Case 1:21-cv-10894-MLW Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 1 of 14
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`JOHN B. WILSON, LESLIE B. WILSON, and JOHN
`B. WILSON, JR.,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`v.
`
`NETFLIX, INC., NETFLIX WORLDWIDE
`ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, 241C FILMS, LLC,
`LIBRARY FILMS, LLC, JON KARMEN, and CHRIS
`SMITH,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`NO. 1:21-cv-10894
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, Defendants Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”),
`Netflix Worldwide Entertainment, LLC (“NWE”), 241C Library Films, LLC (“241C”), Library
`Films, LLC (“LF”), Jon Karmen (“Karmen”), and Chris Smith (“Smith”) (collectively, “the
`Defendants”) hereby remove the above-captioned case, presently pending in the Superior Court of
`Essex County, Massachusetts and bearing Civil Action No. 2177CV00388, to the United States
`District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
`Removal is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because, but for the misjoined claims asserted
`by Plaintiff John B. Wilson, Jr. (“Wilson Jr.”), there is complete diversity of citizenship between
`the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of
`interest and costs. In further support of this Notice, Defendants state as follows:
`BACKGROUND
`On April 6, 2021, Plaintiffs commenced this action in the Superior Court of Essex
`1.
`County, Massachusetts. See Exhibits 1 (Complaint), Exhibits 2-8 (Exhibits to Complaint).
`
`DB1/ 121542602.9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10894-MLW Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 2 of 14
`
`The complaint alleges one count for defamation against all Defendants arising out
`2.
`of the Netflix documentary Operation Varsity Blues: The College Admissions Scandal (the
`“Film”).
`3.
`counsel.
`
`On April 28, 2021, Defendants accepted service of process through undersigned
`
`GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL
`Section 1441(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides in relevant part that
`4.
`“any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have
`original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of
`the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”
`28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
`5.
`Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions where the
`matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
`between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
`A.
`Diversity Jurisdiction
`6.
`This action may be removed to this Court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1441
`because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and because
`this is an action between citizens of different states (see 28 U.S.C. § 1332), excluding Plaintiff
`Wilson, Jr., who has been misjoined in this action. As a misjoined plaintiff, Wilson Jr.’s
`citizenship is immaterial to the diversity inquiry, for the reasons stated below.
`i.
`Diversity of Citizenship and Misjoinder of Plaintiff Wilson, Jr.
`7.
` Plaintiffs John B. Wilson, Sr. (“Wilson Sr.”) and Leslie B. Wilson (“Mrs. Wilson”)
`are residents of Lynnfield, Essex County, Massachusetts. See Complaint, Ex. 1, ¶¶ 4-5.
`Accordingly, Wilson Sr. and Mrs. Wilson are citizens of Massachusetts.
`8.
`Defendant Netflix is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in
`California. Id. ¶ 7. Accordingly, Netflix is a citizen of Delaware and California. See 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1332(c)(1).
`
`DB1/ 121542602.9
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10894-MLW Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 3 of 14
`
`Defendant NWE is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of
`9.
`business in the State of California. Complaint, Ex. 1, ¶ 8. Accordingly, NWE is a citizen of
`Delaware and California.
`10.
`Defendant 241C is a California limited liability company with a principal place of
`business in the State of California. Id. ¶ 9. Accordingly, 241C is a citizen of California.
`11.
`The Complaint alleges that Defendant LF is a California limited liability company
`with a principal place of business in the State of California. Id. ¶ 10. LF is in fact a limited
`liability company organized under the laws of Wisconsin.
`12.
`Defendant Karmen is a resident of and therefore a citizen of California. Id. ¶ 11.
`13.
`The Complaint alleges that Defendant Smith is a resident of California. Id. ¶ 12.
`He is in fact a resident of Wisconsin and therefore a citizen of Wisconsin.
`14.
`The Complaint alleges that Wilson Jr. is a resident of Los Angeles, California and
`therefore a citizen of the California. Id. ¶ 6.
`15.
`There would be complete diversity of citizenship between the Plaintiffs and all
`Defendants but for the joinder of Wilson Jr. as a plaintiff. Wilson Jr.’s citizenship is immaterial
`to the diversity analysis, however, because he has been improperly joined as a plaintiff to defeat
`diversity jurisdiction. See Universal Truck & Equip. Co. v. Southworth–Milton, Inc., 765 F.3d
`103, 108 (1st Cir. 2014) (“removal is not defeated by the joinder of a non-diverse defendant where
`there is no reasonable possibility that the state’s highest court would find that the complaint states
`a cause of action upon which relief may be granted against the non-diverse defendant”); see also
`Antony v. Duty Free Americas, Inc., No. 09-10862-NMG, 2009 WL 10694418 at *2 (D. Mass.
`Dec. 3, 2009) (“A mere theoretical possibility of recovery under state law does not suffice to
`preclude removal.”) (citing Badon v. RJR Nabsico, Inc., 236 F.3d 282, 286 n. 4 (5th Cir. 2005));
`Carey v. Bd. of Governors of Kernwood Country Club, 337 F. Supp. 2d 339, 343 (D. Mass. 2004)
`(improper joinder found where plaintiff “failed to state a viable cause of action” against
`defendants); Mills v. Allegiance Healthcare Corp., 178 F. Supp. 2d 1, 4 (D. Mass. 2001)
`
`DB1/ 121542602.9
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10894-MLW Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 4 of 14
`
`(“linchpin” of analysis is “whether the joinder of the nondiverse party has a reasonable basis in
`law and fact.”).
`ii.
`Amount in Controversy
`16.
`Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered, and continue to suffer, “substantial harm
`and damages” and claim entitlement to “significant monetary damages.” Complaint, Ex. 1, ¶ 46.
`17.
`The amount in controversy in this action, exclusive of interest and costs, therefore
`exceeds the sum of $75,000. See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S.
`81, 89 (2014) (holding that “a defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible
`allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold”).
`THE MISJOINDER OF WILSON JR.
`18. Wilson Jr. has no viable claim of defamation against the Defendants for three
`independent reasons:
`(a)
`The Film does not contain any defamatory statements that are of and concerning
`Wilson Jr.;
`(b)
`The Film is a privileged fair report of court records and proceedings; and
`(c) Wilson Jr.’s claims are (i) governed by California law and (ii) barred by
`California’s anti-SLAPP statute, CAL. CODE OF CIV. PROC. § 425.16.
`A.
`United States v. John B. Wilson, Sr.
`19.
`On March 29, 2019, the United States Attorney’s Office announced that “[d]ozens
`of individuals involved in a nationwide conspiracy that facilitated cheating on college entrance
`exams and the admission of students to elite universities as purported athletic recruits were
`arrested by federal agents . . . and charged in federal court in Boston.”1 Among those arrested
`was Plaintiff Wilson Sr., who was then charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest
`
`1 See Arrests Made in Nationwide College Admissions Scam: Alleged Exam Cheating & Athletic
`Recruitment Scheme, U.S. DOJ (Mar. 12, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/arrests-
`made-nationwide-college-admissions-scam-alleged-exam-cheating-athletic.
`
`DB1/ 121542602.9
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10894-MLW Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 5 of 14
`
`services mail fraud.” Id. (The government later charged Wilson Sr. with eight additional
`offenses.)
`In a Memorandum and Order dated November 25, 2020, the United States District
`20.
`Court Judge presiding over Wilson Sr.’s prosecution made the following findings:
`
`Defendant John Wilson . . . has been charged, alongside 30 other parents, with
`conspiring with William “Rick” Singer (“Singer”) to have his children fraudulently
`admitted into an elite university by falsifying their athletic credentials and bribing
`university employees and athletic coaches.
`***
`In the spring of 2013, Wilson hired Singer to assist his son in his college application
`process. Wilson’s son played high school water polo but was not qualified to play
`on the varsity water polo team at the University of Southern California (“USC”).
`Singer, nonetheless, communicated with the water polo coach at USC, Jovan Vavic
`(“Vavic”), about having Wilson’s son accepted to USC as a “bench warmer side
`door” water polo recruit. Wilson, Singer and Vavic planned specifically to have
`Wilson’s son “recruited” as a walk-on in exchange for a “donation” to USC. In
`executing that plan, Singer embellished the athletic profile of Wilson’s son to
`include fabricated awards.
`
`Wilson’s son was admitted to USC in March, 2014, after which Wilson “donated”
`approximately $220,000 to USC via Singer's charity, the Key Worldwide
`Foundation (“KWF”), and his for-profit consulting business, The Key. His son
`subsequently enrolled in the university and joined the water polo team which he
`quit after his first semester.
`
`In the fall of 2018, Wilson contacted Singer again, this time inquiring about using
`the “side door” to improve the college opportunities for his twin daughters. Singer,
`who was cooperating with law enforcement by that time, explained to Wilson that
`his daughters could be recruited for the sailing or crew teams at Stanford and
`Harvard but would not actually have to participate on either team. Wilson
`subsequently wired multiple payments in the aggregate of $1.5 million to Singer
`and his “foundation.”
`
`***
`With respect to Wilson specifically, the affidavit [of FBI Special Agent Laura
`Smith] asserts that he conspired with Singer 1) to bribe the water polo coach at USC
`to designate his son as a recruited USC water polo player in order to ensure his
`son’s admission into that school and 2) to bribe university employees at Stanford
`and Harvard to secure the admission of his daughters as recruited athletes in those
`schools.2
`
`United States v. John Wilson, D. Mass. 1:19-cr-10080-NMG, Dkt. # 1649 at 1-4.
`
`2 Wilson Sr.’s daughters are not plaintiffs in this case.
`
`DB1/ 121542602.9
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10894-MLW Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 6 of 14
`
`The Film Has No Defamatory Statements “Of and Concerning” Wilson Jr.
`B.
`In order to be actionable as defamation, a publication must contain a defamatory
`21.
`statement that is “of and concerning” the libel plaintiff. The requirement has constitutional roots.
`See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 288, 292 (1964).
`22.
`The of and concerning requirement contains two components. The first addresses
`whether the plaintiff was identifiable to the audience. This can be done by showing “either that
`the defendant intended its words to refer to the plaintiff and that they were so understood, or that
`the defendant’s words reasonably could be interpreted to refer to the plaintiff and that the
`defendant was negligent in publishing them in such a way that they could be so understood[.]”
`Eyal v. Helen Broadcasting Corp., 411 Mass. 426, 430, 231, 583 N.E.2d 228, 231 (1991).
`23.
` The second requirement is that the statement about the plaintiff be defamatory of
`the plaintiff. See id. at 433, 583 N.E.2d at 232 (“the context in which the defendants’ statement
`was spoken and received has importance only if the statement itself can be reasonably susceptible
`of a defamatory meaning as to the [plaintiff]”). See also Antony, 2009 WL 10694418 at *2
`(elements of libel include “1) a false and defamatory communication 2) concerning the plaintiff”).
`24.
`As a general rule, someone “who is not himself libelled cannot recover even though
`he has been injured by the libel published concerning another.’” Church of Scientology of Cal.
`v. Flynn, 578 F. Supp. 266, 268 (D. Mass. 1984) (quoting Gilbert Shoe Co. v. Rumpf, 112 F. Supp.
`228, 229 (D. Mass. 1953). Statements defamatory of a husband, for example, are not
`automatically defamatory of his wife, Hughes v. New Eng. Newspapers Publ’g Co., 312 Mass.
`178, 180–81, 43 N.E.2d 657, 659 (1942), and statements defamatory of a mother are not
`automatically defamatory of her son, Godbout v. Cousens, 396 Mass. 254, 263–64, 485 N.E.2d
`940, 946 (1985). See also Eyal, 411 Mass. at 434, 583 N.E.2d at 232–33 (statement defamatory
`of sole shareholder of corporation not defamatory of corporation).
`25.
`In this case, it is undisputed that, as the Film reported, Wilson Sr. “has been
`charged, alongside 30 other parents, with conspiring with William ‘Rick’ Singer . . . to have his
`children fraudulently admitted into an elite university by falsifying their athletic credentials and
`
`DB1/ 121542602.9
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10894-MLW Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 7 of 14
`
`bribing university employees and athletic coaches.” Wilson, Dkt. # 1649 at 1 (November 25,
`2020 Memorandum and Order).
`26.
`As to Wilson Jr. (referred to as “Johnny” in the Complaint), the Complaint alleges
`in relevant part:
`
`Mr. Wilson is falsely accused of conspiring with Singer to “bribe” his son’s way
`into the University of Southern California ("USC") as a water polo player in 2014.
`However, it is undisputed that Johnny Wilson was a star athlete, an invited member
`of the United States Olympic water polo development program, and that his grades
`and test scores were more than sufficient to gain admission to USC. He was a starter
`on multiple highly nationally ranked high school and club teams and was approached
`by more than one Division I college water polo and swimming teams to possibly
`join their programs. Johnny’s high school coach — himself an NCAA MVP and
`Olympic team alternate — was openly involved with the Wilson family and was in
`contact with the USC coaches about Johnny’s participation in USC water polo.
`Unlike most of the children of the other defendant parents in the investigation,
`Johnny was actually an athlete and ultimately became a member of the USC water
`polo team. Below is a photo published in the San Jose Mercury News of Johnny
`Wilson competing in the West Bay Area League swimming championships in 2013,
`in which he won first place in the butterfly:
`
`DB1/ 121542602.9
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10894-MLW Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 8 of 14
`
`Complaint, Ex. 1 at ¶ 22 (emphasis added).
`27.
`The Complaint fails to plausibly allege any defamation claim on the part of Wilson
`Jr. Rather, Wilson Jr.’s alleged athletic and academic prowess only is relevant Wilson Sr.’s defense
`is that he had no motive “to ‘bribe’ his son’s way into the University of Southern California . . . as
`a water polo player in 2014” because Wilson Jr. was a star athlete. Id. But see Wilson, supra,
`November 25, 2020 Memorandum and Order, Dkt. 1649 at 2 (“Wilson’s son played high school
`water polo but was not qualified to play on the varsity water polo team at the University of Southern
`California[.]”).
`28.
`Even assuming, however, that Wilson is not guilty of “conspiring with [Singer] to
`have his children fraudulently admitted into an elite university by falsifying their athletic
`credentials and bribing university employees and athletic coaches,” the Complaint does not
`plausibly allege that the Film contained any defamatory statements about Wilson Jr. Reporting that
`a father engaged in illegal activity to benefit his son does not, without more, defame the son.
`Hughes, 312 Mass. at 180–81, 43 N.E.2d at 659; Godbout, 396 Mass. at 263–64, 485 N.E.2d at
`946. See generally Ezekiel 18:19-20 (“The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor
`the father suffer for the iniquity of the son.”).
`29.
`Because the Complaint does not plausibly allege any defamatory statements “of
`and concerning” Wilson Jr., and because the Film contains no such statements, removal is proper.
`B.
`The Film Is a Privileged Fair Report of the Varsity Blues Prosecution
`30.
`Even assuming that the Film contains defamatory statements of and concerning
`Wilson Jr., any such statements are protected by the fair reporting privilege, which means he has
`been improperly joined as a defendant and his citizenship is immaterial to federal jurisdiction.
`31.
`“Massachusetts has long recognized a privilege for fair and accurate reports of
`official actions and statements.” Howell v. Enterprise Publishing Co., 455 Mass. 641, 650, 920
`N.E.2d 1, 13 (2010). The fair report privilege “allows those who fairly and accurately report
`certain types of official or governmental action to be immune from liability for claims arising out
`of such reports.” ELM Lab., Inc. v. RKO Gen., Inc., 403 Mass. 779, 782, 532 N.E. 2d 675, 678
`
`DB1/ 121542602.9
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10894-MLW Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 9 of 14
`
`(1989), abrogated on other grounds by United Truck Leasing Corp. v. Geltman, 406 Mass. 811,
`815, 551 N.E.2d 20, 23 (1990).
`32.
`The fair report privilege applies to news reports of official government action and
`records, including affidavits in support of the issuance of search warrants, arrest warrants, and
`court records of criminal cases. See Reilly v. Associated Press, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 764, 767–77
`(2003); Sibley v. Holyoke Transcript-Telegram Pub. Co., 391 Mass. 468, 471, 461 N.E.2d 823,
`826 (1984); Thompson v. Bos. Pub. Co., 285 Mass. 344, 348, 189 N.E. 210, 213 (1934);
`Thompson v. Globe Newspaper Co., 279 Mass. 176, 187, 181 N.E. 249, 253 (1932); see generally
`Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 495 (1975) (“the States may not impose sanctions
`on the publication of truthful information contained in official court records open to public
`inspection”).
`33.
`A fair report “need be neither exhaustive in detail nor perfectly precise in
`language.” Ricci v. Venture Magazine, 574 F. Supp. 1564, 1567 (D. Mass. 1983). All that is
`required is a “rough and ready summary” of the judicial action or record. Yohe v. Nugent, 321 F.
`3d 35, 43 (1st Cir. 2003); MiGi, Inc. v. Gannett Mass. Broadcasters, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 394, 396,
`519 N.E.2d 283, 285 (1988).
`34.
`“[I]t is not necessary that the [Film] provide an accurate recounting of the events
`that actually transpired.” Yohe, 321 F.3d at 44. “That is, ‘accuracy’ for fair report purposes refers
`only to the factual correctness of the events reported and not to the truth about the events that
`actually transpired.” Id.
`35.
`“Indeed, it is well established that the fair report privilege ‘should not be forfeited
`even if the party making the report knew the statement to be false.’” Id. (citing MiGi, 25 Mass.
`App. Ct. at 397, 519 N.E.2d 283; see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 611 cmt. b (1977)
`(“The [fair report privilege] permits a person to publish a report of an official action or proceeding
`or of a public meeting that deals with a matter of public concern, even though the report contains
`what he knows to be a false and defamatory statement.”).
`
`DB1/ 121542602.9
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10894-MLW Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 10 of 14
`
`For fair report purposes, it is irrelevant whether Wilson Sr. is guilty or innocent, or
`36.
`is ultimately convicted or acquitted. His accusation that the government manipulated the
`recordings of his conversations on file with court does not state a claim against the press, which
`is entitled to rely on the official reports and proceedings issued of government officials. Similarly,
`whether Wilson Jr. is a “star athlete” or, as stated in the District Court’s November 25, 2020
`Memorandum and Order, “not qualified to play on the varsity water polo team at the University
`of Southern California,” is immaterial to whether the privilege applies to reports of the charge
`that Wilson Sr. “conspired to have his children fraudulently admitted into an elite university by
`falsifying their athletic credentials and bribing university employees and athletic coaches.”
`Complaint, ¶ 22; Wilson, supra, Dkt. 1649 at 1, 2.
`37.
`Nor is the privilege lost because court records also reflect that Wilson Sr. sought to
`suppress evidence seized because the government allegedly “[r]elied intentionally or recklessly
`on false statements in its affidavit, without which the affidavit failed to establish probable cause,”
`Wilson, supra, Dkt. 1437 at 1, or moved to sever his trial because, unlike with respect to other
`defendants, his son allegedly “was a genuinely talented water polo player who did, in fact, qualify
`for the USC water polo team,” id. Dkt. 1438 at 6, or sought to dismiss charges against him as
`“factually impossible,” id. at 9–10. Not only were each of those motions denied by the District
`Court, see Dkt. 1437, Dkt. 1649, but reporting on the contents of the motions would not have
`altered the undisputed fact that Wilson faced—and still faces—the criminal charges reported in
`the Film (and other charges, such as tax fraud, that Defendants did not include in the Film). See
`Yohe, 321 F.3d at 44 (“To qualify as ‘fair and accurate’ for purposes of the fair report privilege,
`an article reporting an official statement need only give a ‘rough-and-ready’ summary of the
`official’s report[.]”); ELM, 403 Mass. at 783, 532 N.E.2d at 678 (“A statement is considered a
`fair report ‘if its “gist” or “sting” is true, that is, if it produces the same effect on the mind of the
`recipient which the precise truth would have produced.’”).3
`
`3 The Defendants were not required to investigate or include matters outside of the official court
`record, such as Wilson Sr.’s claim that he passed a polygraph examination. See, e.g., Complaint,
`
`DB1/ 121542602.9
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10894-MLW Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 11 of 14
`
`In all events, any alleged unfairness in Defendants’ reporting on the allegations and
`38.
`proceedings against Wilson Sr. would not alter the fact that, as to Wilson Jr., the Film is a
`privileged fair report.
`C. Wilson Jr.’s Claims Are Barred by California’s Anti-SLAPP Statute.
`39.
`Because Wilson Jr. is a resident of California, his libel claims are also barred by
`California’s anti-SLAPP statute, CAL. CODE OF CIV. PROC. § 425.16. See Green v. Cosby, 138 F.
`Supp. 3d 114, 124 (D. Mass. 2015) (“The statements at issue in this case were published
`nationally, so the court applies the law of the state in which each Plaintiff was domiciled when
`the alleged publication occurred.”); McKee v. Cosby, 236 F. Supp. 3d 427, 436 (D. Mass. 427)
`(“[p]ursant to section 150 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, the law of the state
`where the defamed person was domiciled at the time of publication applies if the matter
`complained of was published in that state”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
`40.
`Section 425.16 applies to statements (a) “made in connection with an issue under
`consideration or review by a . . . judicial body”; (b) “made in a place open to the public or a public
`forum in connection with an issue of public interest”; or (c) “other conduct in furtherance of the
`exercise of the constitutional right of . . . free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue
`of public interest.” Id. § 425.16 (e).
`41.
`“To determine whether a lawsuit or cause of action should be disposed of as a
`SLAPP suit, section 425.16 establishes a two-part test. Under the first part, the party bringing the
`anti-SLAPP motion has the initial burden of showing that the lawsuit, or a cause of action in the
`lawsuit, arises from an act in furtherance of the right of free speech or petition—i.e., that it arises
`from a protected activity.” Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 193 Cal. App. 4th 133, 142, 122
`Cal. Rptr. 3d 264, 270 (2011). Because the Film concerns a government prosecution on a matter
`of legitimate public interest, the first part of the test indisputably is met here. See generally Ojjeh
`v. Brown, 43 Cal. App. 5th 1027, 1036, 257 Cal. Rptr. 3d 146, 152 (2019) (“proposed
`
`Ex. 1., ¶¶ 3, 37. If the fair report privilege required the press to investigate beyond the official
`court record, no criminal case could be safely reported.
`
`DB1/ 121542602.9
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10894-MLW Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 12 of 14
`
`documentary is akin to news reporting for purposes of the anti-SLAPP law”); United States v.
`Kott, 380 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1124 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (public interest in criminal records and
`proceedings), aff’d, 135 F. App’x 69 (9th Cir. 2005).
`42.
`“Once the defendant has met its burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to
`demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the lawsuit or on the cause of action.” Tamkin, 193
`Cal. App. 4th at 142, 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 270–71. To satisfy this burden, a plaintiff must present
`a “showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is
`credited.” Navellier v. Sletten 29 Cal. 4th 82, 93, 52 P.3d 703 (2002).
`43.
`Here, Wilson Jr. cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his claim
`because the Film contains no defamatory statements of and concerning him and is a privileged
`fair report of judicial proceedings and records. For this reason too, Wilson Jr. is a misjoined
`plaintiff whose status does not deprive the Court of diversity jurisdiction.
`ALL OTHER REMOVAL PREREQUISITES HAVE BEEN SATISFIED
`Venue is proper in this Court—for purposes of removal—under 28 U.S.C. §
`44.
`1441(a) because the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts is the federal
`judicial district and division embracing the Superior Court of Essex County, where Plaintiffs
`originally filed this action.
`45.
`All Defendants join in and consent to this Notice of Removal.
`46.
`By filing this Notice of Removal, Defendants do not waive any arguments,
`defenses, or rights, all of which are hereby specifically reserved, including, without limitation, all
`arguments, defenses, and rights related to lack of personal jurisdiction.
`47.
`In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), written notice of the filing of this Notice
`of Removal will be given to Plaintiff, and Defendants will file a copy of the Notice of Removal
`in the State Court Action.
`48.
`Defendants respectfully reserve the right to submit additional argument or evidence
`if Plaintiffs challenge this Notice of Removal.
`
`DB1/ 121542602.9
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10894-MLW Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 13 of 14
`
`Defendants are contemporaneously filing a Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal
`49.
`with the Superior Court of Essex County, attached hereto as Exhibit 9.
`50.
`Pursuant to Local Rule 81.1(a), within 28 days of the filing of this Notice of
`Removal, certified or attested copies of all records and proceedings in the Superior Court and a
`certified or attested copy of all docket entries in the same shall be filed with the clerk of this court.
`CONCLUSION
`For the reasons stated above, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and in conformity
`with the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446, Defendants hereby remove this action to the
`United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and this Court has jurisdiction over
`further proceedings. Defendants further notify all parties that this action has been removed and
`that no further proceedings in this case will be had in the Superior Court for Suffolk County,
`Massachusetts.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`NETFLIX, INC., NETFLIX WORLDWIDE
`ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, 241C FILMS, LLC,
`LIBRARY FILMS, LLC, JON KARMEN, and
`CHRIS SMITH
`
`By their attorneys,
`
`/s/ Emma D. Hall
`Jonathan M. Albano
`BBO #013850
`jonathan.albano@morganlewis.com
`Emma Diamond Hall
`BBO #687947
`emma.hall@morganlewis.com
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`One Federal Street
`Boston, MA 02110-1726
`+1.617.341.7700
`
`Dated: May 28, 2021
`
`DB1/ 121542602.9
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10894-MLW Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 14 of 14
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Emma D. Hall, hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system
`
`will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic
`
`Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants on
`
`May 28, 2021 and counsel of record to the Plaintiffs:
`
`Howard M. Cooper
`Todd & Weld
`One Federal Street, 27th Floor
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`/s/ Emma D. Hall
`Emma D. Hall
`
`DB1/ 121542602.9
`
`- 14 -
`
`