← No Filter With Zack Peter
No Filter With Zack Peter
Bravo Lawsuit: Leah McSweeney Scores Win in Court! Plus, Kylie Stands by Timothee After Opera Drama
00:57:01
Loading summary
Transcript23 lines
- [00:01]
Empower Advertiser
Say you've always wanted to see your favorite team from the best seats in the house. Here's the thing. If you invest well, you could do things like that. With Empower, you can get your money working for you so you can go out and live a little. Isn't that why we work so hard to splurge at certain moments? Jet setting off to see your team play at one of the most iconic stadiums or getting your favorite player's super rare autographed one of one sports card. So use Empower to help you get good at money so you can be a little bad. Join their 19 million customers today@empower.com not an Empower client, paid or sponsored
- [00:35]
Progressive Insurance Advertiser
this episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with a name your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it@progressive.com, progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states. The Bleacher Report app is your destination for sports right now. The NBA is heating up, March Madness is here and MLB is almost back. Every day there's a new headline, a new highlight, a new moment you've got to see for yourself. That's why I stay locked in with the Bleacher Report app. For me, it's about staying connected to my sports. I can follow the teams I care about, get real time scores, breaking news and highlights all in one place. Download the Bleacher Report app today so you never miss a moment.
- [01:25]
Zack Peter
Well, bad news for bravo. Liam McSweeney's lawsuit is moving forward and it's not moving forward privately. It's going to be moving forward in in open court. We are going to see it all unfold. Plus Kylie Jenner standing by her man, Timothee Chalamet. Chalamet is in some hot water, but it's okay. Kylie's got his back. Hope you're ready for it. Let's dive in this is no Filter with Zack Peter your go to source for all the latest pop culture and reality TVT Surf fresh all week long. Now let's dive in let's dive in and dive in we shall Everybody in the club what's going on? What's up? What's up? What's up? What is it? Is Wednesday March 11th. Happy hump day. Hope you get humped Tuesday today Hey, what's up? Everybody in the club in the clear In a clear Everybody in the clearb in the clearb in the clearb, we do have a bit of a groundbreaking update based off of our groundbreaking news from earlier today, and that is that Mama Kelsey has finally responded to all of the. To all of the riveting response to her renovating her home, which she says she didn't even. So I guess she doesn't know how it got out. She assumes that it got out because there was, like, a permit that was posted or something. I mean, it really was the most wackadoodle do story. But so New Heights is the podcast that her boys host Travis Kelce and Jason Kelsey, and they called her and asked her about this story. And this is Donna Kelce's response. So let's get into the Donna Kelce of it all, because as we know, we were so hooked on this story, this groundbreaking story from TMC about this.
- [03:34]
Travis Kelce
Have you talked to her about since this came out? No, I have no idea what this. Should we ask her right now? Yeah, let's call her mom.
- [03:42]
Donna Kelce
Yes.
- [03:42]
Travis Kelce
We are doing a podcast right now. I'm on with Travis, Mama.
- [03:46]
Zack Peter
She can't hear me.
- [03:47]
Travis Kelce
He just said hi. We are wondering this tweet that has taken the world by storm.
- [03:56]
Donna Kelce
Even tmz, you know, like, sent me a text and said, can you be on? This is really funny. I'm like, it's so stupid. They probably pulled up on it because they're coming on Monday to put my windows and doors in.
- [04:10]
Travis Kelce
Is it. Is it like an HGTV show, or is this just, like, a legitimate random.
- [04:15]
Donna Kelce
No, I know all they is. My. My people are coming to put in my windows on Monday.
- [04:21]
Travis Kelce
Well, you're doing 16 windows. The article says nine.
- [04:24]
Donna Kelce
Because, you know, my whole apartment is all windows.
- [04:28]
Travis Kelce
Well, I just wanted to say, mom, they said modest home, and I just. It feels like you're turning this place into a bit of a gilded palace. I think you've changed a little bit. I think you've. You've. You've had a taste of the good life, and now all of a sudden, what?
- [04:42]
Donna Kelce
Yeah, you know me, so. You know, I am so, like, logical, and it's like I'm doing something so that I can save money on heating and air conditioning and to keep my windows from sweating. That's as simple as it is.
- [04:58]
Travis Kelce
I know, I know. We're just having fun with it too. It's amazing. It is hilarious and in an awesome way. We love you.
- [05:05]
Zack Peter
I love you, mama. Love you, Mom.
- [05:08]
Travis Kelce
Travis is screaming, I love you too, as well.
- [05:10]
Donna Kelce
Oh, tell Travis I'm so happy he's going back. I'm. I'm thrilled for another year.
- [05:16]
Travis Kelce
As long as Mama approves, I'm doing the right things.
- [05:20]
Zack Peter
All right, that's from the New Heights podcast. So those are their responses. The boys think it's hilarious. Donna Kelsey called it stupid. She thinks it's crazy. It's wild how viral, how viral the story actually went. I guess TMZ also reached out to Donna as well to see if she would come on the show, because they're like, oh, this story is going crazy. We would love to have you on to talk about it. I don't think Donna Kelsey is gonna be going on TMZ to talk about it anytime soon, though. You better believe she ain't gonna talk about it. Windows ain't cheap. I know. And 16 windows to replace is quite a lot. But I guess she's like, I'm gonna save money because it's gonna, like, I don't know, prevent heating something. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. But that's. That's your Donna Kelsey update. What a time to be alive. What a time, what a time. What a time to be alive. To be alive. Ah. And tmz, as we said yesterday, ruined the joke. It was supposed to be so good. It was, like, the fun. The best time ever. And then TMZ just went and had to jump in on the joke and kill it for all of us. They just ruined the fun. Okay, what else is popping off in the world? We have Timothee Chalamet. Oh. And then we have this Liam McSweeney, Andy Cohen, Bravo lawsuit, which is gonna be interesting because we just got an update on it, and it appears that it's going to be moving forward. Robin says, I can't stop laughing about Donna in her red. Oh, she's like that with her shoulders. She was like. Like, poor Donna Kelsey. It's funny. Everyone was like, we knew that that was Donna Kelsey when we saw her walking. I was like, why did they even use her? Like, why not put, like, a fake body double? That way you can. I mean, listen, you can see those shoulders from a mile away. Donna Kelce is a linebacker. You know, she's a line defenseman. So, you know, I didn't think. I don't know. But it was obvious that she was the secret trader. Sorry, if that's a spoiler for you, it shouldn't be, because you should have known from the second you started watching it. But, yeah, what a time. What A time. What a time to be alive. Okay, moving on over. Let's talk. Let's get into the Lee McSweeney lawsuit of it all. And then we'll get into the Timothy Kiley of it all because there's a lot to break down there as well. But first, you know what we gotta do. We gotta give some love into club. Because I am obsessed with. I'm loving factor meals because they just make my life so much easier. Right? Somewhere between the first warm weekend and realizing short season is getting close, eating well stops feeling optional. Am I right? Factor is how I stopped letting a busy schedule be my excuse. Fully prepared meals designed by dietitians and crafted by chefs. Ready in two minutes. No planning, no cooking. Okay? We're talking about quality, functional ingredients, including lean proteins, colorful veggies, whole food ingredients, and healthy fats. I mean, they have so many yummy, delicious options. They have these, these delicious meatballs that I'm low key. I salivate every time I think about them because I just. And their pastas are so good. Like, I, I've never been disappointed with the factor meal. I feel like they're satiating the, the quality proteins taste delicious. Like the meals taste good and it's just super easy because the last thing I want to do is at the end of the day, think about, like, oh, I have to go to the market. What am I going to buy? Am I going to cook for dinner and factor? And then I'm not spending money on delivery because factor's already here. It's already in my fridge. It's super easy. No refined sugars, no artificial sweeteners, no refined oils. We don't like seed oils. Right? We don't do seed oils. These are meals that fit your goals and fit your schedule. Healthier eating, calorie management, more protein, whatever is on your goal post factors here to help you meet it. Always frozen or sorry. Always fresh. Never frozen. Ready in about two minutes. No prep, no stress. You can actually stick to your goals this year. I'm telling you, I love me some factor and I know you're gonna love it too, because I know you're probably busy or just by the end of the day you have Nancy fatigue and you're just like, I don't want to think about what to cook tonight. Factor makes it easy. Head to FactorMeals.com NoFields or 50 off and use the code NOFIELDS50OFF to get 50% off and a free breakfast for a year. Say what? Offer only valid on new fact customers with code and Qualifying auto renewing subscription purchase make healthier eating easy with factor. Okay, I think it is time to officially dun, dun, dun, get to the Bravo versus Leah of it all. Boom. Okay, so I actually have the court documents here. It was reported that there was a big loss for Bravo and that Bravo and Andy Cohen, they will be. They originally wanted things to get settled in arbitration, and that does not appear to be the case. Judge Lyman, who's currently overseen Lively versus Baldoni. Lyman is also the judge here in Lee McSweeney's lawsuit. And bad news for Bravo. Liam McSweeney's lawsuit against Bravo and Andy Cohen will now be heard in open court. Okay, so initially, Bravo appeared cool with the. The courts deciding on what happens in Leah's case. They thought they were all good. I think they were expecting it to get dismissed and, you know, then they thought this could be a big public victory. But Judge Lyman has. Has agreed to bring the case forward in open court, meaning the press and the public will have access to the proceedings and the filings. Lyman made a few decisions that affected the case ultimately, primarily making Leah refine her case against the network. I think he gutted a few of her claims, so she kind of. She had to amend some things, but some of her claims will still be moving forward. But now Bravo wanted to move the case to arbitration, which would mean that it would be resolved behind closed doors. It would be resolved privately. The details would not be accessible to the public. I believe most networks and most companies have clauses in their contracts that say things have to go to arbitration before they can move forward into an open court lawsuit. Because they would rather things be handled with an arbitrator. Like, it's just. It keeps your discovery, it keeps your details from coming out. I mean, look at Blake Lively. Had she dealt with, you know, an arbitrator, all of her text messages with Taylor Swift would have been. Would have never been published out for everybody to read. But it appears Bravo waived their right to arbitration with how they approached Lee McSweeney's lawsuit, presumably thinking that they're going to win. So Judge Lyman shot them down. He said, nope, not today. You can't have your cake and eat it too. So that means this case will be heard for all to hear, which means discovery is likely to get very, very messy. It's your bestie, Ms. Ms. Westy. We love when it gets messy. I would imagine this goes to trial next year just with how long these things take. I mean, look at Blake and Baldoni. That was filed back in December 2024. And we're now in March of 2026 and we still have not gotten to trial yet. Cause we have to wait until May of 2026. We're still two months away from trial to think that we would have been headed to trial right now had it not gotten pushed back from March to May. We would have been gearing up for this big trial. Now we have to wait. So great, thanks. Thanks, Lyman. But yeah, I, I imagine this goes to trial next week. But just like Blake and Baldoni, unless there are any attorney size only protections or motions to seal, we'll have access to all of this publicly. We'll see what gets put in, what gets pulled up in discovery. We'll be able to go through it. We'll see deposition excerpts like we are with Blake and Baldoni. I would imagine Bravo is going to fight hard because we're going to see everything, you know, out there in the open and we're seeing the popularity with these big legal scandals. They keep blowing up online. So I think this is going to get messy, messy, messy. But let's actually go through the filing. Let's go through what Lyman is actually saying about this case. This is Leah versus Andy. Okay, so this is Judge Lyman's ruling. Defendants Andy Cohen, Lisa Shannon, John Pazo, Darren Ward, Warner Brothers Discovery Inc. Shed Media, NBC Universal Media and Bravo Media LLC, collectively known as the Defendants, move to pursuant Section 3 and 4 of the Federal Arbitration act for an order compelling arbitration and staying all proceedings in this matter. This motion is denied because the defendants have already waived their right to seek arbitration. And you guys tried it, you guys didn't land it. Okay, if you're going to make sure you stick the landing if you're going to go for it, right. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Morgan v. Sundance Inc. The Second Circuit has directed the courts should evaluate the question of whether a party has waived its right to arbitration by focusing on the following question. Did the moving party knowingly relinquish the right to arbitrate by acting inconsistently with that Dun dun, dun. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that there is some question as to whether the loss or the loss of the right to arbitrate through litigation related conduct should be understood to raise issues waiver forfeit or sorry, forfeiture, estoppel lashes or procedural timeliness. The court uses the term waiver here only because that is the term used by the 2nd Circuit in Doyle and used in the parties or used by the parties. In fact, the loss of the right to arbitrate through litigation related conduct might also raise questions of judicial estoppel estoppel. A positive answer to that question does not require a showing of prejudice to the party opposing arbitration. Rather, in determining whether the right to arbitrate has been lost through litigation related conduct and the court should consider all aspects of the party's moving forward Party's moving forward moving parties conduct, including those factors that were significant under its pre Morgan test, as long as it does not do so in the lens of prejudice. In Doyle, the second circuit held that the defendants had waived their right to compel arbitration by their post litigation conduct. Defendants had filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or to abstain under Colorado river seeking the dismissal of all claims against them. At no point before the motion to dismiss was denied did defendants file a motion to compel arbitration or otherwise alert the district court or the plaintiffs that they plan to seek such relief. So they didn't tell the judge that they wanted to arbitrate this all the way. So the judge was like, you didn't say this before, so it's a little too little too late. Cry me a river. In addition, following a decision on the motion to dismiss, the party stipulated to an extension of the time to respond of time to respond to the complaint again without mentioning the possibility that defendants would move to compel arbitration. So they can't push for arbitration because they never expressed any interest in arbitration before. Presumably because I think they thought that they were going to be able to get this case dismissed publicly. It was only when the answer was due that defendants, rather than file an answer, moved to compel arbitration. The second circuit held that defendants waived their right to arbitrate. The court reasoned that by seeking affirmative deposit deposit of relief in the district court, the defendants availed themselves of the district's ability of the district court's ability authority and wait, why am I not being able to read today the district court's authority and thus wave their right to arbitrate. Okay, we get it. The facts of the case are similar to those presented in Doyle. Plaintiff filed her initial complaint in this case on February 27, 2024. The complaint asserted claims of discrimination on the basis of disability, sex and gender and religion, Hostile work environment retaliat and violation of the racketeering influence influence corruption organizations act. Defendants timely timely filed a motion to dismiss that complaint on May 22, 2024. Case Alia filed her lawsuit the next month. They they filed a motion to dismiss. The motion sought dismissal of all causes of action against the defendants under the first amendment of the United States Constitution and federal rule of civil procedure. The memorial. The memorandum of law in support of the motion to dismiss cited the plaintiff's agreement with the defendants and a declaration in support of the motion put those arguments before the court. Okay, but the memorandum did not mention the defendant's right to arbitration or seek in the form of an order compelling arbitration. Okay, so it's saying that they filed their motion to dismiss because they said that she had signed an agreement. Right. They're like, this is the agreement that the. That the plaintiff signed with us that said that she would, I'm assuming, agree to arbitration first. But the judge is saying that they waived their right to arbitration. Trying to understand what he's saying here. The memorandum of law in support of the motion to dismiss cited to plaintiffs agreements with defendants and a declaration in support of the motion to put those agreements before the court. Okay, but the memorandum did not mention defendants right to arbitration or seek relief in the form of an order compelling arbitration. Okay, so they never cited our rotation. Prior defendants, that's Andy and Bravo, sought full and final resolution of the claims against them in federal court. Right, because they wanted the judge to be able to rule on the motion to dismiss. They wanted Leah's case dismissed altogether. In response to the defendant's motion, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. Okay. That complaint added new claims for retaliation and interference due to retaliation and interference against defendant Cohen. Interesting. So Andy specifically got called out in the first amended complaint. Then come summer of 2024, defend July 17, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Defendants once again sought dismissal of all claims against them on the first amendment grounds and for failure to state a claim for relief. Defendants, that's Andy and co. Andy and Bravo put the agreements with plaintiff. That's Leah. So Bravo and Andy put the agreements with Leah before the court through a declaration and referred to those agreements in the memorandum of law in support of the motion. The memorandum did not mention the arbitration clause in those agreements or seek in the form of a stay or an order compelling arbitration. Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion on August 21, 2024. And the defendants filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of the motion on September 13, 2024. Okay, so it's saying that they. I guess because they were going back and forth with Leah in court, and they never necessarily were explicit to the judge that they wanted this to be held in arbitration and. And resolved in arbitration, but they were going back and forth in court with the Judge, that because of that, that's what then was essentially them waiving their right to have to go to arbitration is my understanding of this. The court spent substantial time deciding the motion to dismiss. It heard oral arguments on November 14, 2024. November 14, 2024. Minute entry. The argument on that motion spanned 60 pages of transcripts. Defendants did not mention arbitration rights. Okay, so I'm correct because they were fighting this with Leah in court and not telling the judge that they were interested in any motion to compel arbitration. The judge is like, well, you guys didn't mention arbitration before, and you're only mentioning it now because you want to change the rules, because now you know that this is moving forward. Okay. Says in the meantime, the parties and the court addressed issues relating to discovery. On August, 6, 2024, the party submitted a proposed case management plan. Okay. In connection with that plan, defendants asked the court to exercise its authority to stay discovery, but did not mention arbitration. Okay, so he's mentioning all the filings that Bravo and Andy and company all were putting in there where they never mention this, you know, arbitration that they now want to seek. In a letter motion filed the same day, defendants argued that the court should stay discovery because of their pending motion to dismiss and presented substantial grounds for dismissal of the First Amendment complaint in its entirety. Right. So they wanted the judge to rule on this on the motion to dismiss. They wanted the judge to just dismiss Leah's case altogether. It seemed that they felt strong that they could get it dismissed altogether. So again, they never mentioned wanting to take this to arbitration. They wanted the judge to hear it again. The court held an initial pretrial conference on August 13, 2024, um, and entered a case management plan and scheduling order on the same day. And the court considered the. The competing arguments with respect to a stay, including the merits of the motion to dismiss, and issued an opinion denying the motion for discovery. Motion for a stay of discovery. Right. Because Bravo and Andy said, we don't want discovery to move forward. We want the judge to first rule on the motion to dismiss, and then we can get into to discovery. And that did not appear to get approved. It looked like the judge was moving forward with discovery having to begin without him hearing the motion to dismiss. At the end of the oral argument on the motion to dismiss, defendants renewed their request to the court that the court stay discovery, and they filed a letter motion seeking that relief. On November 20, 2024, the court received a response in opposition to the letter on November 22, no one mentioned arbitration. On December 2, so he's literally going piece by piece by on. Well, I guess this is a helpful recap for us. On December 2, the court 2024. The court granted the motion for a stay, finding that defendants concern with respect to the scope of discovery was no longer based on speculation. Okay. The court granted the motion for a stay, finding the defendant's concern with respect to a scope of discovery was no longer based on speculation. Got it. Okay. So whatever Bravo and Andy and co were arguing to get that motion for a stay of discovery to be granted, the judge now determined that the scope was no longer based on speculation. So it seems he granted the. He eventually granted the motion to stay discovery. Okay. Then by March 31, 2025, the court issued a 100 page opinion on defendant's motion to dismiss. The court exhaustively analyzed each plaintiff's claims and defendant's arguments. It issued a ruling on the defendant' arguments that the alleged conduct was protected by the first amendment from regulation under the anti discrimination statutes. The court summarized its ruling in detail in a detailed summary chart at the conclusion of its opinion. This was when this was. Oh, March 2025. So exactly a year ago. The court summarized its ruling in detailed in a detailed chart. Okay, got it. In summary, it sustained certain of the plaintiff's disability claims, but dismissed her claims based on religious and gender discrimination. Right. I remember this. This is when Leah's case essentially got gutted. A bunch of her claims were cut, but some of them were allowed to stay. As to certain, but not all claims, the court permitted the plaintiff to replead. It rejected plaintiff's claims for gender discrimination because some of them were time barred and others failed to state the claim for relief. The court directed that any motion to file an amended complaint be filed within two weeks. Even after that date, there was no mention of arbitration. Okay, so this is where the ca. The judge is gutting Leah's case. He's trying to determine which. Which claims move forward, which don't. And he's saying at this point, nobody's talking about wanting arbitration. And it does seem that Bravo Andy and company were assuming that they would be able to get Leah's case thrown out before it moved to this point. Then In April, on April 9, 2025, the party submitted a joint letter motion requesting an extension of time for plaintiff to move to a second amended complaint for defendants to respond to an operative pleading and for the parties to submit a revised case management plan. Plaintiff requested a 30 day extension. That's Leah. She wanted more time of time to move to file an amended complaint pleading in light of other commitments and upcoming Jewish holidays. Oh, so she's like, I'm Jewish, so I can't, I can't update my complaint yet. Defendants, that's Bravo and Andy, asked the court to set a deadline of 30 days following the filing of an amended pleading so that they could respond to the operative pledge. Pleading and parties jointly sought additional time to meet and confer regarding the scope and timing of discovery in the best possible way to proceed in light of the order denying in part and granting in part the motion to dismiss the demands that have already been served and the plaintiff's proposed amended amendment to the first amended complaint, Once again, no mention was made of arbitration. The court granted the letter motion. Okay, so this is when he made the decision. Some of Leah's claims got tossed out. Some were able to move forward. On May 5, 2025, the party submitted a further joint letter motion requesting a 14 day extension of time for the plaintiff to move to amend her first amendment complaint, including to see if agreement could be reached on an Amendment and a 14 day extension of the time to file a revised case management plan so they could continue to meet and confer regarding the scope and timing of discovery. No mention of arbitration. The court granted the motion the same day. Cool. Then we get to May 2025. This is May 28th. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend and file a proposed second amendment complaint. Second amended complaint. That same day, the parties also submitted a revised proposed case management plan for discovery without mentioning arbitration. Better letter by letter of June 4, 2025, the party submitted a letter setting forth a schedule for briefing on the motion to amend, pursuant to which the defendants would submit a responsive brief on July 3, 2025, and the plaintiff would reply on July 4. By agreement of the parties, the second amended complaint was filed in July 2025. July 11. It was not until June 20. June 18, 2025, 14 months after the plaintiff initiated this action and after defendants had filed two motions to dismiss and the court granted in part and denied in part, a second motion to dismiss, the defendants first informed plaintiff's counsel that the defendants would be moving to compel arbitration. So it sounds like they saw the case moving forward, in part at least, and therefore they're like, let's just settle this in arbitration. Defendants first informed the court of their intention to move to compel arbitration on June 30, 2025. Defendants did not file their motion to compel arbitration until July 16th. Okay. In short, as in Doyle, defendants did not seek to compel arbitration in this case until they had first invoked the court's authority and sought affirmative deposit of relief. They did so in part by raising challenges and difficult issues of first amendment law that if the court had accepted, would have resulted in the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims. And it did not until the after they had taken that gambit and lost. Here the court here, Judge Lyman is saying you guys took a chance and you lost. And after they could, and after they confronted what might have appeared to be a daunting specter of civil discovery in federal court, that they changed course and asserted that the court should never have exercised its authority in the first place. Interesting. So Judge Lyman is pissed about this because he's like no, no, no. You wanted the judge to make a decision. You wanted this to be made in open court. You wanted me to decide whether or not her case should move forward and shouldn't move forward. Now I've ruled and now you're upset that I didn't completely toss out her case altogether together. And because you don't want to move to discovery, you don't want these details to come out publicly. Now you want to talk about arbitration. Nah. Too little too late. By invoking the court's authority to dismiss the entire case on the merits and turning arbitration only turn to arbitration only after failing in that effort, defendants have lost the right to arbitrate through their litigation related conduct. Arbitration is not a fallback position. It is a second. Not. It's not a second bite at the apple. Rather, a party with the claim to arbitrate faces a binary choice. Litigation or arbitration. One cannot have it both ways. Who Snap snap Doyle Defendants have not have no persuasive response. Defendants insert that they did not waive their right to arbitrate because such right was not available until after the court decided the motion to dismiss and dismiss plaintiffs sex based claims. They note that before the motion to dismiss was granted, plaintiff had actionable sex based claims that arguably were protected from arbitration arbitration by the ending forced Arbitration Act. Interesting. But that with the. But that with the granting of the motion to dismiss, plaintiff's remaining case does not allege conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute and the case is not. Does not relate to such a dispute. That argument proves that too much and doesn't. That argument proves too much and does not excuse defendants tardiness in raising the issue of arbitration. So. So he's saying if you ever like he's saying it looks like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, but if you ever planned on moving forward to arbitration. Like yes, technically there were obstacles that you needed to overcome before we could even decide on moving this to arbitration. But you never expressed any interest in arbitration prior and you never notified the court of your plans to arbitrate. Therefore, you essentially waived those rights. If the case that plaintiff filed was protected against a motion for forced arbitration when it was filed, arguably it still is protected. It still is protected form forced arbitration. As plaintiff notes, that's Leah. As Leah notes, she has not withdrawn her claims of sexual harassment, but has explicitly reserved her right to appeal the court's decision dismissing those claims and her right to try those claims. If the appellate court determines that this court erred in its decision, Defendants rely upon Wore Them v. Total Transportation Corp. On reconsideration for the proposition that is considered that in considering the amount of time that had elapsed before seeking to compel arbitration, a court should exclude the time during which defendants had no basis to move to compel arbitration. But that case is in opposite in Wortham, the plaintiff's original complaint and the first amended complaint named as plaintiff. Apparently person to whom the arbitration provisions did not apply after plaintiff filed an amended complaint that amended complaint that named as plaintiff's persons to whom the arbitration provisions did apply, nearly all of the docket activity pertained to the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and there was no substantive motion practice save the motion to compel arbitration. Okay, whatever. Fun footnote. Moreover, assuming arguendo that plaintiff's sex based claims do not protect her from forced arbitration now because according to the court's decision, they do not state a claim for relief, they also would have to would not have protected her from forced arbitration when the case was initially filed. Put otherwise, there was nothing that prevented defendants from seeking arbitration in their first motion to dismiss or their second motion to dismiss. In particular, defendants argue that now that the EFAA does not apply because the court held plaintiff sex based claims were either time barred or if not time barred, failed to state a claim for relief, right? Not necessarily that the claim should be handled in arbitration, but that there were legitimate reasons why they should have been dismissed. But if that is true now, it is also true that the time that defendants made their two motions to dismiss, there was nothing to prevent defendants from moving as prudent parties who want to preserve the arbitration right to do in such situation, Defendants move to dismiss sexual harassment claims and compel arbitration. Defendants did not have to wait for the court to say it's to say it agreed with the agreement. And if the Court held In Diaz Roa vs Hermes law, the appropriate question to ask is not whether the sex based claims failed to state a claim for relief, but whether the sex based claims were made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or were wholly insubstantial and frivolous. That does not provide an excuse for defendants not moving to compel either. With the first and second motions to dismiss, the defendants could have also compelled arbitration on the grounds that the sex based claims were made solely to avoid the EFAA and were wholly insubstantial and frivolous. As it stands, defendants are trying to have their cake and eat it too. See, there you go. They asked the court to exercise its authority to address, among other things, the constitutional question of whether the act of Congress violated the First Amendment as applied in entertainment enterprise, a question which principles of constitutional avoidance suggest the court might avoid if possible. And then only after the court has exercised the authority and rejected their argument have they turned to their second option of arbitration. The FAA does not permit a party to play a game of heads I win, tails you lose. Waiting to see how the case was going in federal district court before deciding whether it would be better off there or an arbitration. Yeah, it kind of seems like they took a gamble and they lost. Defendants remaining arguments may be quickly addressed. Defendants assert that the court should not find waiver because there has been minimal discovery. But Morgan expressly rejected that rule requiring a showing of prejudice and the opposing party before waiver could be found. In Doyle itself, there's no evidence that at that any discovery had taken place. The Second Circuit's decision was pre was predicted entirely upon the making of the motion to dismiss or for absentation, seeking the dismissal of the entire case. A party can lose the right to arbitrary and act inconsistently with the right without first attempting to avail itself of the tools of federal court discovery to obtain information which might be unavailable in arbitration. Indeed, it is frequently that. It was frequently the case, as it is here, that the party seeking arbitration will not have the need for substantial discovery either in litigation or in arbitration. And that is the only reason the party is comfortable seeking arbitration. The party can be deemed to have acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate by asking the court to devote its limited resources to depose of a complaint and and only after those resources have been expended to seek to proceed in another venue arbitration and to assert that the court never should have done the work in the first place. Defendants further assert, relying on pre Morgan case law, that the decision to file a motion to dismiss is not itself a sufficient basis on which to find waiver. The proposition is true as far as it goes, but does not help the defendants. It is not the filing of the motion to dismiss a loan that constitutes. Constitutes conduct inconsistent with the right to arbitrate. It is the filing of the motion without asking the court in alternative not to rule at all, but to stay action and to compel arbitration that results in a waiver. Right. So the judge is saying they had an option to arbitrate or they had an option to file a motion to dismiss. They chose to file a motion to dismiss. They chose to gut her case rather than arbitrate with her. So the judge is saying if you've always planned on arbitration, which is your right to do, you can move to arbitration. But that would have had to have been your first cause of action. You would have first had said, hey, we want to settle this behind closed doors. We want to settle this privately. And then there would have been no need to file the motions to dismiss. Or at least if they were going to file those motions to dismiss, they could very clearly cite that arbitration was their goal, not the dismissal of life of Leah's case. And to the extent that defendants would have it, that a party can ask the court to dismiss a complaint in its entirety and only after losing seek to compel arbitration. That proposition, which rests on the notion that the waiver of arbitration requires prejudice, does not survive. Morgan and Doyle, I believe the two cases that they were cited. In light of the court's findings of waiver, the court does not need to address the remainder of the issues raised by the parties. The motion to compel arbitration and to stay this case is denied. The clerk of court is respectfully directed to close the motion. Dun, dun, dun. Judge Lyman. Well, thank you, Lyman. What a time to be alive, you guys. It is not looking good. Not looking good for Bravo. So there we go. That's where we at. Yum. That's where we at. Bella said. Hi, Bella. A break from the same old crap. I love you covering this. I'm interested in this. I can't wait for this to move forward. I would imagine more is going to come out now. Discovery is going to start to get messy. This is where things are going to really start to heat up. Just like with Blake versus Lively. Right? They were filing their amended complaints and they were the motions to dismiss and all of that. But it wasn't until discovery started happening, the deposition started happening, that things really started getting meaty and juicy. And now that appears to be happening with Leah's case versus Bravo. So things are getting interesting. Well, his team put up a website of all the discovery that. Yes, that's true. And we will still, I'm assuming we're still going to get pieces of that discovery as it's filed on the docket. They didn't put up a website of all the discovery. They put up a website of their own timeline of the events and the evidence that supports the event. So it's like their own version of discovery. Elizabeth says you can only get away with abusing people for entertainment for so long. Yeah. But also like there needs to be a level of accountability. I don't know, it's kind of weird. I always say it's like the NFL, right. Like when you decide to sign up for the pro athlete league, you know that there are casualties with that. Right. You're going on the field and you're likely to get injured. And if you get injured, that could potentially end your career altogether. But some people still take those risks and those gambles knowing what they're signing up for. Right. Because there's money involved, there's fame involved, there's status involved, there's, you know, setting yourself up for a future as a commentator. Whatever the case may be, you have options. And that kind of I feel like was always the case with entertainment and with reality tv. People like it when it's good and then when it's not good, suddenly they want to complain. But you signed deal with the devil you have. It's a double edged sword. It comes with it's good and it comes with its bad. You have to take what you get. Wonder who's going to be on Leah's witness list? I don't know. I mean, it seems like she might not have too strong of a witness list. Right. Nene Leakes is back in good graces with Bravo. So it's going to be hard to come to pull her into this. Who would be the other one? Rachel Levis. I feel like Rachel doesn't want to be part of any of this drama. So who would be left in Bravo's Rolodex of people that would potentially want to sue for discrimination? I don't know. Robin says hadn't Leah ever watched Housewives and she said she had broken her sobriety before coming out? Yeah, I believe it was like six months before she even began filming Real Housewives in New York where she said that she had broken her sobriety. But I think with her she's saying that her alcohol addiction is a disability. That's her disability is alcohol addiction disorder. And they were not accommodating of her disability because they provided alcohol on set while they were filming. Alcohol was available. Bravo tried to argue that, like, well, no, we were just filming what was happening. We were filming these women's lives. So if these women, if Ramona chooses to have a party and Ramona chooses to have alcohol available at that party, that's not our responsibility. Our job is just to be there to document it. Not necessarily to tell Ramona not to have alcohol. Obviously that's a hypothetical, but, like, not to tell Ramona to not have alcohol at her party. And also, our job isn't to protect Leah from drinking. Our job is just to film Leah's experience at this party. And if Leah chooses to drink, that's on her own. We don't have responsibility over what she chooses to do on camera. Our job and our role is solely to document what's happening. You know, so that's where it gets a little interesting. And then she said something about how in Ultimate Girls Trip, they promised to take her to, like, AA meetings, and they didn't. And they said, well, we tried to. Or we gave her the option to, like, she had the option to go to an AA meeting if she wants to. So we'll see. Claudia says, can't stand Andy. He's such a pimp. I don't think he's a pimp. I mean, look at these housewives. Love it until they don't. Right? They love it until the audience turns on them. They love it until it's not all diamonds and. Right? They love it until the other edge of that sword comes swinging. But again, you kind of know what you're signing up for. And Leah liked it when she was light, and she didn't like it when they didn't like her anymore. She shouldn't have been on real Ultimate Girls Trip anyway. Yeah, I agree with that. I don't know why she signed up. It's literally called Ultimate Girls Trip. So presumably, yeah, you're going to be on vacation. And if you remember, and I'm pretty sure Bravo's going to pull this footage, she was the one telling the other girls that they were boring if they didn't take shots. She wanted them to drink. And remember, Gisele Bryant was like, we're not your show ponies, Leah. Like, you don't just get to tell us to dance if you want us to dance. Like, we're not here to entertain you. We're here on our Ultimate Girls Trip. Doesn't it look bad, though, that she continued and did. Yes, it does look bad. She did season one and then came back for a second season, and then she went and did Ultimate Girls Trip years afterwards. So she kept coming back to what she believed was this toxic work environment where they were exploiting her disability, her alcoholism. What did Dorinda say? Pigeons don't fly with eagles. Christina said, it's hot out here for a pimp while he's trying to make his money for the rant and all the cash and then that money spent. Yeah. Ariana says that's not a realistic view. If she wasn't on tv, I'm sure she went to parties and dinners with alcohol around. If she can't be around it, then she needs to make that decision. Yes, true, but like in a nor. So her argument, just to play devil's advocate and lean on her side of things, her argument is like, yes, that's true. If it were a party, I would have autonomy. I would be able to not go to the party. Or I would. If I were to drink, that would be on my responsibility. However, I wasn't just going to a normal party at my friend Ramona's house. We're filming a television show. We have a call time. They tell me where to be and when to be. They put a microphone on me. They are filming me and they're also paying me. Therefore, they are my employers. Therefore they are responsibility for my safety. And if they're abusing or exploiting my disability, that is discrimination. So that's her argument. Right. So. And that's what's going to be interesting. And I'm going to. I'm very curious and interested to see how this plays out in. In the. In court because. Or in the, at the trial, because, like, it's going to be interesting to see what they ultimately determined because, yeah, you're right. I'm with you, Ariana. Like, that's not realistic. She chose to be on tv. And Bravo's argument is it's like, well, yeah, I mean, sure, we're employing her or like, yes, she does work for us through this show. But our role in all of this and what we all agreed to is we're just here to document it. So then we get into this really weird place of like, well, where do the lines blur of when a producer becomes a caretaker and when the company is responsible for the reality star? And not just, you know, it's, you know, it's interesting. Yeah. Since when is alcoholism a disability here? Well, that's what she's Trying to argue. She's trying to argue that she has alcohol use disorder, which is essentially being a drunk. So, yeah, she's accusing producers of coercing her to drink. Yes. She's saying that they encouraged her to drink, which is then where it becomes, well, this is not just me walking into a party that my friend's hosting. This is now somebody that is attached to a paycheck of mine that's influencing me and encouraging me to drink. And if I don't drink, then am I going to lose my job as a result of not drinking? That's where we get into these really crazy blurred lines, nuances, you know, that's where it gets murky, and that's where we're going to have to see which, you know, arguments bring forth in front of a jury, possibly a jury. As of right now, it's just the judge, but we'll see. We shall see. Fifi says, I worked in the beauty industry most of my life. So many events, so many parties every week. I am not a go hard girl, but I can still hang. I am an adult, and it's my job to at least show up. Show up, Leah. Exactly. But she's making some interesting points that I think will affect the industry, whether I agree with those points or not. I don't really agree with her. I agree with you guys in the live chat, but I'm saying in core, we're looking at Blake Lively and how she's playing that right in court. Christina makes a good point. Alcoholism is classified as a disease, not a disorder. It is a disability, however, not to be used in court yet. Correct. So that's where, you know, it gets a little. It just. It gets interesting. So we'll see. Okay, let's shift gears a bit and let's talk about. I just want to wrap up talking about Timothy Chalamet. Did you guys catch. He did a convo, I believe it was. He did a Convo with Matthew McConaughey. He's over here lobbying for his Oscar. We have the, you know, he's a front runner for all the Academy Awards. And there was a variety CNN event and there was a conversation between Timothee chalamet and Matthew McConaughey that pissed off a lot of people. And this is the. Let's play the clip for it for you guys. That way you can see for opera or, you know, things where it's like,
- [48:49]
Travis Kelce
hey, keep this thing alive. Even though no one cares about this anymore. All respect to the ballet and opera people out there.
- [48:58]
Zack Peter
So he says he doesn't want to work for the opera because he doesn't want to be responsible for, like, trying to keep this thing alive. It's basically the. The comments that he made with Matthew McConaughey. And even Matthew McConaughey is like. Like, he doesn't really, like, react to it very much. And so people are upset because they're like, that's a really shitty thing to say. Don't you have family that does opera? Like, that's not nice, and blah, blah, blah. And they're all, like, complaining with their panties in a bunch. And so Kylie Jenner just did a spread, I think, in Variety or in Vanity Fair rather than. And she is standing by her man. Now, obviously, I would assume this interview and these photos and everything was done well before Timothy's statements about the opera, which I also think people are just being a little dramatic about. Like, I think people are overblowing this. And, like, it's not really that deep. Like, and he's not wrong. Like, nobody's going to the opera. Nobody's going to the ballet. Like, it's just not something that is part of mainstream culture anywhere. People go to the movies, people stream things now people have social media, but, like, the main form of entertainment is no longer opera and ballet. I mean, I remember when was the last time I went. I don't remember the last time I went to the opera. I don't know if I've ever gone to the opera. I know I saw the Nutcracker when I was a kid. I must have been, like, 8, 9, maybe even 10, 11. And I remember going to the opera. My grandmother took us, and we went to see the Nutcracker. It was very long. And the challenge is it's kind of boring as a kid because there's no dialogue. So that's where it's kind of like, you know, Charlie says, for God's sake, can people have an opinion anymore? I know. Well, the crazy part is he's doing these events because he's lobbying for his Oscar this weekend. Sunday is the Oscars, and Timothy wants to make sure that he secures his Oscar win. And, like, this is where you have to be on your best behavior. And he didn't really seem to be retracting it. He kind of seemed to be doubling down on it and standing by. He's like, no shade to anybody that does that, but it's just not what it was anymore. And I believe. And also, you have to understand, opera and ballet are very different from musicals. Musicals are still very popular. But musicals are like the story with dialogue and actors, whereas the ballet is dancing and the opera is just like, so. And I. I do agree that those are kind of old. Those are kind of stale. Is. Is Sydney. Is Sweeney Todd opera or ballet? I thought Sweeney Todd was just a musical. No. Am I tripping? Elizabeth says, I love the ballet because I'm so clumsy and not graceful. They are very graceful, and they work very hard, and there's a lot of respect to them, and I understand that. Why they would be pissed at Timothy Chalamet. I went to a. Was it a ballet? I think it was a ballet. There was this really cute guy that I met, and he lived in San Diego, and it was during the holidays, so he was off of work. He agreed to come out to downtown, drove all the way up to Los Angeles, and he took me to a ballet, like a Christmas ballet. And it was interesting. It was only like, an hour long, which I was kind of happy with because it was kind of. You know, I think. I don't know if he was trying to be cultured or if he enjoyed that. He just did not seem like the type of guy that would be into that sort of stuff. And I certainly was, like, not really into it, but I was like, you know what? This could be fun. Whatever. And so we went, and, my God, I was so happy it was only an hour long because it was so boring. I mean, it was fine, but it was also boring, you know? So we went. We watched that. He was very sweet and very cute. And then we went out for dinner, and then we came back to my apartment and we made out, and, like, what a fun time. Yeah. Christina says, I think I could get with the ballet, but I am not into operas now. It could just be that I have never went to see live. Yeah, I don't. I mean, I don't know. You're laughing at the Nutcracker. Why are you laughing at the Nutcracker? Why are you laughing at my Christmas ballets? They work extremely hard since a very young age and barely get paid since you were a principal ballerina. Unless you were a principal ballerina. I agree. I mean, no shade to what they agreed to do. But, like, should we feel bad for ice makers? You know, even though now we have freezers, like, it's just. You got to move forward with the times, you know? Should we be feeling badly for the man that still makes. What. What are the chariots? Like, if. If there's a dude and he's working so hard to make chariots, but nobody Travels by horse anymore. Then, like, I don't know, I can't really feel too bad for it. Like, I appreciate you, the craftsmanship that it takes to build a chariot and the amount of time and the effort that you put into it. But now people are busting out cars. Bust down Tatiana. And so you just kind of have to evolve and progress with the times, you know? Remember how annoying it was when she sang opera? Oh, my God. Julia from real houses in Miami. Boring. Robin says boring. Opera is an event. Yes. Sydney Sweeney or Sweeney Todd is a musical. I love watching the opera. But you're right, Zach. I can watch it on tv. Yeah, I saw the Sweeney Todd movie. I don't think I ever saw the stage musical, though. Are people supposed to stop painting and acting because we have AI? Where does it stop? I mean, you can't stop evolution, right? Should we not create heaters because cavemen invented fire? Like, it's just part of the evolving culture. I don't know what's gonna happen with AI. And it's a little terrifying, but, yeah, I don't. I don't know. I don't know. Haters gonna hate with my art form. I mean, listen, if you wanna go to the opera and you wanna do all of that, then, like, do you. I mean, I'm not knocking your culture, but just know that, like, he's not wrong in saying that. It's. It's a dying art. He's right. He's beta. Yeah. I wouldn't disagree with that. He's not really, like, a leading man. But I don't know if this will hurt his chances of winning an Oscar this weekend, because everybody with the Oscars, like, that's film. And I feel like film and opera and ballet, very different things, very different audiences, very different crowds. So I feel like the. The people that are voting, the Academy that gets to vote for the Oscar, I kind of feel like they would be able to separate his comments about the opera from the craft, because I feel like with them, they take their craft so seriously, and their craft is film. It's a very different genre. I don't know. Tomato Ripe says, please, no more talks about Chalamet. He isn't that great. I'm just saying. I'm just saying. Bella says she thinks this controversy will give Timothy an edge. I think so too. Right? It'll keep him out of that good boy, squeaky clean vibe. Fifi says, I've been watching some of the 20, 26 Oscar nominations. I'm so stimulated in a good way or a Bad way. Does it give you tingles in the coochie? Like, how stimulated are you? Joey says he's not gonna win. I don't know. Kind of feel like he's at least popular enough. And at this point, is it really based off of merit or is it like a popularity contest in order to keep these award shows alive? I don't know, but we'll find out. The Oscars are this weekend. All right, guys, I love you. Hit the like button. Hit the subscribe button. Hit that like button. Hit that subscribe button. We do have a members only Zoom tonight. It is Wednesday, so Remember, Wednesdays at 5:30 Pacific, 8:30 Eastern, we go live on Zoom. It is an unrecorded Zoom call where we can all hop on, catch up, chat about whatever is on our mind and just live life, which should be fun. We'll get to hang out tonight, but you have to be a member on Supercast, so there is a link in the description below. To join Supercast, you can go to allaccess.supercast.com and there you can sign up for no Filter all access and you will get an email with the link. I believe the link is the same moving forward. So if you got the links in previous emails, the link should still be the same. So just know. Set your alarm clock 5:30pm Pacific, 8:30 Eastern. We will be live on Zoom so you can hang out with the other Sack Pack members, grab a cocktail, chill, have a good time, and we're just gonna live life. All right, guys, I love you, I appreciate you. I will talk to you tomorrow. Hit the like button. Hit the subscribe button. 5:30. Oh wait, is it 5 or 5:30? Do we normally do 5 or 5? I feel like we normally do 5:30, right? 5:30. I feel like we normally do 5 30. Do we? Maybe we used to do it at 5. I feel like 5:30 has become our normal. No. Oh, maybe I confused it with the. The Monday Instagram lives. Well, I already said 5:30, so we're gonna keep it at 5:30, 8:30, 5:30 Pacific, 8:30 Eastern. Just because I already said that here and I don't want to confuse anybody. That said, I love you, I appreciate you. I'll talk to you tonight. If you're a member of no Filter All Access on Supercast, I will talk to you tomorrow. Donna Bowling is about to go live right now. So go support my friend Donna Bowling. All right guys, love you. Talk to you later, bye.