From Manhattan trial judge Judy Kim in Rodney’s Comedy Club v. Omari, decided April 17 but just posted on Westlaw a few days ago:
[P]laintiff’s motion for an order enjoining defendant from “any further social media posts naming, inferring or addressing Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s employees in any way or posts related to Plaintiff” and ordering her to “delete any and all posts on social media naming, inferring or addressing Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s employees in any way” is denied.
“Prior restraints on speech are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights, and any imposition of prior restraint, whatever the form, bears a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Accordingly, “a party seeking to obtain such a restraint bears a correspondingly heavy burden of demonstrating justification for its imposition and, to do so, must show that the speech sought to be restrained is likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public, annoyance or unrest.”
Plaintiff has not carried its burden here. While the law permits “the restraint of speech that communicate[s] a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals,” the allegedly libelous speech plaintiff seeks to restrain “does not meet this exacting constitutional standard.”
Looks correct to me; though most courts generally allow injunctions barring repetition of material found defamatory at trial, pretrial anti-libel injunctions are generally seen as unconstitutional prior restraints (see my Anti-Libel Injunctions article). The court cites Brummer v. Wey (N.Y. App. Div. 2018) for these propositions; for more on that case (in which I filed an amicus brief, on behalf of Profs. Steve Shiffrin and Martin Redish and myself), see this post.
Back, to Rodney’s Comedy Club, here is an excerpt from plaintiff’s argument in favor of an injunction; remember that the substantive defamation claim is still pending and that this decision just dealt with the requested injunction, without determining whether the statements were true or false:
Plaintiff has been harassed and stalked Respondent for months beginning in 2025. Sometime over a year ago, Defendant auditioned at Rodney’s Comedy Club and was not passed based on her extremely poor performance. Following several months, beginning in 2025, Defendant began posting defamatory content against Plaintiff….
Most recently this past Saturday, February 7, 2026, Defendant Chanel Omari wrote “Rodney’s Comedy Club, run by Mark Lawrence, is a place where female comedians have been bullied, harassed and mistreated by him and his staff (Reggie, Crystal, Andrew, Allen and Mark). Please be cautious about performing there. They are currently. Facing legal action for defamation and abuse – sexual, physical, emotional and mental. No one should be subjected to this kind of behavior. Every comedian deserves a safe space to perform without fear, and its time these abusers are held accountable.”
She further stated “your staff has been fired from New York comedy clubs and other clubs for the same reason. Mark you’re an unwell 50 plus owner just as creepy as Eddyand all these other owners along with your staff Reggie and Andrew who have a predator and groomer on female comedians and customers before as well as myself.”
Additionally Defendant stated “you take peoples money and you’re nasty to them and you abuse them.”
She further stated that “you held everything against me which is a form of abuse and Reggie sleeps with other women there to tell them he will get them stage time and then doesn’t give it to them and then you’re nasty towards them.”
Moreover she wrote “They hold their power against you and don’t book you whether they try to have sex with you kiss you or whatnot and nothing helps you’re right they don’t care.”
Later that same day Chanel Omari posted on her stories “To all my coconaitors and fellow comedians avoid Rodney’s Comedy Club with a ten foot poll. I will be be discussing my experience with them. They have all been abusive – from staff to owner. They are unprofessional and discriminate against Jews and women in general. Very misogynistic.”
She further stated “…their audition process is rigged because they only pass girls they want to sleep with and the ones they take advantage of they hold their power against them. I will not be performing at that club and I advise others not to.”
February 11, 2026, Defendant Chanel Omari posted on Instagram “Mark Lawrence the owner of Rodney’s Comedy Club and his staff and management are all abusers and have abused me in many ways than one in every category you can imagine, he tries to attack me.”
She also stated “Rodney’s Comedy Club Owner Mark Lawrence is abusive in every type of way. Doesn’t know how to run a comedy club professionally women and their manager sexually abused me…they are antisemitic and racist.”
She later stated “I stayed quiet for a long time because I was scared. The owner Mark Lawrence, of Rodney’s and his staff – including Andrew (preys on younger women), Reggie (the booker-sexually and emotionally abused women) Crystal (bar tender-biggest bully and abuser) after people like me have been kind to me…I experienced sexual misconduct, emotional and mental abuse, and retaliation for setting boundaries and telling the truth…I was told I wasn’t good enough despite working as a comedian for over a decade, while others were favored through manipulation and power dynamics. When I spoke out , I lost spots and opportunities and was labeled “the problem.”
February 13, 2026 Defendant stated “”Andrew from Rodney’s has raped and sexually assaulted multiple women and so has Reggie from Rodney’s.”
I reached out to Rodney’s, and got a prompt response; Rodney’s denies Omari’s factual allegations, expresses confidence that they will prevail on the merits, and adds this about the injunction decision:
[I]n New York, obtaining a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to restrict speech based on defamation is extremely difficult due to First Amendment protections against “prior restraint.” Courts generally prohibit pre-publication censorship, prioritizing free speech over potential reputational damage, though injunctive relief may be possible after a final adjudication of defamation….
I am aware that TRO’s are presumptively unconstitutional, however it seems ridiculous to me that in NYC and Federal Courts, they can rule that speech was defamation, after a trial and award damages, when at that point, the Defendant could have spent years harming the Plaintiff …. Monetary damages after the damage is done, is no remedy at all.
David R. Ehrlich (Stagg Wabnik Law Group LLP) represents Omari.
