Katherine Heigl and her mom, Nancy Heigl, are demanding that a woman who they claim spread lies about their nonprofit animal rescue pay them a five-figure fee for prolonging their legal battle, Us Weekly can exclusively report.
On December 18, Katherine, 47, and Nancy, along with the Jason Debus Heigl Foundation, which they founded in 2008 to help rescue animals from high-kill shelters and find them homes, asked the court to award them $52,795 from Alyssa Faith Deetman, who runs a dog rescue in California.
The actress and Nancy claim that over the past nine months, Deetman has filed “over a dozen frivolous motions and related documents in” their lawsuit. They claim Deetman and her lawyer have “repeatedly filed baseless, improper, and frivolous motions” despite their efforts to prevent Deetman from wasting the court’s resources.
Per the filing, Katherine and Nancy defeated Deetman’s recent effort to dismiss their case. As a result, they are demanding she pay their legal fees related to the motion.
Why Katherine Heigl ‘Panicked’ After ‘Actors on Actors’ Chat With Ellen Pompeo
As Us previously reported, Deetman’s animal rescue company, The Pitty Committee, started working with Katherine and Nancy’s nonprofit in 2023. Per the alleged deal, Deetman’s organization would take in animals that Katherine and Nancy’s nonprofit saved in exchange for a fee.
The mother-daughter duo sued Deetman in March for alleged defamation, breach of contract and other claims. They alleged Deetman contacted their nonprofit regarding a partnership.
The former Grey’s Anatomy star and her mom claimed their nonprofit spent a six-figure sum on fees related to animals sent to Deetman’s rescue. However, they claimed Deetman viewed their donations as a “blank check” and demanded additional money from them not agreed upon.
Once the deal ended, Katherine and Nancy claimed Deetman took to social media to make false allegations about their nonprofit.
“In response — and seemingly because of her greed and inability to manage her financial difficulties — [Deetman] engaged in an online smear campaign against [Jason Debus Heigl Foundation] and the Heigls,” Katherine and Nancy’s lawyer wrote. [Deetman] made false, defamatory, and derogatory accusations that [Jason Debus Heigl Foundation] and the Heigls have mistreated rescue dogs, failed to provide promised funding, and stole from [The Pitty Committee], all in an effort to ruin [Jason Debus Heigl Foundation] and the Heigls’ reputations and/or coerce some sort of monetary payout.”
“Instead of thanking [Katherine and Nancy’s nonprofit] and the Heigls for their unselfish contribution to the rescue community, [Deetman] attempted to capitalize and trade on Katherine Heigl’s celebrity in Hollywood and the animal rescue space rather than accept the end of the business relationship,” the lawsuit read.
Katherine Heigl Drops ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ Joke in Bladder Leak Pads Ad
Katherine, Nancy and their nonprofit demanded unspecified damages from Deetman and an order requiring her to delete all negative social media posts about them.
Before Katherine and Nancy sued, Deetman filed her own lawsuit against the duo and their nonprofit. She claimed they retaliated against her after she spoke out about refusing to pay her money owed. She alleged the actress’ dog rescue organization owed her over $300,000.
In court documents, Deetman also claimed Katherine and Nancy’s nonprofit ruined her reputation in the dog community, which led to a decline in donations and income. Katherine and Nancy denied all allegations of wrongdoing.
P. Christopher Ardalan, an attorney for Deetman tells Us that his client was the first to file suit.
Katherine Heigl Watched All of ‘Roswell’ With Her Kids — Is ‘Grey’s’ Next?
“Immediately after discovering Ms. Deetman’s lawsuit, the Heigls filed a retaliatory [lawsuit],” he said. In response to the request for legal fees, Ardalan said his client “intends to vigorously oppose this fee request.”
Ardalan ended, “Deetman maintains that she and her nonprofit organization, The Pitty Committee, have suffered extensive financial and reputational harm from the Heigls and other defendants for work performed in connection with animal rescue operations under agreements that the Heigls failed to honor.”
