The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →The California Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Ethan Klein and Ted Entertainment’s anti-SLAPP motion in Ryan Kavanaugh’s defamation lawsuit. That let Kavanaugh’s claims proceed past this procedural challenge; it did not decide that Klein defamed him or award Kavanaugh damages. The April 3, 2025 opinion says Kavanaugh is entitled to his costs on appeal, which is different from a damages award.
What the appeals court decided
In Kavanaugh v. Klein, California Court of Appeal case B327155, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Klein and Ted Entertainment, Inc.’s anti-SLAPP motion. Kavanaugh is the plaintiff in the underlying defamation case; Klein and the company are defendants. The motion was theirs, so saying that Kavanaugh “won the SLAPP motion” reverses who brought it.
The opinion, issued April 3, 2025, states: “The order is affirmed. Kavanaugh is entitled to his costs on appeal.” The opinion is unpublished. Its disposition addresses the anti-SLAPP motion and appeal costs, not whether the defendants are ultimately liable.
What the lawsuit alleges—and what it does not establish
Kavanaugh’s lawsuit alleges defamation and defamation by implication arising from Klein’s republication of an accusation that Kavanaugh operated a Ponzi scheme. In describing the case’s background, the appellate opinion recounts that the accusation originated in a 2019 Variety report about allegations by former business partner Elon Spar. The opinion also notes that the report was updated with a statement from Kavanaugh’s representative and a retraction attributed to Spar. That account describes the record before the court; it is not an independent finding about Kavanaugh’s business affairs.
#1 Best Overall
- Used Book in Good Condition
A ruling that claims survive an anti-SLAPP motion is not a finding that the challenged statements were false, that the defendants acted with the legally required degree of fault, or that Kavanaugh suffered legally compensable harm. Those merits questions were not resolved by the appellate disposition.
Why the anti-SLAPP motion failed
California’s anti-SLAPP procedure calls for a two-step analysis: whether the claims arise from protected speech or petitioning activity, and, if so, whether the plaintiff has shown the claims have at least minimal merit. The appeal concerned the second step. The trial court found that Kavanaugh had made a prima facie showing supporting his claims, and the Court of Appeal upheld the denial of the motion.
That is a threshold determination, not a trial verdict. It means the anti-SLAPP motion did not end the lawsuit; it does not predict the outcome of later proceedings.
How the conflicting 2022 rulings fit together
Some summaries may report that the motion was granted because a September 8, 2022 tentative ruling initially said so. That ruling was later withdrawn in its entirety. The updated tentative ruling dated December 9, 2022 denied the motion, and the Court of Appeal’s 2025 opinion confirms that the trial court denied it.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsRank #3
| Date | Record | What it says |
|---|---|---|
| September 8, 2022 | Trial court tentative ruling | Initially stated that the motion was granted; later withdrawn in its entirety. |
| December 9, 2022 | Updated trial court tentative ruling | Denied the anti-SLAPP motion and withdrew the earlier tentative ruling. |
| April 3, 2025 | California Court of Appeal, B327155 | Affirmed the denial of the motion. |
Did Kavanaugh win millions in damages?
No damages award is established by the appellate opinion. The costs it awards are costs on appeal, not compensation for defamation. The reviewed primary court material does not verify a current damages demand, and secondary coverage describing very large claimed losses should not be treated as a court finding or guaranteed recovery.
Any eventual damages would depend on further proceedings, the evidence, applicable law, and a final court decision. The April 2025 appeal ruling did not determine an amount or predict that a jury would award damages.
Rank #4
Is the underlying case still active?
The confirmed appellate result is the 2025 affirmance. A September 2026 secondary update described the lawsuit as active and said no trial date was confirmed, while a docket aggregator showed activity with a May 23, 2026 refresh. Neither establishes the official trial-court status on October 8, 2026. The reviewed material does not confirm whether the case was later settled, ended in judgment, or has a trial date. The official Los Angeles County Superior Court docket for case 21SMCV01868 is needed to establish that current status.
Quick Recap
Best Value
How to read headlines about the case
- Accurate: the appeals court affirmed the denial of Klein and Ted Entertainment’s anti-SLAPP motion.
- Not established: that Kavanaugh won a final defamation judgment, or that he was awarded millions.
- Keep the stages separate: surviving an anti-SLAPP challenge is a procedural result; liability and damages require further resolution.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
