LOS ANGELES—In addition to ATMLA owner Mark Schechter's filing of a cross-complaint leveling charges against ATMLA's former owner, Roy Liberboim, and its manager, Shy Love, he's also now filed a formal response to the lawsuit filed by Love herself—and though several pages shorter than his lawsuit, Schechter nonetheless makes his position clear that he believes Love's original lawsuit is meritless.
For example, where Love had claimed in her complaint that an unnamed individual had told Love that Schechter had stated that "Love's husband[] had sold his business [ATMLA], which was in part operated by Plaintiff, because Plaintiff was bankrupt, that she had been unlawfully altering the business' accounting books, and that Plaintiff [owed] numerous of her employees and independent contractors large sums of money," Schechter's official Response, as filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court on Friday, is "The complaint and each of its causes of action are barred because all statements made were truthful and accurate."
Schechter's Answer, as drafted by his attorney, Karen Tynan, goes on to state, as "Affirmative Defenses," that the actions complained of by Love are "barred by the Statute of Limitations," "barred by the doctrine of qualified privilege under the California Civil Code §47"; "barred because all acts of defendant were done in innocence and good faith and motivated by legitimate, non-retaliatory and non-punitive reasons"; and that both the causes of action and the requested remedies are "barred because Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages"; "barred because any statements were an expression of opinion"; "barred because Plaintiff is a 'limited purpose public figure' as she is an adult film performer, she regularly publicizes herself and her expertise in the adult film industry, and she holds herself out as a leader in the adult business"; and "barred because Defendant made a fair comment regarding Plaintiff."
Beyond that, Schechter's Answer contends, as further affirmative defenses, that Love "failed to mitigate her alleged damages," meaning that there were actions Love could have taken that would have reduced or eliminated her claimed harms; that "Defendant did not act with malice," a requirement for a "public figure" Plaintiff to succeed in a defamation suit; that Love has "filed the complaint with 'unclean hands' and is in some manner responsible for the alleged damages within her complaint and therefore should be estopped from obtaining any relief by virtue of this action"; and that "the Complaint fails to properly state a claim for Special Damages." Schechter also contests Love's right to attorneys' fees or costs should she prevail in the lawsuit.
Still to be heard from are Schechter's co-defendant, director/actor Barrett Blade, as well as the so-far-unnamed "Does 1-20" also named as defendants.
Schechter's full Answer to Shy Love's complaint can be found here.
