I’m not Pete Davidson’s Lawyer, but I’m still a Lawyer Deep-Dive — A high-level summary/guide to the Chyna v. Kardashian lawsuit (Day 1 and Claim 2 — Defamation )

9 min readApr 20, 2022

Here to give you a broad overview of the trial proceedings as they progress and happy to try to generally answer questions you have about the law, the trial, what are normal trial tactics, what are not normal trial tactics, etc.

To start: Please see my friendly legal disclaimer below

Day 1, the plaintiffs/the Kardashians showing up to jury selection is a very odd and known not-effective tactic.

It was odd to me their attorney chose the strategy of having them show up for such an important moment, but the high-profile nature of the defendants could change normal strategy

Background to why it is odd
Case are often made and die on jury selection — if you get a jury predisposed to think a certain way, you can win with the worst argument
Jury selection is highly psychological, for example I once worked for another atty that always asked jurors thoughts on red-cars for death row cases. His theory was people who like red cars as more impulsive and more likely to get caught in the drama of the case and vote for the death penalty — he said that theory always played out IRL. its weird and raw, but that is the juror system.
Here’s an article why you keep clients away from juror selection
Here’s an article on why attractive people should be around jurors
In summary, this case is about winning the jury over. the law is mostly decided (see below). it is about the jury. so yesterday mattered a lot.

Okay, now that we know things you can ask me and summaries/thoughts I’m going to try to provide through the trial — lets generally talk about the trial as a whole.

THE TRIAL AS A WHOLE — What Is Chyna Even Trying to Prove in Court Yall?

FIRST, on the Chyna’s central claims she is trying to prove is defamation (by the Kardashians) of a public figure (Chyna)

She is fighting an uphill, losing battle — she will likely lose, although it does not mean that the Kardashians didn’t do anything morally messed up (morality is subjective though and this is not a trial of public opinion of right and wrong).
Defamation is one of the hardest things to ever prove and win in court.
People threaten defamation all the time. Like legit. All the time. It is a joke. It means almost nothing to me when I hear someone threaten it. It never goes anywhere People win defamation case like never. Think Kim trying to pass the bar again and again, that is what it is like.

Chyna’s case is particularly difficult particularly because public figures RARELY win.
The reason public figures don’t when is that the court reasons that public figures agree to be in the public eye so they have less of a right to be upset when people also say negative things about them. Comes with the fame. (Side note, that might be why the Kardashian’s showed up to jury selection, the lawyer wanted to see what jurors responded to the “whatever fame” mentality so the lawyer could chose those jurors. KEEP IN MIND — for this case the Kardashian’s lawyer wants a juror to not think famous people have a right to damages if hurt).
To win as a public figure, the public figure must show the other side acted with ACTUAL MALICE (it is a stupid high bar to meet and you will hear this word a lot in the proceeding).

That is what a lot of this trial is proving — Actual Malice. There are multiple standards for harmful words (negligent being the lowest, reckless being somewhere in between, and actual malice being the most harmful).
Like you have to mean terrible untrue stuff and you have to say it solely knowing it for sure without a doubt will cause this harm to the person.
So in most cases if you have average Joe saying untrue stuff about Kim Kardashian the court won’t find for defamation as average joe doesn’t really have the power to know for sure his untrue statements are going to hurt kim kardashian in a direct way.

So please keep in mind, even in chyna loses, it doesn’t mean the Kardashians didn’t act wrongly — it just means the court didn’t find they didn’t act with actual malice.

SECOND, WHY IS THIS JURY HERE? DOES A JURY DECIDE OR A JUDGE?

It important thing to keep in mind for this trial is that it is a trial of FACT (not law). The trial of law (with the judge) already happened.

This is why there is a jury. A jury is selected to decide FACT and if the FACTS apply to the LAW. A judge is there to decide what LAW applies (if any).

So what you missed prior to this was a whole slew of court proceedings and depositions where a judge has already decided that IF Chyna’s team can prove certain FACTS might give way to a valid legal basis for the claim
There cannot and will not be any new issues of law tried.
The Kardashian have already tried to strike down the issues of law that Chyna put forward. Briefly looking at the issues that were presented in Chyna’s complaint

THIRD — SO WHAT ARE THE CLAIMS THEN THE JURY IS LOOKING AT? IS IT JUST DEFAMATION?

Nope. The claims are not just defamation. Here are the claims the kardashian tried to strike prior to the jury trial so that there would be no trial.

Trial Claims.

False Light -

Judge granted the kardashians motion to dismiss Chyna’s claim because the statements the kardashians said are true and not defamatory (we will get to why the judge ruled the statements are true)

2. International Interference with Contractual Relationships

Judge did not dismiss. Also at trial. Will post summary later.

3. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relationships

Judge did not dismiss. Also at trial. Will post summary later.

4. Defamation

Judge did not dismiss. also at trial.
Discussed below in detail (see my comments in bold below)

THE DEFAMATION CLAIM YALL

Issue №2: “Defendants are entitled to summary adjudication as to the Eleventh Cause of Action for Defamation alleged in the TAC.

Defendants argue that the eleventh cause of action for defamation must fail because(1) their statements are true and nonactionable opinion or hyperbole; (2) no defamatory meaning attached to the statements; (3) the statements are protected by common interest privilege; and(4) Defendants did not act with actual malice.To prove defamation, Chyna must show “(1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or cause special damage.” (Wong v. Jing (2011) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1369.) In addition, as a public figure, Chyna must show that Defendants’ statements were made with “actual malice, i.e., actual knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth.” (Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 387, 398.)

**okay, so this paragraph is establishing the law and the legal elements. Previously the kardashians argued that defamation couldn’t LEGALLY apply because their statements were true and no E! executive was influenced by them. The court then agrees that defamation legally will not apply unless Chyna can establish some question of fact about the truth and if E acted on the statement — spoiler alert, Chyna does establish a question of fact in the courts eyes, so onto the jury we go**

As to whether the statements were true, there are triable issues of material fact for the reasons explained in the motion for summary judgment in the related case, BC677472, scheduled for the same hearing date as this motion.**court saying Chyna does establish issues of fact based on evidence in a related hearing**

There are triable issues regarding whether Chyna did, in fact, “beat the shit out of” Rob.**court saying one of the triable facts is if Chyna did beat rob**

Likewise, although Kylie’s and Khloe’s statements could be considered nonactionable opinion,**we saw these texts in some earlier post, at question is if E! acted on them too**

and Kris’s reference to actions by Chyna and/or her friends as “ghetto” could be considered nonactionable hyperbole,**new fact to me, Kris called her ghetto, court is going to try that one which will be an interesting day in trial**

Kris’s other statements are not clearly nonactionable opinion or hyperbole,**apparently there is other stuff they submitted Kris said, but the court is like “w/e these are fine, lets move on guys”**

and Defendants did not establish that Chyna has no evidence of their alleged defamatory statements at the January 4, 2017 meeting. Their separate statement and supporting evidence establish only that the statements by “Defendants” at this meeting — that Chyna had physically abused Rob — form part of the basis of this cause of action. (UMF №47.)As to whether the statements had defamatory meaning, Defendants have not shown that “no reasonable reader would perceive . . . a meaning which tended to injure the subject’s reputation” as to these statements. (Barnes-Hind, Inc. v. Superior Court (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 377, 387.) Testimony from E! and BMP executives that they regarded the statements as opinions (UMF Nos. 9–11, 54–63) does not establish that a “reasonable” reader would react the same way.**THIS IS IMPORTANT. E! has testified and they must have indicted they felt influenced by these statements to take action and do something***

As to the common interest privilege under Civil Code ; 47(c), which “applies to a communication made without malice to a person interested in the communication’s subject matter by another person also interested in the communication’s subject matter (Hicks v. Richard (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1167, 1177), Defendants’ argument that they and E! and BMP had a common interest in Rob’s well-being and safety is inconsistent with their argument that their statements were mere hyperbole and opinion. Hyperbolic or speculative statements would not be “reasonably calculated to further” their business and professional relationship with E! and BMP. (Motion, at p. 15.)

THIS IS ALSO IMPORTANT: So first the Kardashian’s tried to say there statements to E! are not admissible into evidence for purposes of proving malice in court because it is protected by “privilege.” (think atty-client privilege, but CA apparently has some privilege protection for topics between people if there is a common interest).
I think the rational of this common interest privilege between interested parties is to encourage people to be able to communicate negative things about others to people who could be effected without worry of being sued if it happens to be untrue (like the court wants to protect overall safety)
Anyhow, what is interesting here is the court seems to super not buy (and seems somewhat annoyed tbh — don’t annoy the court) by this defense.
The courts response is basically saying if the Kardashians were legit concerned about Robs safety and arguing they have legit reason to tell E! all these damning things about Chyna (because of common interest), then, at the same time the Kardashians at shouldn’t have pages of argument stating their statements are hyperbolic and mean nothing to anyone.

The court here is mostly saying the the kardashians need to pick a side (either they were concerned or they were just saying untrue stuff, they can’t be doing both)

WHAT IS MOST INTERESTING, is based on the court prior court rulings on prior evidence submitted the court is indicating that the Kardashians have chosen to pick the side that their statements were just hyperbolic and not true (instead of being legitimately concerned for their son’s safety).

However, on the flip side, the Kardashian’s could have decided to fight the defamation claim instead of fighting for the truth (which is why the KJs asserted their statements were just hyperbolic) because defamation claims usually are VERY high damage cases because punitive damages mean speculative damages.

As to actual malice, this is a “subjective test, under which the defendant’s actual belief concerning the truthfulness of the publication is the crucial issue.” (Reader’s Digest Ass’n v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 257.) In light of the questions of fact regarding the truth of the statements asserted and whether a reasonable person would perceive them as defamatory, there are questions of fact regarding whether Defendants acted with actual malice.**court is saying it is now jury time — like I said before, the jury needs to decide the facts and the fact at issue is do their actions constitute actual malice against Chyna**

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to Issue №2.**court stating that the Kardashians motion to strike chynas defamation case is denied. There are questionable issues of fact here and they must be tried by the Jury. **

**The contents of this post are intended to convey general information only and not to provide legal advice or opinions. Nothing I post is intended to constitute an atty-client relationship. I am not involved in any way in the case or represent any parties involved. I am not your lawyer, if you need a lawyer, I highly advise you to seek advice of a lawyer.