According to pitchfork.com Michael Milosh‘s alleged lawsuit against Alexa Nikolas’s attorneys for malicious prosecution was allegedly tossed out during a hearing in Los Angeles County Superior Court on February 9. According to the court’s records there will be a case management conference in Los Angeles on May 10.
Nikolas allegedly sued Milosh in 2021 for alleged sexual battery, gender violence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. Also Nikolas allegedly dropped her lawsuit in May 2022 where Milosh allegedly sued his ex-wife for more than $10 million in damages. The musician’s alleged complaint against the attorneys referred to Nikolas’s alleged litigation as “frivolous” and without “legal basis or factual support.”
Nikolas’s attorneys allegedly filed a motion to hit Milosh’s lawsuit as an alleged unlawful strategic lawsuit against public participation which is known as an anti-SLAPP motion. The anti-SLAPP motion allegedly put burden on Milosh’s team to show the alleged malicious prosecution claim.
Nikolas’s attorneys allegedly first argued that the lawsuit was allegedly protected under the First Amendment right of petition. Then Milosh’s attorneys allegedly countered by arguing that Nikolas’s team allegedly engaged in the unprotected activity of “extortion” but Judge Yolanda Orozco did mention that Milosh offered insufficient evidence of conduct amounting to extortion and the judge therefore allegedly sided with Nikolas’s attorneys in the first step in establishing Milosh’s lawsuit as an alleged strategic lawsuit against public participation.
The second part of the anti-SLAPP motion process allegedly required Milosh’s team to establish the probability of alleged success in a malicious prosecution lawsuit. Judge Orozco allegedly agreed that Nikolas’alleged voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit amounted to a “favorable termination of [the] underlying action in [Milosh’s] favor.” Also the judge allegedly outlined how Milosh’s team failed to illustrate a lack of probable cause or malice.
“Since defendants had probable cause in filing the underlying action, plaintiff cannot meet the malice element as a matter of law,” Orozco wrote. “Accordingly, plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim fails, and the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion is granted.” The court allegedly awarded the defendants $5,760 to cover fees and costs.
Details from Thursday’s hearing allegedly revealed a possible reason for why Nikolas allegedly dismissed her initial lawsuit against Milosh in May 2022. Milosh’s attorneys allegedly noted that Nikolas and Milosh both signed a “stipulated judgment” with a “general release of all claims either [Milosh] or Ms. Nikolas may have against each other.” The alleged agreement in question was signed on May 17, 2019 and according to records that was also the day the couple’s divorce was finalized.
One of the defendants, Karen Barth Menzies, allegedly noted that she was not aware of the stipulated judgment’s terms until after Nikolas’s alleged lawsuit was filed.
“Menzies asserts that after learning of the release language in the stipulation and judgment in the divorce proceeding, she communicated to plaintiff’s counsel that she had no intention of further prosecuting the case unless and until the judgment was set aside in family court,” the hearing’s minutes read.
The minutes also note: “Barth Menzies asserts that she believed Nikolas’s claims had merit. Barth Menzies relied on Nikolas’ ‘open letter’ on Instagram, before and during the pendency of the underlying action. She believed Nikolas’ allegations to be true and never received any information to show that the allegations were untrue, taken out of context, or fabricated.”
When Pitchfork reached for a comment, Karen Barth Menzies allegedly said, “This legal ordeal has been difficult, but I consider this anti-SLAPP ruling a badge of honor earned in the defense of the survivors of sexual assault.”
Leave a Comment