Gina Carano’s wrongful termination suit moves forward as 9th Circuit denies Disney’s appeal

"After the Judge DENIED Disney’s request to DISMISS my case, Disney requested permission to immediately appeal that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and delay all discovery while that appeal takes place," Carano wrote on X. "Yesterday, October 16th, 2024, we learned that the Judge DENIED Disney’s unusual request."

Carano brought forth the lawsuit after she was fired from her role on Disney’s The Mandalorian. In attempting to get the case dismissed over the summer, Disney argued that their firing of Carano had been justified on First Amendment grounds and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Carano had opposed Covid lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and the vitriol leveled at those who did not comply with such orders during the pandemic. Disney said Carano’s comments did "publicly trivialize the Holocaust by comparing criticism of political conservatives to the annihilation of millions of Jewish people—notably, not 'thousands'—was the final straw for Disney."

Carano said of the latest development in the case, "I am obviously very pleased with the opportunity to keep moving forward with the judicial process and into discovery. While I wish this was not necessary as it is not my desire to be in this battle in court. I will not shrink away from it because it is hard or uncomfortable." The actress expressed gratitude towards her supporters, lawyers, and to Elon Musk and his social media platform X which have paid for the legal representation.

US District Court for the Central District of California Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett wrote in her decision that usually, a case cannot be appealed until after the court enters its final judgment, but "parties may obtain interlocutory appeal of an otherwise non-appealable order 'if conditions specified in the section are met, the district court so certifies, and the court of appeals exercises its discretion to take up the request for review.'"

Disney requested that the Ninth Circuit review the question of "Whether the First Amendment right to free speech protects an artistic entity’s right to control its own casting decisions by declining to express its art through actors who make widely-publicized statements that the entity deems offensive and harmful to its own artistic expression."

Garnett said that the Defendants failed to meet the burden of proof established for approving an interlocutory appeal, which can be granted if it "involves a controlling question of law," “there is substantial ground for difference of opinion," and "an immediate appeal ... may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation."