John Travolta Fails To SLAPP His Ex-Pilot

I came across a particularly juicy lawsuit the other day involving John Travolta, his former pilot and an alleged affair between the two.

Despite the sensational nature of this possibility, the juicy part actually lies in Travolta’s representation’s creative use of California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

By Dylan Ashe from San Jose, USA (John Travolta) [CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Legal Terminology

Before we begin discussing the case, we should get a few of the legal terms out of the way. The important terms we will be examining today are “anti-SLAPP statute,” “declaratory relief” and “pre-litigation demand letter.”

• Pre-litigation demand letter – A pre-litigation demand letter is any letter sent that ostensibly seeks to make demands that, if agreed to, would preclude the need to have a lawsuit. The most common form – and the one used in this case – is the trusty “cease and desist” letter.
• Declaratory relief – Declaratory relief is another pre-litigation tool. This refers to a judgment made by a court that determines the rights of parties, but does not order anything done or award damages. Frequently, declaratory relief is used to determine the correct interpretation of a contract.
• Anti-SLAPP statute – SLAPP stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” and refers to any lawsuit that is intended to chill or hinder free speech by burdening the speaker with the cost of legal defense. In other words, if I were to write that a certain brand was completely worthless, I would be in my legal right to do so. However, I might be forced to comply with a cease and desist letter because I know that going to court would be too expensive – even if I won. Anti-SLAPP statutes are designed to prevent this type of lawsuit.

The Case

Douglas Gotterba worked as John Travolta’s personal pilot from 1981 to 1987 before quitting voluntarily. Before leaving the company, however, he allegedly signed a termination agreement. Both sides agree that there was such an agreement, but Atlo, Inc., Travolta’s aircraft company, claims that this agreement included a confidentiality clause. Gotterba disagrees. Both sides have presented their own version of a contract.

In mid-2012, Gotterba told the National Enquirer that he planned to publish a “kiss-and-tell” book detailing his six-year-long affair with Mr. Travolta. Atlo’s attorney, Martin Singer, responded to this with a cease and desist letter that demanded he stop making such statements, citing the confidentiality clause.

The Law Suit

Gotterba sued Atlo, Travolta and Travolta’s production company later that year seeking declaratory relief stating that the agreement produced by Atlo is not valid. This is where things get interesting.

Atlo asked Santa Barbara Superior Court to strike Gotterba’s action for declaratory relief on the grounds that this action was filed to prevent Travolta from exercising his right to send pre-litigation demand letters. In essence, Atlo’s anti-SLAPP filing asked the court to protect Travolta’s right to send cease and desist letters demanding that Gotterba remain silent and it asks the court to do this by refusing to make a judgment on the validity of Gotterba’s contract.

Quite correctly, the court denied Atlo’s motion, as did the appeals court, stating that Atlo has misconstrued the purpose of Gotterba’s complaint. In fact, the appeals court concluded that accepting Atlo’s argument in this case would lead to an “absurd result.”

Gotterba may indeed lose his claim in declaratory relief – that isn’t the point. The point, in my opinion, is the absurdity of Atlo’s position: Using a statute designed to protect free speech in an attempt to silence a less well-financed party is precisely the opposite of the statute’s purpose.