Danny Elfman has failed in a bid to dismiss a defamation lawsuit against him

In the article, which was titled 'Danny Elfman Settled a Sexual-Harassment Allegation for $830,000', the 'Nightmare Before Christmas' star categorically denied Nomi's allegations and desceibed them as "vicious and wholly false".

And in her ruling on Christmas Eve (24.01.25), Rolling Stone reported Los Angeles County Superior ourt Jude Gail Killefer found Nomi can proceed due to the "wholly false" remark as she dec lared at least "some" of the composer's allegations appeared to have "minimal merit".

The judge found text messages exist in which Elfman shared "nude photographs of his body" with Nomi and on one occasion, when she was going to visit him, he texted, "Maybe I'll even be good and put some clothes on . . . A rarity around here."

The judge wrote: "Moreover, Elfman's admission that he engaged in 'naked romping' with plaintiff in Paris permits the finding that defendant Elfman's outright denial of all of plaintiff's claims was knowingly false.

"While defendant Elfman and plaintiff disagree as to the nature of their 'relationship/friendship,' plaintiff's evidence supports a finding that her claims about sexual misconduct are not 'wholly false' and have minimal merit...

"Plaintiff's texts with Elfman establish a probability that plaintiff can produce clear and convincing evidence that Elfman knowingly made a false statement by categorising all of plaintiff's sexual misconduct allegations as 'wholly false.' "

The judge also dismissed the musician's argument that his statement should be covered by litigation privilege because it was contained in a letter to Rolling Stone that he characterised as a warning the publication may be sued.

The judge insisted the letter was more of a "press release" than a protected "demand letter" because it explicitly consented to his statement being published.

She wrote: "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 former Oingo Boingo singer plans to appeal.

His lawyer, Camille Vasquez, said: "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."