John Travolta Denied Dismissal of Suit By His Former Pilot

Singer maintains Gotterba signed a four-page termination agreement with a confidentiality clause barring him from disclosing any “personal ' confidential or proprietary information.” Gotterba, who left Travolta's company in 1987, claims he entered a three-page agreement that did not include a confidentiality clause. Gotterba contends the document Singer has produced is not authentic.

Singer cited the disputed confidentiality clause in a June 2012 letter to Gotterba: “We demand that you immediately cease and desist from your wrongful course of conduct which has subjected you to enormous liability and entitles my client to seek tens of millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages,” Singer wrote, adding, “You proceed at your peril.”

After Gotterba sued Travolta in late 2012, Singer attempted to get the case tossed under California's anti-SLAPP law, Calif. Civ. Code. '425.16, which bans litigation intended to stifle protected speech. The threatening letters are protected as communication that is preparatory to, or in anticipation of, litigation, Singer argued.

It's generally accepted that such communications are, in fact, protected, Justice Gilbert wrote. But that is not the question at hand. “If the threats of litigation were removed from Alto's demand letters, the same dispute would exist regarding the terms of the termination agreement,” he wrote.

This is not the first time an aggressive demand letter from Singer has become the focus of anti-SLAPP litigation. Singer's letters were also an issue in litigation among co-owners of Hollywood's now-defunct Geisha House restaurant. Singer accused reality TV show Big Brother star Michael Malin of embezzling more than $1 from the restaurant and threatened to expose Malin's alleged sexual relationship with a male retired superior court judge.

In July 2013, the Second District ruled that letter did not amount to extortion and Singer was shielded by the state's anti-SLAPP law. Malin v. Singer, 217 Cal. App. 4th 1283.

Marisa Kendall is a Reporter for The Recorder, an ALM sibling publication of Entertainment Law & Finance.

It will take more than an anti-SLAPP motion to bring down a suit filed against John Travolta by the movie star's former pilot, the California Court of Appeal, Second District ruled. Gotterba v. Travolta, B247518.

Douglas Gotterba also claims he was Travolta's lover and, according to the court's ruling, planned to publish a tell-all book. Gotterba filed a declaratory judgment action after receiving threatening letters from Travolta's attorney, Los Angeles-based entertainment lawyer Martin Singer of Lavely & Singer. The suit seeks a court order as to the validity of two conflicting termination agreements, one of which contained a confidentiality clause.

On behalf of a unanimous panel, Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert rejected Singer's claim that the suit against Travolta and his company, Alto Inc., should be dismissed because it seeks to stifle his protected speech. “Contrary to Alto's position and arguments, Gotterba's complaint is not based upon Alto's sabre-rattling demand letters,” Justice Gilbert wrote. “The complaint seeks declaratory relief regarding the validity of the asserted termination agreements and not the propriety of Alto's demand letters.” See a PDF of the ruling at http://bit.ly/1po731M.

Singer maintains Gotterba signed a four-page termination agreement with a confidentiality clause barring him from disclosing any “personal ' confidential or proprietary information.” Gotterba, who left Travolta's company in 1987, claims he entered a three-page agreement that did not include a confidentiality clause. Gotterba contends the document Singer has produced is not authentic.

Singer cited the disputed confidentiality clause in a June 2012 letter to Gotterba: “We demand that you immediately cease and desist from your wrongful course of conduct which has subjected you to enormous liability and entitles my client to seek tens of millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages,” Singer wrote, adding, “You proceed at your peril.”

After Gotterba sued Travolta in late 2012, Singer attempted to get the case tossed under California's anti-SLAPP law, Calif. Civ. Code. '425.16, which bans litigation intended to stifle protected speech. The threatening letters are protected as communication that is preparatory to, or in anticipation of, litigation, Singer argued.

It's generally accepted that such communications are, in fact, protected, Justice Gilbert wrote. But that is not the question at hand. “If the threats of litigation were removed from Alto's demand letters, the same dispute would exist regarding the terms of the termination agreement,” he wrote.

This is not the first time an aggressive demand letter from Singer has become the focus of anti-SLAPP litigation. Singer's letters were also an issue in litigation among co-owners of Hollywood's now-defunct Geisha House restaurant. Singer accused reality TV show Big Brother star Michael Malin of embezzling more than $1 from the restaurant and threatened to expose Malin's alleged sexual relationship with a male retired superior court judge.

In July 2013, the Second District ruled that letter did not amount to extortion and Singer was shielded by the state's anti-SLAPP law. Malin v. Singer, 217 Cal. App. 4th 1283.

Marisa Kendall is a Reporter for The Recorder, an ALM sibling publication of Entertainment Law & Finance.