is a legal one: avoiding the anti-SLAPP statute (AKA Special Motion to Strike). Had Kardashian filed a lawsuit in state court I can guarantee that defense counsel would have filed an anti-SLAPP motion. There is no question that Kardashian is in the public eye and that comments regarding her marriage are a matter of public interest, so, a SLAPP motion would be warranted. Likewise, on the second prong, she’d have a very difficult time showing that the defendant made the statements with constitutional malice. However, perhaps her attorneys would argue that the SLAPP statute doesn’t apply in the first place given the confidentiality agreement, i.e., that the defendant waived his right to use the SLAPP statute. One thing is certain: the defendant stands a much better chance if he can get the case out of the arbitrator’s hands. For now, however, Kardashian seems to have the advantage.

In sum, I think Kardashian made a smart play here. It will definitely be interesting to see how this one plays out.

 

 

 

 

 

Buffer Share

Filed Under: Anti-SLAPP, Celebrity Defamation, celebrity defamation attorney, Defamation, Los Angeles Defamation, Reputation Management Tagged With: "celebrity defamation attorney"

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Some Featured

How to determine which costs are allowable in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion

Should a court consider a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in determining how much to award in fees for the defendant following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

May a trial court consider a defendant’s “walk away” offer when determining the reasonableness of fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

Recent Posts

Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law?

Does California’s anti-SLAPP statute apply in bankruptcy court?

Must attorney-client confidences be revealed in order to obtain attorney’s fees after a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

Follow Us On

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Search

Footer

California Defamation Law Blog

Law Offices of Adrianos Facchetti 4444 W. Riverside Drive, Suite 308, Burbank, CA 91505
California Defamation Lawyer & Attorney of Adrianos Facchetti Law Firm, offering services related to libel, internet defamation, slander, defamation of character, disparagement, anti-SLAPP, personal injury, car accidents, motorcycle accidents, trucking accidents, serving Los Angeles, San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, Pasadena, Burbank, Glendale, Arcadia, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Long Beach, Orange County, Ventura County, San Bernardino, and throughout California.

Recent Posts

  • How to determine which costs are allowable in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion July 18, 2022
  • Should a court consider a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in determining how much to award in fees for the defendant following a successful anti-SLAPP motion? June 28, 2022
  • May a trial court consider a defendant’s “walk away” offer when determining the reasonableness of fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion? June 24, 2022
  • Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law? June 20, 2022

Copyright © 2025 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in