Film composer Danny Elfman has lost a bid to dismiss a defamation lawsuit over statements he made to the media defending himself from sexual harassment allegations.

The ruling came in a case filed last year by former friend and fellow composer Nomi Abadi, who claims that Elfman defamed her when he issued a strongly-worded statement to Rolling Stone denying her accusations that he had exposed himself and masturbated in front of her.

Elfman had argued that he couldn’t be sued because his comments were made in the course of litigation — a form of legal “privilege” designed to ensure that the adversarial American court system can function properly without fear of defamation lawsuits.

But in a decision issued Dec. 24, Judge Gail Killefer denied Elfman’s motion and allowed Abadi’s case to advance. In her ruling, the judge said Elfman’s comments to Rolling Stone had been more akin to a “press release” than a protected legal motion.

“To allow defendant Elfman to make statements and permit their publication while hiding behind the litigation privilege would decimate the purpose of the privilege,” the judge wrote.

In a statement to Billboard on Monday, Elfman’s attorney Camille Vasquez vowed to appeal the order: “We respectfully disagree with the court’s ruling and are optimistic that the Court of Appeal will agree with us that this case ought to be dismissed.”

An attorney for Abadi did not immediately return a request for comment.

Abadi’s allegations against Elfman — a prolific film composer best known for the famous intro to The Simpsons — were first publicized in a 2023 article from Rolling Stone. The story reported that Elfman had entered into a previously unreported $830,000 settlement in 2018 to resolve her accusations and that Abadi had recently sued him for failing to make payments under that deal.

In the article, Elfman responded with an extensive statement. Calling the allegations “vicious and wholly false,” he described Abadi as having a “childhood crush” on him and intending to “break up my marriage and replace my wife.” Elfman said that when he attempted to distance himself from her, “she made it clear that I would pay for having rejected her.”

Last summer, Abadi added defamation to her list of accusations against Elfman. In a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles court, she claimed that his media statement had falsely tarred her as an “extortionist” and as a “scorned woman seeking revenge and money,” leaving her career as a composer “in tatters.”

“In publicly branding Nomi as a liar, and a failed temptress who lied about him for reasons of revenge and greed, Elfman and his representatives defamed Nomi,” her lawyers wrote at the time.

In moving to dismiss that case, Elfman’s lawyers cited California’s anti-SLAPP statute — a law that aims to make it easier for judges to quickly dismiss cases that threaten protected speech. They argued that the response statement came in a letter threatening to sue Rolling Stone if it published Abadi’s allegations, meaning it was shielded under the litigation privilege rule.

But in her order last month, Judge Killefersaid said Elfman’s letter had been “more than just an attempt to dissuade Rolling Stone from republishing allegations of sexual misconduct.”

“It was an effort to litigate the issue before the court of public opinion, permitting Elfman to publicly deny the veracity of plaintiff’s claims while preemptively hiding behind the litigation privilege to prevent any defamation claim,” the judge wrote.

Judge Killefersaid also rejected other defense arguments from Elfman’s legal team, including their claim that his statement to Rolling Stone had merely been a statement of “opinion” that was not capable of being proven false. To the contrary, the judge ruled that his denial statement was an “assertion of fact” that could potentially put him on the hook for defamation liability.

With the anti-SLAPP motion denied, Abadi’s case against Elfman will now proceed into normal litigation, which could take years to resolve if the case is not settled.