A Virginia judge allows Amber Heard to proceed partially with counterclaims, although not the one aimed at her ex-husband for allegedly implanting bots against her.
Johnny Depp has failed to leverage a new law for which he can be partially credited. On Monday, a judge at the Virginia state court rejected the actor’s offer of immunity over statements made about Depp’s ex-wife Amber Heard. As a result, if the case goes to trial later this year, Depp will face counter charges after his lawyer told the media that Heard’s domestic violence story was a “farce”.
It was about 18 months ago that Virginia judge Bruce D. White allowed Depp to sue Heard, despite the fact that none of the litigants was domiciled in the state. Why did Depp choose Virginia to sue for a Washington Post p / ed that she was the author? Possibly because, at the time, Virginia had no anti-SLAPP law, a mechanism by which defendants can quickly escape frivolous litigation for First Amendment rights. As a result of Depp v. Heard (in addition to the vexation of Rep. Devin Nunes), Virginia lawmakers passed a new law targeting SLAPPS (strategic lawsuits against public participation) in February 2020.
Guess who was the first to try to use it?
That would be Depp, soon battling a counter-suit brought by Heard in the same case.
Heard claims that her ex-husband deployed social media bots against her in alleged violation of Virginia’s Computer Crimes Act. She says he directed a concerted effort to taint his career and interfere with endorsements and presentations in retaliation for what she publicly said about the troubled marriage. As for Heard’s abuse story, after Depp’s lawyer Adam Waldman told the media that it was “fake” and all part of a “sexual violence scam”, Heard also included defamation claims.
Now comes White’s first major decision on these counterclaims – a decision that represents the most significant legal development since a UK judge dismissed Depp’s lawsuit against a British tabloid. The November decision that Heard’s story about being physically assaulted was “substantially true” hurt Depp’s career.
Although Depp cannot now prevail in his anti-SLAPP movement (more on that in a moment), he has at least managed to pair Heard’s counter-process. Heard cannot proceed with a declaratory judgment of being immune to the statements in the article, as the Virginia judge considers this claim to be a duplicate of his defense in Depp’s own case and unworthy of jurisdiction. And the actress loses her complaint about the alleged smear campaign on social media. The judge considers that Heard has not sufficiently claimed the elements of a computer crime, in particular obscene language communication.
But Depp will continue to face his $ 100 million claim on Waldman’s statements to the Daily Mail in 2020. (Previous statements are considered to be outside the statute of limitations.)
White says Depp is not entitled to anti-SLAPP immunity because he has not shown that the statements are in the public interest. (No matter how much attention this case has attracted.) Even so, the judge adds that Heard alleged enough facts to carry out his defamation allegations, specifically “that Mr. Depp may have made these statements with real knowledge. or constructive or irresponsible negligence to know if they are false. “
The judge provides more details in another section of the opinion.
White concludes that the “hoax” statements imply that Mrs. Heard lied and committed perjury when she appeared in court in 2016 to obtain a temporary restraining order against Mr. Depp. In addition, they imply that she lied about being a victim of domestic violence. In light of the #MeToo Movement and today’s social climate, falsely claiming abuse would certainly harm [Ms. Heard’s] reputation in the common estimate of humanity. ‘”
White adds that Waldman’s statement is not a protected opinion because “whether Mr. Depp abused Mrs. Heard is a fact that can be proved true or false”.
For the argument that the declaration is, however, privileged as a “fair and accurate report” of a legal process, the judge considers the opposite. “Although much of what Mr. Depp says is also contained in his complaint, the statements do not appear to have been made in the context of an attempt to retell the dispute,” writes White. “Instead, Mr. Depp makes factual statements that do not adequately and accurately summarize the litigation that has taken place.”
Finally, at least at this point, Depp cannot claim any “self-defense” shields because of Heard’s allegations of malice.
“In support of her accusation of malice, Ms. Heard claimed that the GQ The journalist Heath said that Depp invited him to interview the actor because he was ‘angry – angry about many things – and he is vindictive’, “says the opinion.” In addition, Ms. Heard claimed that Mr. Depp intends to ruin his career; citing statements you made to friends showing malicious intent. In addition, Mr. Depp admitted his intention to destroy Ms. Heard’s career, stating that he wanted her replaced in Aquaman. Consequently, Mrs. Heard has sufficiently alleged a malicious intent, which prevents a decision on the privilege of self-defense at this stage of the dispute. “
Here’s the full view …