u/Unusual_Original2761

Alexa Nikolas's LA Superior Court lawsuit against Bryan Freedman, Melissa Nathan, and Jed Wallace has survived Freedman's special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP motion), which was denied in full. You can read the judge's ruling here: https://nikolasvfreedman812antislapp.tiiny.site/ .

(Most interesting part starts under "DISCUSSION" on p. 8, after judge rules on requests for judicial notice/evidentiary objections and recites the anti-SLAPP standard in general terms.)

Additional background on the Nikolas case and how it grew out of discovery from Lively v. Wayfarer and Jones v. Abel here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1ua7464/alexa_nikolas_v_bryan_freedman_melissa_nathan_and/

Next steps in the case:

• Nathan and Wallace (+ his firm Street Relations) still have yet to be served. The reason for the delay is unclear at this point
• Case management conference scheduled for September 28. Both sides are technically at risk of sanctions during that hearing -- Nikolas for not having served all defendants (presumably risk of sanctions will be lower if she has served Nathan + Wallace by then), Freedman for having included "spurious and erroneous citations" in his anti-SLAPP motion, i.e. case cites that did not say what he claimed they said.
• Once Nathan and Wallace are served, they will have to Answer separately and should be able to file their own anti-SLAPP motions or motions to dismiss, though their chances might not be great given the judge's reasoning in denying Freedman's motion.
• Discovery should be able to proceed at this point, though if Freedman appeals, it would likely be stayed pending appeal.

Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/02/opinion/jared-leto-hollywood-secrets-abuse-metoo.html?unlocked_article_code=1.2VA.7FJh.l4sqwG7TwH_B&smid=url-share

>

>Once, a celebrity might have issued an aggrieved or long rebuttal or a strenuous apology, but a new playbook has emerged. The blueprint is fairly consistent, often undertaken in conjunction with a pricey assortment of law firms and spin doctors: Ignore everything or stonewall with “no comment.” Maybe deny the allegations with a succinct sentence or two. Then either unleash hell on a publication and reporter in an attempt to quash the reporting or say nothing further and wait for the scandal to pass.

>Hollywood has an ignoble history of covering up stars’ horrible behavior, but in the wake of #MeToo, a new well-oiled anti-accountability machine has flourished. The shrinking array of publications dedicated to covering Hollywood are not only often in rough financial shape, but they’re also dependent on celebrity coverage, so they’re vulnerable to being intimidated by threats of losing access to other celebrities, or they’re likely to be tempted by enticing stories that will happen only if the outlet agrees to play ball.

>The new crisis-management playbook involves simply riding out horrible rumors and fostering a counternarrative that discounts reports as untruthful and unreliable. Law firms persuade survivors to recant while P.R. operatives muddy the waters online by making efforts to “adjust the narrative in real time,” as one firm’s services were described in documents from the Blake Lively-Justin Baldoni case.

A few new developments have occurred in Ghost v. Wilson -- producer Amanda Ghost and her colleagues' ongoing Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit against actress Rebel Wilson and her entities, crisis publicist Melissa Nathan, and Nathan's firm TAG PR -- which is currently set to go to trial in October.

Party depositions happening this month - this was revealed in a recent filing by attorneys for Amanda Ghost's company, AI film, who sought pro hac vice status (admission into the jurisdiction for this case only) so they could participate in those depositions. The motion itself was pretty run-of-the-mill procedural and has since been granted, but the interesting part was that it disclosed the dates for which party depositions had been scheduled, some of which have already passed and some of which are coming up very soon:

• Producer Vince Holden - July 14
• Amanda Ghost - July 23
• Producer Gregor Cameron - July 29
• Rebel Wilson - July 30

No word on a depo date for Nathan (likely because AI film is not party to the claims involving her so they had no reason to mention it in their motion) or for third parties like Bryan Freedman, Jed Wallace, current/former TAG employees, or the Australia/UK witnesses whom Ghost recently sought leave to serve via the Hague Convention. My guess is those depos will happen later than the depos listed in this filing, but I could be wrong.

Wilson proposes Third Amended Cross-Complaint - she moved to file such a complaint on July 10, arguing that the request is timely because full discovery just recently began in June following the withdrawal of her most recent anti-SLAPP motion. According to Wilson's summary, the TAXC includes:

• changes made as a result of meet and confer comms with Amanda Ghost's attorneys
• addition of newly discovered information
• additions and deletions to "refine/clarify allegations"
• correction of typos and grammatical errors
• changed paragraph numbers
• It does not add any new parties or causes of action.

Unclear whether Ghost has opposed this motion (I believe the oppo would have been due yesterday; nothing showing up on docket yet but sometimes there can be a lag). The motion is set to be heard on August 11.

Implications of ruling in Australian MacInnes v. Wilson case - as some may have heard, Wilson recently successfully defended a defamation case filed against her in New South Wales, Australia, by Charlotte MacInnes, the lead actress of the film The Deb that is also the source of the dispute between Wilson and Ghost+colleagues. You can read the judge's ruling in that case here: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2026/2026fca0957 .

It is unclear what the implications, if any, are for Ghost v. Wilson (something that can be discussed in comments!). The Australian judge did make a finding of fact that, on the balance of probabilities, MacInnes said an incident with Ghost made her uncomfortable and then changed her story -- which, if accepted by the LA Court via a motion for estoppel, might weaken an argument for actual malice with regard to one of several defamatory statements Wilson made that Ghost alleges were defamatory -- but MacInnes has sharply disputed this version of events and is appealing the ruling.

MacInnes's appeal brief it not yet publicly available but was reviewed and summarized by Variety and Deadline:

• https://deadline.com/2026/07/the-deb-charlotte-macinnes-attacks-rebel-wilson-appeal-1237002384/
• https://variety.com/2026/film/news/rebel-wilson-defamation-case-ruling-appeal-charlotte-macinnes-1236820239/

Interestingly, according to these summaries, it appears that one of MacInnes's arguments in her appellate brief is that the trial court judge gave inadequate weight to Wilson's involvement in the anti-Ghost "smear websites," which she argues should have undermined Wilson's credibility in her other testimony since Wilson claimed under oath not to have been involved in the websites despite evidence to the contrary.

Now that full discovery is proceeding in Amanda Ghost's defamation lawsuit against Rebel Wilson, Melissa Nathan, and TAG (after Wilson/Nathan/TAG withdrew their latest anti-SLAPP motion), Ghost has filed a motion to issue letters rogatory -- i.e., requests to foreign governments for service of process -- that will allow her to serve UK and Australian witnesses whose testimony and documents are needed to support her case.

The motion is necessary because these witnesses are beyond the reach of domestic U.S. subpoena power, so they need to be served via the Hague Convention, which created a mechanism for international cooperation for that purpose.

The specific witnesses whom Ghost hopes to serve are:

• Greer Simpkin, a local Australian producer on The Deb
• David Jowsey, another local producer
• Matt Reeder, a co-producer
• Tiare Tomaszewski, another producer
• Noni Roy, an assistant director
• Sue Bownds, Rebel Wilson's mother and a director of Camp Sugar, her company
• Lynne O'Brien, head of makeup on The Deb
• Pia Ashcroft, a senior film employee
• Charles Collier and Angharad Wood, Wilson's former UK-based agents

Most of these names will be familiar to people who followed the Charlotte MacInnes v. Rebel Wilson defamation trial in Australia a couple months ago, as most of them testified in that trial. (MacInnes is the actress whom Wilson claimed had complained about inappropriate behavior by Ghost; she sued Wilson over that claim, with a ruling still pending.) You can find most of their affidavits here: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/macinnes-v-wilson

Notably, these witnesses' testimony/documents will mainly be relevant to Ghost's original defamation complaint, which revolves around Wilson's claims in an Instagram video and a publicly-circulated demand letter from Bryan Freedman that Ghost and her fellow producers behaved inappropriately toward MacInnes and embezzled funds from the film.

Presumably discovery is also proceeding on Ghost's September 2025 cross-complaint, which focuses on "smear websites" that accused her of sex trafficking. This discovery will involve testimony/documents from Nathan, Freedman, Jed Wallace, and various current or former TAG employees, but they are all U.S.-based so letters rogatory won't be necessary for them. We won't find out how discovery is going on that front unless and until motions related to that discovery are filed on the docket.

The motion for international judicial assistance is set to be heard on July 28. Trial in Ghost v. Wilson is currently scheduled for October.

Meister Seelig & Schuster (MSS) attorneys Kevin Fritz (yes, the same Kevin Fritz from the Blake Lively / Justin Baldoni case), Gaddi Goren, and Kevin Hutzel have moved to withdraw as attorneys for the Alexander Brothers -- the prominent NY luxury real estate brokers who were convicted of serial rape and sex trafficking back in March -- in their defamation lawsuit against The Real Deal, the publication that first broke the story of the allegations against them.

You can read the motion to withdraw here (or above): https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=Q2/obVf2sARj6R86XR/DKQ== .

Full case docket here: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=ExFpJpkvIiOPKUQ9CXaPEg==&display=all

In the brief, MSS states that it is owed in excess of $60,000 in attorneys' fees that the brothers (currently in prison) have yet to pay. There has also been a "breakdown of the attorney-client relationship" and a "breakdown in communication" -- with the brothers making "unwarranted assertions against MSS" -- that makes it impossible for representation to continue. The brothers apparently intend to proceed pro se.

Background

In 2024, multiple women filed civil suits against Oren, Tal, and Alon Alexander alleging they had been drugged and sexually assaulted by them. The Real Deal, a publication that covers the NYC real estate industry, broke the story and covered/investigated it extensively (journalism for which they later received a number of awards).

In June of 2025, the brothers, represented by MSS, filed a defamation lawsuit against The Real Deal and its publisher, Amir Korangy, over the publication's "misuse of its media platform publishing defamatory statements and perpetuating false allegations." Specifically, they accused The Real Deal of milking the allegations for subscribers and ignoring supposedly exculpatory evidence shared with them, such as one of the victims' flirty texts that she sent after her assault.

In January 2026, The Real Deal filed an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss, arguing that "[p]laintiffs' complaint is a classic example of a SLAPP suit: With no substantial basis in fact or law, it seeks to punish The Real Deal for straightforward and absolutely privileged reporting about legal proceedings."

In April of 2026, following the brothers' criminal conviction, MSS filed a motion of discontinuance withdrawing the defamation lawsuit. The motion was granted, but The Real Deal subsequently filed a motion to reargue its MTD so it can move for anti-SLAPP fees. That motion is pending.

Additional note

This case is obviously worth discussing on its own terms, but sub members who have primarily been following Lively v. Wayfarer may recognize the Alexander Brothers' names because Melissa Nathan's and Jed Wallace's alleged work for them -- on a "smear website" to discredit the brothers' victims by positioning them as lying extortionists -- emerged through discovery. Former TAG PR employee Katie Case testified that Nathan did not want the brothers as official TAG clients, but that Nathan and Wallace instructed her to draft copy for the website and compensated her for that work. You can read that deposition transcript here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1429.12_1.pdf

It is unclear whether Nathan or Wallace referred the Alexander Brothers to Kevin Fritz / MSS for purposes of pursuing defamation claims against The Real Deal.

Now that the lovely mods have expanded this sub's scope to allow discussion of additional ongoing cases, I wanted to go ahead and share an overview + some updates re one of the more interesting "extended universe" cases (i.e., those involving parties, facts, and discovery that overlap with Lively v. Wayfarer) -- namely, Alexa Nikolas's LA Superior Court lawsuit against Bryan Freedman, Melissa Nathan, and Jed Wallace/Street Relations.

First, an overview of the case since it hasn't been substantively discussed on this sub before and some members may not be familiar. (Full disclosure that this is adapted from a post I made a couple months ago on a different sub.)

Case overview

Former Nickelodeon star Alexa Nikolas filed a defamation lawsuit against attorney Bryan Freedman and crisis publicist Melissa Nathan on February 5, 2026. On April 7, 2026, she amended her complaint to add digital fixer Jed Wallace and his firm Street Relations as defendants.

You can read the full amended complaint, which has been uploaded to Google Drive by another Redditor, here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nYNfo0anP5CASS5FAPhGLSr6iKDkzyO7/view

Nikolas alleges that Freedman, Nathan, and Wallace are responsible for an anonymous "smear website" that called her a "sinister and criminal force" and made several other allegedly-defamatory statements about her, including claiming she'd blackmailed several ex-boyfriends and that her current husband is a serial sexual offender who endangers their children. Nikolas says she tried to discover who was behind the website when it was first published but only learned that it was most likely Freedman, Nathan, and Wallace from filings in Blake Lively's and Stephanie Jones' lawsuits -- after Jones commissioned an expert report to help confirm who was behind allegedly-defamatory websites about Jones, which ended up identifying negative sites about several other people (including Nikolas) with signs of identical authorship and SEO work.

In addition to adding Wallace and Street Relations as defendants, Nikolas's amended complaint

• adds a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) to go along with her defamation claim
• adds new language addressing the statute of limitations (SOL) issue -- which is a potential problem for her defamation claim -- by clarifying/alleging that she diligently took steps to try and identify who published the defamatory statements, that the statements' publishers actively took steps to obscure their identities, and that she only was able to discover their identities in December 2025. (There is California precedent that the SOL for defamation should be tolled -- ie paused -- under such circumstances.)
• adds a section with new backlink research, expanding on the research undertaken by Stephanie Jones' expert.

The final section on SEO backlinks with signs of common authorship names new potential targets of Nathan/Wallace/Freedman "smear websites" and/or negative SEO, along with the clients who allegedly commissioned those smears. (Press coverage is not the focus of this sub so I won't link, but Gary Baum of The Hollywood Reporter has investigated and written about several of these in the wake of Nikolas filing her FAC.)

Potential targets named:

• Anya Fernald, a chef and entrepreneur
• Peter Comisar, the founder of a private equity firm
• Victoria Shores
• Shelly Auguste
• Caeli La
• Shannon Ruth
• Attorney Craig Flanders

Alleged or confirmed Nathan/Wallace/Freedman clients named as allegedly having commissioned these negative campaigns, along with other SEO work to burnish their own reputations in response to negative publicity:

• Peter Attia
• Andrew Huberman
• Scooter Braun
• Dak Prescott
• Diplo
• Nick Carter

Where the case stands now

• On May 6, Nikolas filed proof of service for defendant Bryan Freedman, who was served by substituted service (which in this instance means a front desk person at his law firm's office was authorized to accept service on his behalf).
• On June 10, the court held a case management conference, during which the judge noted that the other defendants -- i.e., Nathan, Wallace, and Wallace's firm -- had not yet been served. Nikolas's attorneys were ordered to show cause why they hadn't achieved service for those defendants, with the possibility of sanctions if they can't provide a good reason, and the case management conference was continued (postponed) to September.
• On June 15, Bryan Freedman answered the complaint with a series of affirmative defenses (several of which, I will note, would normally be grounds for a motion to dismiss, so it is interesting that he answered instead of moving to dismiss or filing an anti-SLAPP motion).
• The next step will be for Nikolas's team to find a way to serve Nathan and Wallace, so the next thing we see on the docket will likely be either proof of service for them or a motion for alternative to service (asking to serve them by email, social media, etc. if the process server is having too much difficulty achieving personal service).

Interested in others' thoughts, and will try to keep posting updates on this case as they happen/I notice them! (Others are welcome to as well, of course - the LASC case number is 26SMCV00684.)

Ghost v. Wilson defendants Rebel Wilson, Melissa Nathan, and TAG PR have withdrawn their most recent anti-SLAPP motion, which sought to have Amanda Ghost's September 2, 2025 cross-complaint -- which focused on alleged "smear websites" that called her "the Indian Ghislaine Maxwell" -- thrown out. Subsequently, during a June 4 hearing, the judge mooted all of the pending motions set to be heard that day. This included:

• Wilson, Nathan, and TAG's anti-SLAPP motion that they had just withdrawn
• Ghost's motion in the alternative for follow-up discovery, in which she sought depositions and documents from Bryan Freedman, Jed Wallace, and TAG employees Breanna Koslow and Carolina Hurley to confirm information obtained from former TAG employee Katie Case during limited discovery related to this motion. (Ghost was seeking this follow-up discovery only if the judge determined he needed more information re: the strength of her defamation claim before deciding the anti-SLAPP motion, so the request is now moot with the anti-SLAPP motion withdrawn -- though she can now seek the same information and more as part of the regular discovery process.)
• Wilson's motion to compel depositions from Ghost and her fellow producers. (Ghost had argued all discovery was stayed in the action until the latest anti-SLAPP motion was decided, Wilson had argued her cross-complaint was a separate action in which discovery=depositions can proceed, but this dispute is now moot with the anti-SLAPP motion withdrawn, since the stay will be lifted allowing all discovery to proceed.)

***For those who may be confused about this anti-SLAPP motion being withdrawn, in light of recent reports that Wilson's appeal of an anti-SLAPP motion was denied -- both are true. Wilson's anti-SLAPP appeal related to Ghost's original July 2024 complaint, which Wilson unsuccessfully sought to have thrown out on anti-SLAPP grounds back in the fall of 2024. Wilson appealed that denial, and just last month -- on May 13, to be precise -- a California court of appeals denied her appeal. The anti-SLAPP motion that was just withdrawn, on the other hand, related to Ghost's September 2025 cross-complaint, which related specifically to the alleged smear websites and added Nathan/TAG as defendants.

Where the case goes from here:

• As noted above, with all anti-SLAPP motions now resolved = discovery stay lifted, regular discovery -- which will be much more expansive than the limited discovery that has occurred thus far -- can proceed. Presumably this will include Wilson deposing Ghost and her fellow producers as she has been seeking to do, and likewise will include Ghost seeking the same follow-up discovery she was seeking before re the smear websites -- i.e. deposing and subpoenaing documents from Freedman, Wallace, etc. -- as well as deposing Nathan and Wilson.
• Unclear what more we will see on the docket in the immediate future, but seems like a safe bet that we might see additional discovery motions (compel, quash, etc.) as the regular discovery process proceeds, and then of course MSJ/pretrial motions down the line.
• Although the October 5 trial date stands for now, there are a few scenarios in which it might get postponed. For instance, if, as some have speculated, Ghost amends her complaint to add Freedman and/or Wallace as defendants, they would get a chance to file their own MTD/anti-SLAPP motions etc., which would delay the proceedings.

Links to previous posts in this Ghost v. Wilson series:

• Excerpts from Rebel Wilson Special Motion to Strike filed Oct. 31 in Ghost v. Wilson (Los Angeles Superior Court), including Melissa Nathan declaration (start with this one if you're unfamiliar with the case/its connection to the Lively and Jones cases)
• Ghost v. Wilson update: Ghost seeks judicial notice of SDNY filings + limited discovery from Katie Case, Melissa Nathan, Jed Wallace, TAG employee Carolina Hurley, and Bryan Freedman. Nathan/TAG, repped by new counsel, oppose (w/ new sworn declaration).
• Quick Ghost v. Wilson update: Ghost's motion for limited discovery granted in part
• Ghost v. Wilson update: attorneys Mitchell Schuster, Kevin Fritz, and Richard Lobas seek leave to appear pro hac vice for Melissa Nathan and TAG
• Ghost v. Wilson update: Amanda Ghost's opposition to anti-SLAPP motion to strike her cross-complaint against Rebel Wilson, Melissa Nathan, and TAG PR

Amanda Ghost has filed her opposition to Rebel Wilson's motion to strike her cross-complaint (anti-SLAPP motion). As most sub members know, Ghost added Melissa Nathan and TAG PR as defendants to her defamation complaint -- originally filed against actress Rebel Wilson and her entities -- after learning from exhibits on the Lively v. Wayfarer docket about their alleged involvement in anonymous "smear websites" about her that Wilson allegedly commissioned.

See image carousel for full filing (Table of Authorities omitted for length purposes).

In the opposition, Ghost argues

• that Wilson's anti-SLAPP motion is "solely premised on perjurious testimony by Rebel Wilson and Melissa Nathan," and thus not only fails the anti-SLAPP analysis but is "factually untenable and legally frivolous, and should have been withdrawn"
• that the allegedly-defamatory statements on the websites (which claimed Ghost was the "Indian Ghislaine Maxwell" and that she procures women for Russian oligarchs) are not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, as they were not made in connection with an issue of public interest
• that compelling evidence has shown that Wilson and Nathan/TAG were all responsible for the websites
• that the statements on the websites are defamatory and legally actionable as such
• that malice has been established (even though they argue it need not be proven as Ghost is not a limited-purpose public figure).

The anti-SLAPP motion will be heard in LA Superior Court on May 5. Concurrently, Ghost's motion in the alternative for follow-up discovery -- in which she sought documents and depositions from Jed Wallace, Bryan Freedman, and TAG's Carolina Hurley and Breanna Butler-Koslow -- will also be heard. Ghost is requesting this limited discovery only if the anti-SLAPP motion isn't denied outright. (If it is denied and her complaint survives, of course, she can then go on to seek this same discovery during the normal discovery process.)

Meanwhile, the Charlotte MacInness v. Rebel Wilson defamation trial -- which is a separate proceeding in Australia, though it involves overlapping allegations, witnesses, and evidence -- continues this week, with Wilson herself set to testify. (Amanda Ghost and TAG's Katie Case testified last week.) The trial is streaming live on the Federal Court of Australia's YouTube channel, https://www.youtube.com/@federalcourtaus .