Gilbert v. National Enquirer, Inc.

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 492·55 Cal. App. 2d 1273·55 Cal. App. 4th 1273·64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 659·97 Daily Journal DAR 7753
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 20, 1997B106923California1,563 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ortega, J.

We affirm the order denying defendant’s request for attorney fees and costs. The trial court committed no abuse of discretion by declining to name defendant as the prevailing party under Civil Code section 3344, subdivision (a), following plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice of her causes of action for commercial appropriation of name and likeness brought under that statute.

Facts

Plaintiff Melissa Gilbert sued her former husband, Chester Harry Brink-man III, and appellant National Enquirer, Inc., for defamation and invasion of privacy. In 1995, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction which, among other things, “prohibited Brinkman from making any statements or disclosing any information to the Enquirer, outside the course and scope of preparing a defense against th[e] lawsuit, and without a written agreement not to publish such information.” (Gilbert v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1142 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 91 ].) Brinkman and the Enquirer appealed from the preliminary injunction, which we reversed as “an unconstitutional prior restraint on [their] First Amendment rights.” {Id. at p. 1144.)

While the appeal from the preliminary…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.