Law firm must face music over sexual assault suit against composer Danny Elfman

LOS ANGELES (CN) — A Superior Court judge on Tuesday rejected a bid by an unnamed woman and her former attorney to dismiss a wrongful prosecution lawsuit filed against them by famed composer Danny Elfman.

Evidence presented by Elfman, Superior Court Judge Mark Young wrote, showed that the woman’s law firm, Jeff Anderson & Associates, had “initiated the suit with malice,” having “lacked probable cause.”

“Plaintiffs put forth evidence that Anderson defendants’ true objective was to bolster their own reputations at Elfman’s expense and attracting new clients,” Young wrote, citing a number of news articles that were timed to go online when the complaint was filed, indicating that draft complaints had been provided to the reporters. One of the articles was then posted on Anderson’s website, along with an invitation for a “free consultation.”

The woman, identified in court documents only as “Jane Doe XX,” had sued Elfman over sexual assault accusations in 2023, claiming that he had coerced her into getting naked , and that the two would often sleep together in the same bed, though they didn’t have sex. In her complaint, she says that he later told her, “Every time you have ever slept next to me, I would masturbate next to you.”

The complaint included a telling caveat: “Plaintiff does not know if defendant Elfman physically touched her while he was masturbating and did not have a chance to ask him when he made the masturbation revelation, but she believes that it is highly probable that he did physically touch her in an effort to enhance his sexual gratification.”

Since touching is integral for a sexual assault cause of action, it was no small admission. In 2024, a judge dismissed the case because Jane Doe XX had “provided no evidence that she was sexually assaulted," with other causes of action being thrown out on statute of limitations grounds.

It was not the first time Elfman, the 72-year-old former lead singer of Oingo Bingo who wrote the theme music for “The Simpsons," had been sued over sexual misconduct by a woman represented by Anderson’s firm. Nomi Abadi, a former mentee of Elfman’s, had accused the famed composer of touching her inappropriately and masturbating in front of her in the 2010s. The two had signed a settlement agreement in 2018, with Elfman promising to pay Abadi $830,000, and Abadi agreeing to keep quiet.

But five years later, Abadi went public and told Rolling Stone Magazine that Elfman hadn’t paid up. The article included a stern retort from Elfman, who said Abadi had pursued him and tried to “break up my marriage and replace my wife.” Abadi then sued over defamation claims in a case that remains ongoing after a Superior Court judge rejected Elfman’s anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss.

Last year, Elfman sued Jane Doe XX and Jeff Anderson & Associates over accusations of malicious prosecution: “As the Jeff Anderson defendants demonstrated yet again, they are not reasonable attorneys.”

“The defendants knew Jane Doe XX had no viable claim against Mr. Elfman, but they sued him anyway,” Elfman wrote in the complaint. “They did so to ’expose’ Mr. Elfman publicly, believing that he was a high-profile target that they could use to bolster their business, and in the hopes that he would pay them unjustified settlement money to make it all go away. This is an inexcusable abuse of the legal system that cannot and should not be countenanced.”

In their anti-SLAPP motion, Anderson denied ever having made any settlement demand, though the firm did not answer the charge that the suit was filed in order to drum up business for the firm.

“No evidence of malice exists here,” the firm said. “At no time before or after the filing of the Doe action did anyone from the Anderson firm hold any feelings of ill will or malice towards Elfman.” Anderson noted that its attorneys “believed it was highly probable that on one or more of the approximately occasions Elfman said he masturbated next to Jane Doe he ejaculated on her — which would be a touching.”

“The record reflects Anderson defendants had no evidence that Doe was touched sexually by Elfman,” Young wrote in his ruling denying the anti-SLAPP motion. “Anderson defendants admit that they speculated about the possibility that Mr. Elfman could have**ejaculated on Doe or touched her because he supposedly told her that he had masturbated by her. This speculation suggests Anderson defendants drew logically flawed inferences from known facts.”

“Simply put,” the judge added, “Anderson defendants asserted multiple legal theories that were untenable under the facts known to them.”

Neither side offered oral arguments during a short hearing Tuesday morning, though Anderson’s attorney, Frank Nemecek, appearing remotely, suggested they might file an appeal. Nemecek did not respond to an email requesting a comment.

Elfman’s attorneys, Samuel Moniz and Camille Vasquez, who appeared at the hearing in person, said only that they were “pleased with the ruling.” The case remains ongoing.

Follow @hillelaron