An L.A. judge found the ‘Full House’ creator hasn’t presented sufficient evidence that comments made by showrunner Bryan Behar were a substantial factor in his termination.
Jeff Franklin
Daniel Zuchnik/WireImage
Jeff Franklin’s lawsuit over his ouster from Fuller House has been dismissed, as an L.A. judge found he was unlikely to prove that showrunner Bryan Behar was responsible for his contract not being renewed.
Franklin was taken off the Full House spin-off in February 2018 amid complaints about gender discrimination and other inappropriate behavior, but he maintains it was all orchestrated by Behar. Franklin sued Behar in April 2019, alleging his colleague fabricated and twisted information and gave it to the media and Warner Bros. in an effort to get him thrown off the show.
Behar filed a special motion to strike the complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which brings an early end to lawsuits arising from protected activity like free speech unless the plaintiff can prove they’re likely to prevail. Behar said Warners approached him and his statements to the company investigator about Franklin are “indisputably” activity in furtherance of his right of free speech. While he maintains he didn’t talk to the press he argues that, if he had, that would also be protected by the First Amendment.
L.A. County Superior Court Judge Craig Karlan granted the motion, first finding that the matter is clearly of public interest, as it involved sexually charged comments in the workplace that were reported at the height of the #MeToo movement and Franklin’s firing was widely covered by news outlets.
Having met that standard under the statute, Karlan then turned his analysis to whether Franklin is likely to prevail on his claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.
Judge Karlan isn’t convinced Franklin can prove Behar got him fired.
The judge notes that Warners’ investigator said Behar’s statements weren’t a “substantial factor” in the determination that Franklin had created a toxic work environment and merely “corroborated some of the statements made by the other witnesses.” She also testified that Behar was reluctant to participate in the process and that this wasn’t the first investigation into Franklin’s conduct on the show.
“Simply put, Plaintiffs present insufficient evidence that Behar was a substantial factor in the termination of the relationship between Plaintiffs and Warner Bros.,” writes Karlan. “However, even if Plaintiffs had established the possibility that Behar’s statements to Warner Bros. resulted in Franklin’s termination, his statements are privileged under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (c), as they constitute communications regarding sexual harassment made as part of a workplace investigation.”
He continues, “Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiffs present no admissible evidence that Behar made statements to the press. As such, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on their claim that statements to the press were the cause of the termination.”
Karlan on Jan. 9 signed an order dismissing the matter with prejudice and awarding Behar attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount to be determined for prevailing on the motion, which is standard under the statute.
California’s anti-SLAPP also provides for an immediate right to appeal, and Franklin’s lawyer Larry Stein has already filed a notice indicating they’ll pursue one.
