The Estate of B.H., John Herndon, J.H., a minor, T.H., a minor, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Netflix Inc.
Published: Feb. 4, 2022 | Result Date: Jan. 11, 2022 |Case number: 4:21-cv-06561-YGR Bench Decision – Dismissal
Judge
Court
USDC Northern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Gregory Keenan
(Digital Justice Foundation)
Andrew Grimm
(Digital Justice Foundation)
Ryan A. Hamilton
(Hamilton Law LLC)
Defendant
Blanca F. Young
(Munger & Tolles & Olson LLP)
Jennifer L. Bryant
(Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP)
Cory M. Batza
(Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP)
Facts
In March 2017, Netflix released its series, 13 Reasons Why. The series was adapted from a popular novel of the same name, and it depicts the anecdotes described in audio recordings by the series' main character, Hannah Baker, explaining the reasons behind her suicide. In the novel, Baker's suicide is carried out via a pill overdose. Netflix's version, however, was a three-minute long scene of Baker slashing her wrists, suffering, and dying in a bathtub. The show quickly became a streaming hit, and it was the subject of much discussion and media coverage. In April 2017, John Herndon's minor daughter, B.H., committed suicide. Herndon filed suit against Netflix on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that Defendant produced a product that posed a serious health risk to teens; that ordinary viewers would not have been aware of this risk; that Defendant failed to warn viewers, particularly younger viewers, of the dangers of viewing its series; that Defendant was negligent; that Defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of B.H.'s and numerous other teens' suicides; and that Plaintiffs had suffered irreparable harm as a result of these deaths. Plaintiffs further alleged that a 28.9 percent increase in child suicides in the month following the series' debut was attributable to the series.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all material allegations and any wrongdoing. Defendant further contended that the content and release of the series were acts in furtherance of its right to free speech in connection with an issue of public concern.
Result
The court granted Netflix Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, holding that the series and its release were protected by California's anti-SLAPP statute, and therefore, Plaintiffs could not proceed with their claims.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390