Belen v. Ryan Seacrest Productions
Filed 6/29/21, Certified for Publication (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California's anti-SLAPP statute, a plaintiff alleging privacy and emotional distress torts based on the unauthorized filming and broadcast of their nude body in a designated private changing area during a public event can demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits, even if the general act of creating a television show constitutes protected activity.
Facts:
- Kiara Belen, a well-known model, participated in a fashion show for designer Erik Rosete during Los Angeles Fashion Week on October 11, 2016.
- Ryan Seacrest Productions, LLC, Ryan Seacrest Enterprises, Inc., Truly Original, LLC, and Bravo Media, LLC (appellants) were involved in filming, producing, and disseminating the reality series "Shahs of Sunset," parts of which focused on the fashion show.
- During the fashion show, Belen changed clothes in a designated "second changing room" that was described as a small, secluded, enclosed suite, highly secured by a guard, and meant for high-profile or celebrity models.
- Appellants filmed Belen in this dressing area without her knowledge or consent, capturing her "nearly completely nude body," including her exposed breasts, wearing only underwear.
- In the same footage, a cast member, Shervin Roohparvar, exclaimed, "I just walked into this room and there are nothing but naked models running around, you know . . . its . . . its so awesome!"
- The episode also showed Belen walking the runway, during which another cast member, Reza Ferahan, referred to her as "this bitch."
- On July 30, 2017, Bravo aired episode 3 of season 6 of "Shahs of Sunset," which included the footage of Belen.
- After the episode aired, Belen's friends contacted her about her appearance, causing her extreme emotional distress, which was exacerbated by a prior sexual assault and her pregnancy at the time.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 29, 2019, Kiara Belen filed a complaint against Ryan Seacrest Productions, LLC, Ryan Seacrest Enterprises, Inc., Truly Original, LLC, and Bravo Media, LLC in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging intrusion/right to privacy, tortious appropriation of name or likeness, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), and negligence.
- On November 12, 2019, defendants (appellants) filed an answer and a special motion to strike Belen's complaint under California's anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16), arguing her claims arose from protected activity (production and broadcast of a television show) and she was unlikely to prevail on the merits.
- Belen opposed the anti-SLAPP motion, contending her causes of action did not arise from protected activity (due to alleged illegality) and she had established a probability of prevailing on her claims.
- On February 14, 2020, the trial court denied the defendants' special motion to strike, agreeing that the acts complained of constituted protected activity but finding that Belen had established a probability of prevailing on the merits of her causes of action.
- Defendants appealed the trial court's order to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff demonstrate a probability of prevailing on claims for intrusion upon privacy, misappropriation of likeness, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence, sufficient to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion, where a reality television show filmed and broadcast her nearly nude body in a private dressing area without her consent?
Opinions:
Majority - Stratton, J.
Yes, a plaintiff demonstrates a probability of prevailing on claims for intrusion upon privacy, misappropriation of likeness, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence, sufficient to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion, where a reality television show filmed and broadcast her nearly nude body in a private dressing area without her consent. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that while the production and broadcast of a television show generally constitute protected activity under the first prong of the anti-SLAPP statute, Belen demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits of her claims under the second prong. The court rejected appellants' argument that certain defendants were not involved, noting evidence in the episode itself (e.g., executive producer credits) and the broad definition of "involvement" including distribution, which Brooks' declaration did not negate as a matter of law. It also clarified that the Flatley illegal conduct exception did not apply because illegality was neither conceded by appellants nor conclusively established as a matter of law by Belen at this preliminary stage. For Intrusion/Invasion of Privacy, Belen established a reasonable expectation of privacy in the guarded, secluded dressing room, and that the filming and broadcast of her nearly nude body without consent was highly offensive to a reasonable person. For Tortious Misappropriation of Name or Likeness, Belen showed the use of her face and nearly nude body, without consent, for appellants' commercial advantage, particularly when the footage was used for promotional clips and as visual emphasis in conjunction with a cast member's comments. For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, the court found appellants' conduct outrageous, specifically highlighting the intentional or reckless exploitation of Belen's intimate body parts for "visual emphasis" of a cast member's exclamation about "naked models." Belen's sworn statements also established severe emotional distress and causation. For Negligence, the court noted the industry standard to obtain releases and the legal duty to disclose filming in a private, guarded dressing room. Belen's evidence that she was unaware of filming, despite appellants' claims of announcements, created a factual dispute sufficient to show minimal merit. The court concluded that having one's nearly nude body filmed and broadcast without consent would cause any reasonable person serious emotional distress. The court modified the judgment to strike the separate cause of action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, clarifying it is not an independent tort but part of the general negligence claim.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the limits of anti-SLAPP protections when challenged activities involve serious privacy invasions, even within a broader "public interest" context like reality television. It underscores that while artistic expression is broadly protected, it does not automatically shield defendants from liability for torts like intrusion upon privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress when highly offensive, non-consensual conduct occurs. The ruling highlights the evidentiary burden on plaintiffs at the anti-SLAPP second prong, demonstrating that a prima facie showing of merit, rather than conclusive proof, is sufficient to proceed to discovery and trial. The modification regarding NIED clarifies a common misconception about emotional distress torts in California.
