Kirby v. Wiseman
1:24-cv-12015
D. Mass.Jun 24, 2025Background
- The case involves a dispute between former friends and fellow survivors of the Twelve Tribes religious cult, centering on competing allegations of sexual assault, extortion, and defamation.
- Plaintiff Jesse Kirby alleges the defendants (Kate Wiseman, Randall Petit, and Avivah Delabruere) conspired to falsely accuse him of sexual assault, demand $300,000, and threaten his reputation and business.
- Defendants counter that Kirby’s suit is itself an act of abuse, intended to extort, harass, and punish them, and assert their own claims for abuse of process, assault, and battery.
- The court addressed motions to dismiss under the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP statute and under Rule 12(b)(6) for statute of limitations.
- Procedurally, the court considered dismissal of various counterclaims and claims, with both sides invoking the anti-SLAPP law to argue for early dismissal and attorney’s fees.
- Key factual disputes revolve around the nature of threats, whether any allegedly extortionate conduct was independent of the litigation, and the timeliness of the asserted tort claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-SLAPP: Dismissal of Wiseman and Petit counterclaims 6-11 | Claims are based solely on protected petitioning (Kirby's lawsuit) | Claims relate to Kirby's alleged extortion/harassment motive for suing | Dismissed under anti-SLAPP; counterclaims based only on petitioning activity |
| Anti-SLAPP: Dismissal of Kirby's affirmative claims | Claims are based on defendants' independent extortionate conduct | Kirby actually sued to deter protected petitioning (restraining order) | Denied; claims not solely based on defendants' petitioning activity |
| Statute of Limitations: Certain counterclaims (1-5) | Assault claims before July 31, 2021 are time-barred | Some conduct may fall within limitations; affidavit mentions an incident in 2022 | Dismissed only to the extent counterclaims depend on acts before July 31, 2021 |
| Sufficiency of Factual Support (anti-SLAPP step 2) | Counterclaims are meritless and lack reasonable basis | Dispute underlying facts but offer few specifics; assert suit was solely punitive or extortive | Counterclaimants failed burden; mere contradictory affidavits don't show claim devoid of basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Prods. Corp., 427 Mass. 156 (Mass. 1998) (establishing framework for anti-SLAPP motions in Massachusetts)
- 477 Harrison Ave., LLC v. JACE Bos., LLC, 477 Mass. 162 (Mass. 2017) (filing a lawsuit as quintessential petitioning activity under anti-SLAPP)
- Bristol Asphalt, Co. v. Rochester Bituminous Prods., Inc., 493 Mass. 539 (Mass. 2024) (two-step burden shifting for anti-SLAPP dismissal)
- Millenium Equity Holdings, LLC v. Mahlowitz, 456 Mass. 627 (Mass. 2010) (defining abuse of process under Massachusetts law)
- White v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mass., Inc., 442 Mass. 64 (Mass. 2004) (elements of defamation in Massachusetts)
- Koe v. Mercer, 450 Mass. 97 (Mass. 2007) (accrual and discovery rule for Massachusetts tort statutes of limitations)