Bit Parts

California Court of Appeal Finds Film Producer's Anti-SLAPP Free Speech Argument Is Valid Against Lawsuit By Investor

The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, decided that a documentary film producer properly raised an anti-SLAPP motion, on First Amendment grounds, to strike an investor's lawsuit over the progress of the production. Ojjeh v. Brown, A154889. Plaintiff Bassel Ojjeh filed a lawsuit over $180,000 he invested in a planned documentary about the Syrian refugee crisis. The complaint alleged fraud, false promise and breach of contract, among other things, against defendants Stephen Brown and Ignite Channel Inc. Ojjeh claims no "significant" or "substantial" work had been done on the film project. The defendants responded with a motion to strike the complaint, under California's anti-SLAPP law, Calif. Code Civ. Proc. §425.16. The San Mateo County Superior Court denied the motion. Reversing and remanding, the court of appeal found that "defendants' solicitation of investments from plaintiff and their performance of allegedly unsatisfactory work on the uncompleted documentary constituted activity in furtherance of their right of free speech in connection with an issue of public interest." The court of appeal further noted: "[D]efendants' hiring and use of a cinematographer to obtain on-location footage and their maintaining an online journal of refugees' stories to gather ideas for the production are reasonably viewed as conduct 'in furtherance' of the documentary, however unsatisfactory or dilatory plaintiff viewed their performance." Still to be decided under §425.16 is whether Ojjeh should be allowed to proceed with his action on the ground that he can establish he has a probability of prevailing on the merits of his case.