A California state appellate court has ruled against Bill Cosby and in favor of one of his accusers, supermodel Janice Dickinson, reviving her defamation claims against the embattled comedian's lawyer.

In a Nov. 21 order, the Second District Court of Appeal concluded that a lower court had erred in dismissing Dickinson's first amended complaint, which added Cosby's attorney, Martin Singer, as a defendant. Dickinson has alleged that Cosby drugged and raped her in 1982, and that he and Singer defamed her by publicly denying her allegations after she voiced them in 2014.

The Court of Appeal's decision allows Dickinson's claims to move forward with regard to both a demand letter Singer wrote to media about the allegations, and a press release he issued on the matter. A lower court had granted Cosby's motion to dismiss claims regarding the demand letter only under California's anti-SLAPP law.

According to the appellate opinion, written by Justice Laurence Rubin, after Dickinson publicly accused Cosby of rape, Singer sent a demand letter to multiple news outlets, threatening them with litigation if they were to proceed with news coverage about Dickinson's allegation. The next day, Singer issued a press release that said Dickinson had lied.

A few months later, Dickinson's lawyer, Lisa Bloom, asked that Cosby and Singer retract the statements, arguing that they were false and defamatory. But Cosby and Singer did not comply, and in May 2015 Dickinson filed a complaint against Cosby in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Cosby filed his anti-SLAPP motion shortly after, arguing that Singer's statements were privileged as opinion. Dickinson subsequently added Singer as a defendant in an amended complaint. Cosby then filed a motion to strike the amended complaint, and the trial court granted his motion because of the pending anti-SLAPP matter.

On the anti-SLAPP motion, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Debre Katz Weintraub found the demand letter was subject to litigation privilege. But Weintraub concluded the press release was actionable because it made a factual assertion about Dickinson.

At the appellate court, Rubin ruled that because Singer had not filed the anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court had no reason to strike the first amended complaint as to Singer. Allowing the amendment would not prejudice Singer, he wrote.

On the anti-SLAPP issues, Rubin said Singer's demand letter was not covered by litigation privilege, noting that he only sent it to media that had yet to run the story, and that Singer never actually sued the companies who published those stories despite the letter.

“Instead, these facts suggest that the demand letter was a bluff intended to frighten the media outlets into silence (at a time when they could still be silenced), but with no intention to go through with the threat of litigation if they were uncowed,” Rubin wrote. “Hence the letters were, in the words of our Supreme Court, 'hollow threats of litigation.'”

The Court of Appeal also found the demand letter and press release are both actionable because they made assertions of fact, rather than opinion.

In a statement, Cosby lawyer Alan Greenberg said: “We completely disagree with the court's ruling, which violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and will prevent attorneys from speaking out publicly on behalf of their clients, even in the face of false accusations. We are very confident that Mr. Cosby will prevail in this case.”

Bloom, Dickinson's lawyer, said in a statement that she appreciates the ”sweeping ruling in our favor.”

“I look forward to taking Mr. Cosby's deposition and to the trial of this important case, which is about a woman's right to speak out about sexual assault accusations without being publicly attacked in response,” Bloom said.

Dickinson is far from the only woman to bring defamation claims and sexual assault allegations against Cosby. Some of those cases are ongoing.

In Pennsylvania, Cosby is facing criminal charges based on Andrea Constand's allegations that he sexually assaulted her in 2004. His first trial in June ended in mistrial, and a new trial has been scheduled for April 2018.

A California state appellate court has ruled against Bill Cosby and in favor of one of his accusers, supermodel Janice Dickinson, reviving her defamation claims against the embattled comedian's lawyer.

In a Nov. 21 order, the Second District Court of Appeal concluded that a lower court had erred in dismissing Dickinson's first amended complaint, which added Cosby's attorney, Martin Singer, as a defendant. Dickinson has alleged that Cosby drugged and raped her in 1982, and that he and Singer defamed her by publicly denying her allegations after she voiced them in 2014.

The Court of Appeal's decision allows Dickinson's claims to move forward with regard to both a demand letter Singer wrote to media about the allegations, and a press release he issued on the matter. A lower court had granted Cosby's motion to dismiss claims regarding the demand letter only under California's anti-SLAPP law.

According to the appellate opinion, written by Justice Laurence Rubin, after Dickinson publicly accused Cosby of rape, Singer sent a demand letter to multiple news outlets, threatening them with litigation if they were to proceed with news coverage about Dickinson's allegation. The next day, Singer issued a press release that said Dickinson had lied.

A few months later, Dickinson's lawyer, Lisa Bloom, asked that Cosby and Singer retract the statements, arguing that they were false and defamatory. But Cosby and Singer did not comply, and in May 2015 Dickinson filed a complaint against Cosby in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Cosby filed his anti-SLAPP motion shortly after, arguing that Singer's statements were privileged as opinion. Dickinson subsequently added Singer as a defendant in an amended complaint. Cosby then filed a motion to strike the amended complaint, and the trial court granted his motion because of the pending anti-SLAPP matter.

On the anti-SLAPP motion, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Debre Katz Weintraub found the demand letter was subject to litigation privilege. But Weintraub concluded the press release was actionable because it made a factual assertion about Dickinson.

At the appellate court, Rubin ruled that because Singer had not filed the anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court had no reason to strike the first amended complaint as to Singer. Allowing the amendment would not prejudice Singer, he wrote.

On the anti-SLAPP issues, Rubin said Singer's demand letter was not covered by litigation privilege, noting that he only sent it to media that had yet to run the story, and that Singer never actually sued the companies who published those stories despite the letter.

“Instead, these facts suggest that the demand letter was a bluff intended to frighten the media outlets into silence (at a time when they could still be silenced), but with no intention to go through with the threat of litigation if they were uncowed,” Rubin wrote. “Hence the letters were, in the words of our Supreme Court, 'hollow threats of litigation.'”

The Court of Appeal also found the demand letter and press release are both actionable because they made assertions of fact, rather than opinion.

In a statement, Cosby lawyer Alan Greenberg said: “We completely disagree with the court's ruling, which violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and will prevent attorneys from speaking out publicly on behalf of their clients, even in the face of false accusations. We are very confident that Mr. Cosby will prevail in this case.”

Bloom, Dickinson's lawyer, said in a statement that she appreciates the ”sweeping ruling in our favor.”

“I look forward to taking Mr. Cosby's deposition and to the trial of this important case, which is about a woman's right to speak out about sexual assault accusations without being publicly attacked in response,” Bloom said.

Dickinson is far from the only woman to bring defamation claims and sexual assault allegations against Cosby. Some of those cases are ongoing.

In Pennsylvania, Cosby is facing criminal charges based on Andrea Constand's allegations that he sexually assaulted her in 2004. His first trial in June ended in mistrial, and a new trial has been scheduled for April 2018.