Courtney Love loses bid to dismiss suit by daughter’s ex-husband

A superior court judge denied Courtney Love's request to dismiss a lawsuit from her daughter's ex-husband, who claims Love helped orchestrate his kidnapping and attempted murder in a bid to recover the guitar of dead Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain.

Plaintiff Isaiah Silva said Love, along with her now-estranged business manager Sam Lutfi, sent numerous threatening texts to him in the wake of the dissolution of his marriage with her daughter Frances Bean Cobain demanding the guitar's return, according to his complaint. Silva claimed the guitar, a 1959 Remy Martin Cobain owned prior to his 1994 death, had been a gift from his fiancée.

After he refused, Silva said Lutfi and Love threatened his friends to obtain security codes for his home. On the night of June 3, 2016, Silva said Lutfi, along with two others named as defendants in the suit, broke into his home and kidnapped him in the presence of a friend. Silva v. Love, BC707927 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed August 31, 2016).

The friend reported the kidnapping to police, Silva said, and officers later stopped the car with Lutfi and Silva near Hollywood Boulevard. But police left after Silva, who said Lutfi threatened to harm his seven-year-old daughter if he spoke out to responding officers, told them the men were "old college friends" who had pranked him.

Realizing he'd be unable to move forward with his murder plot, which Silva claims they'd planned to cover up by hacking his phone and sending messages implyng Silva was committing suicide, Lutfi returned Silva home.

Over the next few hours, Silva claims Lutfi attempted to pressure him into signing a settlement agreement guaranteeing the turnover of the guitar. The agreement was drawn up by attorney Marc Gans, who is also named as a defendant in the case.

Love and her co-defendants, including Lutfi and Los Angeles sole practitioner Gans, sought to have the case dismissed under anti-SLAPP, reasoning Silva's complaint was entirely reliant on his statements and opinions. The argument didn't seem to sit well with Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Randolph Hammock, who excoriated the anti-SLAPP defense in a final ruling made public Friday.

Hammock said both sides were engaging in "grunge litigation," referencing Love and Cobain's musical genre and claiming the two sides "needlessly smear" each other throughout the filings in "punk rock" style.

He was particularly critical of the defendant's argument that Silva's claims -- including negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, extortion and stalking -- should be dismissed on First Amendment grounds. Defendants claimed anti-SLAPP applied because the cause of action arises from statements made to a law enforcement official and in the course of "settlement negotiations."

Hammock said they might have a point, if plaintiff's claims were based on Lutfi's statements to police, which they aren't.

"Defendants' argument that communications are protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute elicits a big shrug and a 'so what?'" Hammock said.

Mocking the idea that statements made over the course of the alleged kidnapping would be written off as "settlement negotiations," there's no shortage of sarcasm in Hammock's order. Examining the defense's argument for dismissing a negligence claim, he questioned their apparent belief that the claim is based on harm caused by Lutfi's false statements to police made in the course of Silva's kidnapping.

"So, perhaps the defendants can explain to the court," Hammock wrote, shifting to bold, capital letters. "WHAT HARM WAS INFLICTED UPON PLAINTIFF WHEN THESE WORDS (or any words) WERE UTTERED FROM LUTFI'S MOUTH TO THE OFFICERS' EARS?"

"[Sounds of crickets chirping]," the judge added.

Lincoln Bandlow, a First Amendment attorney at Fox Rothschild LLP not involved in the case, said speech can't be incidental to what's allegedly causing harm when citing anti-SLAPP law.

"If you were to say, 'I ran someone over with my car, and then the cops took statements,' the case is not about the statements. It's about you running someone over with your car," Bandlow said.

Douglas Unger, a family law practitioner who took up Silva's case after previously representing him in divorce proceedings, said he was satisfied with the ruling, calling the ordeal itself "unfortunate."

"Thank goodness we have the civil courts system," Unger said.

Defense counsel Martin Singer of Lavely & Singer APC did not respond to a request for comment.