Bernstein v. LaBeouf
43 Cal.App.5th 15
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- April 5, 2017: At Jerry’s Famous Deli, bartender David Bernstein refused to serve Shia LaBeouf and his companion alcohol because they appeared intoxicated.
- LaBeouf entered the bar well, advanced toward Bernstein, who raised a vodka bottle in self-defense; security removed LaBeouf.
- As he was escorted out, LaBeouf shouted that Bernstein was a “racist” and urged the crowd to “wake up.” Video footage was widely publicized.
- Bernstein sued LaBeouf for assault, slander per se, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- LaBeouf moved to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (§ 425.16), arguing his statements were protected speech on a matter of public interest; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding LaBeouf’s conduct and statements concerned a private dispute and were not protected as matters of public interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bernstein’s claims arise from activity protected by § 425.16 as speech on a matter of public interest | Bernstein argued the statements and conduct were private and not part of public debate; the claims arise from an interpersonal altercation | LaBeouf argued his statements (calling Bernstein a “racist”) and related conduct occurred in public, were widely disseminated, and concerned racism — a public issue — so they are protected | Held: Not protected — the incident was a private dispute; statements did not meaningfully contribute to public discourse on racism |
| Whether LaBeouf’s celebrity status makes his everyday conduct automatically a matter of public interest | Bernstein: celebrity status alone cannot convert private disputes into public issues | LaBeouf: his celebrity ensures public interest in his conduct, so anti-SLAPP protection applies | Held: Rejected — celebrity status alone is insufficient; focus is on the specific content and its relation to public discourse (FilmOn) |
| Whether use of the term “racist” converted the altercation into public-issue speech | Bernstein: the word was used as epithets in a private dispute and did not engage public debate | LaBeouf: invoking racism ties the incident to a matter of significant public concern | Held: Rejected — context shows the term was name-calling in a private altercation, not aimed to advance public discussion of racism |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 7 Cal.5th 871 (discussing scope of anti-SLAPP protection)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (explaining two-step anti-SLAPP test)
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (procedural guidance on anti-SLAPP record)
- FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc., 7 Cal.5th 133 (focus on content and functional relationship to public conversation)
- Weinberg v. Feisel, 110 Cal.App.4th 1122 (public interest not mere curiosity; private dispute vs. public issue)
- D.C. v. R.R., 182 Cal.App.4th 1190 (refusing to treat speech about a nonpublic person as public-issue speech)
- Hall v. Time Warner, Inc., 153 Cal.App.4th 1337 (contrast: speech tied to an existing public probate proceeding warranted anti-SLAPP protection)
- Paulus v. Bob Lynch Ford, Inc., 139 Cal.App.4th 659 (standard of appellate review for anti-SLAPP rulings)
- Albanese v. Menounos, 218 Cal.App.4th 923 (emphasizing that focus must be public interest, not private controversy)