{"id":10479,"date":"2026-04-26T18:27:08","date_gmt":"2026-04-26T18:27:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/smokey-robinson-defamation-claims-in-sexual-assault-lawsuit-tossed\/"},"modified":"2026-04-26T18:27:08","modified_gmt":"2026-04-26T18:27:08","slug":"smokey-robinson-defamation-claims-in-sexual-assault-lawsuit-tossed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/smokey-robinson-defamation-claims-in-sexual-assault-lawsuit-tossed\/","title":{"rendered":"Smokey Robinson Defamation Claims in Sexual Assault Lawsuit Tossed"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\n\tA Los Angeles judge has dismissed Smokey Robinson\u2019s defamation counterclaims against former employees suing the Motown legend for sexual abuse.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn a ruling on Thursday (April 23), Judge Kevin C. Brazile said there isn\u2019t sufficient evidence to hold Robinson\u2019s former anonymous housekeepers and their lawyers liable for calling the singer a rapist at a press conference last year. \u00a0The decision is not a ruling on the veracity of the women\u2019s underlying sexual assault allegations; it\u2019s focused only on the defamation claims, which are subject to a higher pleading standard due to free speech laws.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tIn California, a public figure can only move forward with defamation claims if they provide evidence showing that their adversary acted with \u201cactual malice,\u201d meaning that this person knew a statement was false when they said it. Here, Judge Brazile said Robinson did not meet that standard after deposing the housekeepers.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThere is evidence supporting the Robinsons, including inconsistencies and unusual circumstances, like encouraging a sister to work after the assaults,\u201d wrote the judge. \u201cHowever, the evidence of actual malice does not approach the clear and convincing standard. A jury could credit the testimony of the plaintiffs, including recalling that they reminded Smokey to stop the assaults because he had a wife. Because cross-complainants failed to show actual malice, they did not show a reasonable probability of prevailing on their defamation claims.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tRobinson still has separate counterclaims pending against the housekeepers for allegedly deleting evidence and stealing from his family. Those claims are moving forward through discovery alongside the women\u2019s core sexual assault allegations, with a trial scheduled for 2027.<\/p>\n

\n\tA lawyer for the accusers, John Harris<\/strong>, said in a statement that Thursday\u2019s ruling \u201cstands as a powerful and unequivocal victory for our clients and for survivors everywhere who refuse to be silenced.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Smokey<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\t\u201cThe court saw this $500 million countersuit for what it is \u2014 a blatant, retaliatory attempt to intimidate, discredit and punish women for speaking out about sexual assault,\u201d added Harris. \u201cCalifornia\u2019s anti-SLAPP law exists to stop exactly this kind of abuse of the legal system, where wealth and power are used as weapons against those seeking accountability. Today, the court made clear that such tactics will not be tolerated.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tRobinson\u2019s attorney, Christopher Frost<\/strong>, said in his own statement on Thursday, \u201cObviously we believe the court\u2019s ruling is incorrect in the claims it did dismiss. There is plenty of evidence of actual malice on the part of the attorneys.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cMore fundamentally, our focus remains on showing that the Jane Does\u2019 claims are untrue and fabricated,\u201d Frost continued. \u201cEven the court, in its ruling, recognized the numerous inconsistencies in their testimony. Even though some of our claims were dismissed on a technicality today, it remains true that the Jane Does have a lot of trouble with their stories. You can expect our continued focus on getting to the bottom of those stories.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe legal battle began last May, when the four unnamed women filed a $50 million lawsuit alleging the 85-year-old artist had sexually abused them between 2007 and 2024. Later on, another female housekeeper and a male car mechanic joined the lawsuit anonymously with additional assault claims.<\/p>\n

\n\tRobinson vehemently denied all wrongdoing, saying the \u201cvile, false allegations\u201d were merely \u201can ugly method of trying to extract money.\u201d He countersued the accusers within weeks.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe plaintiffs also filed police reports after they sued Robinson, leading the Los Angeles County Sheriff\u2019s Department to open a criminal investigation. No charges have been brought to date.<\/p>\n


\"Billboard
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Los Angeles judge has dismissed Smokey Robinson\u2019s defamation counterclaims against former employees suing the Motown legend for sexual abuse. In a ruling on Thursday (April 23), Judge […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":10480,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[302,300,720,303,5825,301,5824,7088],"class_list":["post-10479","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-assault","tag-claims","tag-defamation","tag-lawsuit","tag-robinson","tag-sexual","tag-smokey","tag-tossed"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10479","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10479"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10479\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10480"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10479"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10479"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10479"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}