A woman sued by a Los Angeles plastic surgery practice for libel, slander, and false light was this week granted a quick and significant victory by the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles.
In court proceedings held Wednesday, Los Angeles Superior Court judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis granted the Special Motion to Strike (Anti-SLAPP motion), filed by Korean-American comedian and social media personality Tina Kim.
Ms. Kim filed the Motion in January in response to a lawsuit against her by WAVE Plastic Surgery, Inc.
Court records and the prevailing party’s attorney, Mr. Farzad Seyfnia, confirmed the win.
“The granting of the Anti-SLAPP motion is to the entirety of the complaint, resulting in the dismissal [of] the complaint,” attorney Seyfnia told the Times by email.
WAVE Plastic Surgery Inc., sued Tina Kim on December 7, seeking “not less than $250,000” in damages, after her videoed recollection of interactions she had with receptionists at one of the practice’s five locations reached 53,000 views on TikTok.
@kdramalogic My Review of walking into Wave Plastic Surgery Center in Koreatown, LA – horrible customer service in person & on phone even after one year they haven’t improved at all – I wouldn’t waste my time w this Wilshire location def go elsewhere #plasticsurgery #faceclinic #koreatownla #review #kdramalogic#CapCut ♬ Crickets in the countryside(1177489) – Deiko
Views of that video have since passed 203,000.
Prior to WAVE’s lawsuit and the appearance of its Founder and CEO, Dr. Peter Lee on FOX 11 Los Angeles to discuss it December 12, eight percent of the video’s views had originated from within the state of California according to TikTok analytics, Ms. Kim previously told the times.
The near quadrupling of views since then highlights the potential effect legal proceedings can have, particularly if unfounded or in contradiction to general public consensus.*
Now, a Superior Court judge agrees: “…the statements alleged in the Complaint are all non actionable opinion,” Superior Court judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis said in part.
“…the statements alleged in the Complaint are all non actionable opinion.”
Honorable Maureen Duffy-Lewis, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Civil Division. April 17, 2024
“Defendant meets her burden to show that the claim or causes of action arise from the furtherance of the right to petition or free speech.”
Of the Center’s False Light claim, judge Duffy-Lewis declared plaintiff Wave is a business and thus “cannot bring a false light (or any invasion of privacy) cause of action.”
“The Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) filed by Tina Kim on 01/09/2024 is Granted.”
Honorable Maureen Duffy-Lewis, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Civil Division. April 17, 2024
California’s anti-SLAPP laws provide an avenue against the use of lawsuits or the threat thereof to silence or intimidate persons exercising their First Amendment rights.
Kim’s legal counsel considered the lawsuit a “textbook example” of a SLAPP lawsuit, according to court filings and the Anti-SLAPP Motion seen by the Times.
Through its lawsuit, WAVE previously contended it suffered reputational harm that led to a decline in new customer sign-ups after the video was published.
Prevailing in her Anti-SLAPP Motion, Ms. Kim intends now to file a motion to recoup her attorney’s fees.
“California Code of Civil § 425.16, subdivision (c), mandates that ‘a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorneys’ fees and costs,’ Ms. Kim’s attorney, Farzad Seyfnia, told the Times.
The prevailing attorneys have yet to confirm if WAVE intends to file an appeal, but said that should it decide to, “Ms. Kim will firmly contest it.”
“We are confident in her prospects for success and believe that the Court’s decision will be affirmed. At which point, Ms. Kim will also recoup her attorney’s fees and costs incurred in relation to such frivolous appeal,” Seyfnia said.
“Ms. Kim has incurred and continues to incur significant damages, in addition to attorney’s fees in defending against Plaintiff Wave Plastic Surgery Center’s meritless complaint.”
Ms. Kim has informed the Times as much herself, detailing the hoops she went through to secure legal counsel and raise funds to defend herself.
In her legal fundraiser shared with the public, she likened the lawsuit to “suing a homeless person for their home.”
The fundraiser generated 4.11 percent of its intended goal of $40,000, prompting Ms. Kim to look elsewhere.
“It’s stressful for me because I had to give all my Korea money to the lawyer,” Ms. Kim told the Times in January.
Ms. Kim and her legal counsel also consider WAVE’s lawsuit amounts to “malicious prosecution,” and say they intend to have the court hear that, too.
“Once all appellate rights are over and the case fully adjudicated, Ms. Kim, through our office, intends to file a malicious prosecution action against Plaintiff Wave Plastic Surgery Center, its owner(s), and the attorney(s) of record in this action, for the damages they’ve caused Ms. Kim.
“Businesses and individuals should not employ the legal process to suppress criticism,” Mr. Seyfnia said.
“Instead, they should utilize it to enhance the customer experience. The First Amendment right to free speech is one of the cornerstones of this great country—where the unrestricted flow of speech enriches our society as a whole. The Court has correctly upheld this right, and any other court that hears this dispute will do the same.”
- $250,000: Comedian Sued Over Commentary, Critique of Cosmetic Surgery Center
- Sued by Surgery Center, Defamation Defendant Seeks Motion to Strike
* See: “Signature Clinic Sued Patients Who Left Bad Reviews, Wouldn’t Delete, Edit” and “Surgery Clinic Loses Legal Action Filed Against Former Patient Over Online Review,” and “Patient Sued by Surgeon Over Online Reviews Entitled to Seek Damages, Attorneys’ Fees: Appeals Court“