In 2007, Netflix broadcast a movie titled “13 Reasons Why” that told the story of a teenager’s suicide and its effect on her friends. Isabella “Bella” Herndon, a minor, watched the show and tragically committed suicide shortly after it aired. Four years after her death, her father and brothers sued Netflix for wrongful death, negligence, and failure to warn viewers about the movie’s potentially dangerous storyline. Netflix filed a motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute and the plaintiff’s failure to file in the time period mandated by law. The motion was granted.

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, Presiding District Judge of the Northern District of California, dismissed all claims against Netflix because they were “time-barred” under the statute of limitations. Bella’s family appealed, claiming Bella was a minor and the statute should not have been applied prior to her 18th birthday. A unanimous panel of the Ninth Circuit, composed of Judges Eric D. Miller, Bridget S. Bade and Lawrence Van Dyke, disagreed with the appellants and affirmed the decision of the district court.

According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a motion made under California’s anti-SLAPP law, which is an abbreviation for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, requires defendants to show they are being sued for “any act…in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution.” The rights must connect to a public issue or an issue of public interest.

Courts evaluate the applicability of SLAPP suits using three factors: is the subject in the public eye; does the statement involve conduct that could affect large numbers of people; does the statement contribute to the debate on a topic of wide public interest? Unfortunately, this issue and its potential importance were not reached by either the district court or the Ninth Circuit.

Instead, In an unpublished opinion on February 27, the Ninth Circuit panel dismissed the claims of the plaintiff/appellants’ under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure §12(b) (6), which governs pre-trial motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim that could grant relief.

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion was supported by the California Code of Civil Procedure §366.1, which states

“…that a survival action may be commenced before the expiration of the later of two terms: (a) “he limitations period that would have been applicable if the person had not died.”

Bella’s family argued that if she had not died, the limitations countdown would not have started until her 18th birthday. They claimed that under the “minor tolling provision,” of California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 352(a), had Bella not died, the limitations period for her claims would not have begun until her 18th birthday. This section says, “If a person entitled to bring an action… is, at the time of the cause of action… under the age of majority…the time of the disability is not part of the time limited to the commencement of the action.”

The justices were not persuaded by this language. They distinguished the phrase “limitations period” from “tolling period,” and said the first is the statutorily-defined time limit, while the second “suspends or interrupts the limitations period in various situations.” They also wrote that the distinction between the two is “consistent with the overall statutory scheme and California courts have explained that “minority (of the deceased) does not toll a limitations period or excuse noncompliance unless a statute specifically says so.” No statute does.

In addition, they said they believe the California Supreme Court would interpret this to mean that the statute of limitation for the Herndons would be two years, and since they waited four years, “their claims were appropriately dismissed as time-barred.”

The appellate court also dismissed all claims brought by Bella’s brothers because under California’s probate code, only “immediate successors… may bring a wrongful death action,” and because her father was still alive, the brothers “lacked standing.”

With these two issues settled, the opinion explained that Netflix agrees not to seek attorney’s fees. In addition, the opinion explains that “Given this concession, and the overlap between the standards governing the Rule 12(b)(6) motion and the anti-SLAPP motion, we do not separately address the district court’s motion to strike.”

Perhaps this is unfortunate because one of plaintiffs’ claims, that Netflix failed to warn audiences that the content of “13 Reasons Why” could affect young viewers, deserves attention. First, Netflix is not the only network showing suicide-related movies. Others have aired many movies, such as “My Suicide,” “On the Count of Three,” ”A Desperate Suicide,” ”The Virgin Suicides,” and several others. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention reports that there were approximately 100,000 teen suicides over the 40-year period between 1975 and 2015. It warns parents to look out for warning signs such as stressors and health issues, depression, hopelessness and despair.

Surely these statistics and emotional triggers should be enough to encourage Netflix and all other broadcast outlets to post appropriate pre-show warnings when any movie with a teen suicide plot is coming on. It is hoped that it will not take another wrongful death lawsuit for this to occur.