The Bill Joiner lawsuit was a federal defamation and wiretap case filed by William G. Joiner in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 28, 2024, targeting filmmaker Andrew Callaghan, his company Channel 5 LLC, and others involved in the documentary Dear Kelly. The case, William Joiner v. Channel 5 LLC et al. (Case No. 8:24-cv-01160), was dismissed by joint stipulation on May 19, 2026, with each side bearing its own fees and no party declared the prevailing party.1PACER Monitor. William Joiner v Channel 5 LLC et al
What Joiner Claimed
Joiner’s complaint raised three sets of claims. The core count was defamation: he alleged that Dear Kelly presented him in a misleading and damaging light regarding a foreclosure dispute, creating a false impression that harmed his reputation. His legal theory framed the film’s portrayal as factual assertions rather than protected opinion, arguing it effectively validated the accusations of the film’s subject, Kelly S. Johnson.2ClassAction24. Bill Joiner Lawsuit
The suit also alleged unauthorized interception, disclosure, and recording of communications under federal law. Callaghan, in a podcast interview, described these as claims under the Federal Wiretap Act and said the complaint also alleged stalking and emotional distress.3iHeart. The Bootleg Kev Podcast – Andrew Callaghan Joiner requested a jury trial.2ClassAction24. Bill Joiner Lawsuit According to Callaghan, Joiner had not seen the finished film when he sued and was responding to a promotional trailer.4Variety. Andrew Callaghan Dear Kelly Channel 5 Movie
Who Was Sued
The defendants named in the complaint were Channel 5 LLC, Andrew Callaghan, producer Evan Gilbert-Katz, Nicolas Mosher, Kelly S. Johnson, and Does 1 through 200.2ClassAction24. Bill Joiner Lawsuit The case was assigned to Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, with Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson handling referrals.1PACER Monitor. William Joiner v Channel 5 LLC et al
The Dispute Behind the Film
The claims trace back to a private loan. Kelly S. Johnson, a former bankruptcy attorney in Laguna Hills, California, borrowed $100,000 from an entity connected to Joiner in the mid-2000s.4Variety. Andrew Callaghan Dear Kelly Channel 5 Movie Johnson later defaulted, Joiner issued a foreclosure notice on Johnson’s home, and Johnson alleged the loan documentation was unclear and that Joiner had falsified paperwork to take the property. The two men never met.5Daily Bruin. Kaylee Johnson Explores Dynamic With Radicalized Right-Wing Father in Dear Kelly
Callaghan first met Johnson at a 2021 White Lives Matter rally in Huntington Beach and spent roughly four years filming him. Dear Kelly, released January 15, 2025, identifies Joiner as the private lender behind the foreclosure. Callaghan attempted to arrange a mediation between the two men for the film, but it never occurred.5Daily Bruin. Kaylee Johnson Explores Dynamic With Radicalized Right-Wing Father in Dear Kelly
The Anti-SLAPP Defense and Case Path
Callaghan’s team responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, a California procedural tool that allows early dismissal of suits targeting speech on public issues. In a January 2025 interview, Callaghan said his defense rested on his rights as a documentary filmmaker to share a subject’s perspective, and noted that the judge had dispensed with oral argument on the motion.3iHeart. The Bootleg Kev Podcast – Andrew Callaghan
By late 2025, the case had been referred to court mediation, with Timothy Alger assigned as mediator in December 2025.6UniCourt. William Joiner v Channel 5 LLC et al A scheduling order set fact discovery to close April 30, 2026, with a jury trial set for November 17, 2026. A related appeal was pending before the Ninth Circuit under Case No. 25-1256, though the record does not identify which ruling was on appeal.1PACER Monitor. William Joiner v Channel 5 LLC et al
How the Case Ended
The case never reached trial. On May 18, 2026, Joiner filed a joint stipulation to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and Judge Marshall signed the dismissal order the next day.1PACER Monitor. William Joiner v Channel 5 LLC et al
The terms specified that each party would bear its own attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses in both the district court action and the pending Ninth Circuit appeal. The order stated that no party was to be considered a “prevailing party” for purposes of recovering costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d).1PACER Monitor. William Joiner v Channel 5 LLC et al The public record does not disclose whether the parties reached any private settlement.