Danny Elfman unlikely to escape defamation lawsuit over sexual misconduct denial

LOS ANGELES (CN) — An LA County Superior Court Judge on Friday signaled that she was not likely to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed against famed composer Danny Elfman.

Elfman, the 71-year-old former lead singer of Oingo Bingo who wrote the theme music for “The Simpsons” and the score for numerous movies, was sued earlier this year by Nomi Abadi, a musician and composer. Abadi accuses Elfman of sexual misconduct — including touching her inappropriately, masturbating in front of her and “placing his bodily fluids” in a martini glass and then presenting the glass to her — in the mid-2010s, when the two shared a mentor-mentee relationship.

In 2018, at the height of the Me Too movement, Elfman and Abadi signed a settlement agreement over the sexual harassment claims. Elfman agreed to pay Abadi $830,000, and Abadi signed a nondisclosure agreement.

Abadi first sued Elfman last year for breach of contract, saying that he hadn’t paid the full amount. Rolling Stone published an article about the lawsuit, the sexual misconduct claims and the $830,000 settlement. It included a strongly worded statement by Elfman, in which he denied any misconduct and sought to shift the blame for the dispute onto Abadi, saying the younger musician had a “childhood crush” on Elfman, 35 years her senior, and intended to “break up my marriage and replace my wife.”

Abadi sued Elfman again in July, this time for defamation.“In publicly branding Nomi as a liar, and a failed temptress who lied about him for reasons of revenge and greed, Elfman and his representatives defamed Nomi,” she wrote.

Elfman filed an anti-SLAPP motion, a legal tactic used to quickly dismiss lawsuits aimed at limiting one’s free speech and public participation. Elfman’s lawyers argued that his statement to Rolling Stone was protected activity because it was made in anticipation of litigation against Rolling Stone.

On Friday, Superior Court Judge Gail Killefer said she was inclined to deny the motion.

The litigation privilege doesn’t apply, the judge found. Elfman’s lawyers had sent Rolling Stone’s editor and general counsel a letter essentially asking them not to publish the article about Abadi’s 2023 lawsuit. The letter was off the record, with the exception of one paragraph, which was Elfman’s statement to be published in the article.

“In responding to Rolling Stone’s inquiry and authorizing Rolling Stone to publish a certain statement, defendant Elfman’s March 2023 letter functions as a press release rather than a demand letter,” Judge Killefer wrote in her tentative ruling. The letter, she wrote, was “more as a means of rebutting allegations of sexual misconduct rather than a prelitigation demand.”

Elfman’s attorney, Samuel Moniz, a partner at Sheppard Mullin, asked the judge to reconsider.

“The core function of this letter was to prevent Rolling Stone from publishing the article,” Moniz said. If Elfman wanted to sue Rolling Stone for defamation, he would have to prove malice.

The letter, Moniz said, was meant to put the magazine on notice and to “attack Ms. Abadi’s credibility” and “lay out contrary facts.”

Moniz also pointed out the curious timing of the article: the 3,000-word feature-length story was published the same day the lawsuit was filed, meaning reporters likely were alerted to the lawsuit before it was filed.

“To the extent that Ms. Abadi deliberately caused the publication of this article, she doesn’t get to sue over it,” Moniz argued. “She knew the article was going to run, she knew it was going to contain his denial.”

Abadi’s attorney, Alice Gilbert of Ellis George, called that argument “pure conjecture.” But it seemed to carry some weight with the judge, who questioned Gilbert about it.

“Circumstantially, isn’t it odd that the article would come out the same day the complaint is filed?” Killefer asked. “I find that problematic.”

Another one of Abadi’s attorneys, Trent Copeland, a partner at Ellis George, insisted, “We believe that Ms. Abadi did not consent to this, nor did she cause article to be published.”

Killefer took the arguments under submission; she did not issue a final ruling — though she did offer a comment, in closing, urging the parties to come to a resolution.

“From 10,000-foot view, it doesn’t make a lot of sense that they have a settlement agreement and then this case comes down the pike,” Killefer said. “It just doesn’t pass the smell test. I would encourage the parties to meet.”

Should the anti-SLAPP motion be denied, Elfman’s attorneys will likely file an appeal, or file a motion for the case to be sent to arbitration.

Follow @hillelaron