Smokey Robinson’s attorneys are urging a judge to deny a motion by four of his former domestic workers to dismiss his defamation countersuit against them, contending in new court papers that the plaintiffs “struggled to keep their story straight” during depositions.
According to the Los Angeles Superior Court suit filed last May 6, the four original plaintiffs contend they were sexually abused at the 86-year-old music icon’s Chatsworth home and elsewhere. Two newer plaintiffs identified as Jane Doe 5 and John Doe 1 joined the case in November.
Robinson has countersued the four original Jane Does for defamation and is now opposing their effort to have the legal action dismissed through an anti-SLAPP motion. In court papers filed Thursday with Judge Kevin Brazile, Robinson’s lawyers state that during the four Jane Does’ depositions, every one “struggled to keep their story straight” and contradicted each other.
Among other things, Robinson was called a “serial assaulter” during a news conference held on behalf of the four first plaintiffs, according to the entertainer’s lawyers’ pleadings.
“The law is clear: (plaintiffs) do not have a constitutional right to slander someone,” Robinson’s attorneys state.
In their own motion, the women “do not dispute the falsity of the subject statements,” according to Robinson’s lawyers’ court papers, which further contend that the plaintiffs do not dispute that a statement unjustly accusing someone of criminal conduct such as sexual assault is not defamation on its face.
When Robinson “refused to cave to (plaintiffs’) extortionate actions, the Jane Does went to the police station to file criminal reports against Mr. Robinson,” according to the Robinson attorneys’ pleadings.
An alleged ongoing media campaign on the plaintiffs’ behalf often focuses on Robinson’s tour dates, the singer’s lawyers further contend, while adding that the impact on the Motown crooner’s touring and business opportunities has been “negative and significant.”
Because Robinson was allegedly defamed by statements made during a news conference, the remarks were not protected speech because the media was selectively invited and the event was therefore not a forum opened to the general public, according to the Robinson attorneys’ court papers.
The state’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute is intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights. A hearing on the plaintiffs’ anti-SLAPP motion is scheduled April 2.
Robinson’s wife, Frances Robinson, is a defendant in the underlying suit and a cross-complainant in the countersuit.