Katherine Heigl was accused of launching a smear campaign against a woman who claims she is owed six-figures from the former Grey’s Anatomy star’s nonprofit, In Touch can exclusively report.
According to court documents obtained by In Touch, Alyssa Faith Deetman, who runs a dog rescue and is battling Katherine, 46, and her mom, Nancy Heigl, slammed the duo for allegedly retailing against her for speaking out against their alleged behavior.
Katherine and her mom who are the founders of their nonprofit, the Jason Heigl Foundation.
In February, Alyssa filed a lawsuit in San Diego court against Katherine, Nancy and their nonprofit, which was launched in 2008 to help rescue animals from high-kill shelters to give them a second chance at life. She accused them of fraud.
Katherine and Nancy claim to have spent millions of dollars to help this cause. In court documents, the parties explained Katherine’s nonprofit often partners with other nonprofit rescue organizations to use as many resources as possible to save animals.
In her lawsuit, Alyssa and her animal rescue company, The Pitty Committee, claimed they started working with Katherine’s nonprofit in 2023.
Alyssa claimed Katherine, her mom and the nonprofit agreed to pay $1,000 per animal and reimburse vet bills, training, medical boarding and other expenses for dogs selected by Nancy and rescued by Alyssa’s company.
In the suit, Alyssa said Katherine’s nonprofit paid her the $1,000 fee per animal but failed to pay $349,691 in other fees racked up on services for the animals.
Katherine Heigl.
Alyssa also claimed Katherine’s nonprofit disparaged her and ruined her reputation in the dog rescue community which had hurt donations and income.
In her suit, Alyssa claimed Katherine’s nonprofit has “a pattern and practice of using dog rescue organizations, as with [Alyssa], who are less well funded, and less sophisticated, than defendants, and each of them, for favorable publicly by requesting these organizations to rescue shelter dogs chosen by defendants … for public attribution to defendants … offering promises of fully funding the requested efforts.”
Alyssa demanded the full $349,000 she claimed to be owed plus additional damages.
A couple of weeks later, Katherine and her mom, along with their nonprofit, sued Alyssa and her company for defamation, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and breach of contract in Los Angeles court.
Katherine and her mom said Alyssa approached their nonprofit.
They said they agreed to pay her rescue company a monthly donation fee in exchange for them rescuing a minimum number of animals that Katherine and her mom selected.
In their suit, they claimed to have spent six-figures on saving animals with Alyssa.
Katherine Heigl.
They accused her of seeing their donations as a “blank check” and claimed she continued requesting funds outside of their deal.
They said the deal expired in early 2024. In court documents, Katherine and Nancy claimed after the deal ended, Alyssa trashed them online.
Their lawyer noted, “In response — and seemingly because of her greed and inability to manage her financial difficulties — [Alyssa] engaged in an online smear campaign against [Jason Debus Heigl Foundation] and the Heigls. [Alyssa] 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 Committiee], all in an effort to ruin [Jason Debus Heigl Foundation] and the Heigls’ reputations and/or coerce some sort of monetary payout.”
Katherine’s lawyer continued, “Instead of thanking [Katherine’s nonprofit] and the Heigls for their unselfish contribution to the rescue community, [Alyssa] 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.”
Katherine and her mom demanded unspecified damages and an order requiring Alyssa to delete the social media posts trashing them.
Now, in her newly filed response to Katherine and Nancy’s lawsuit, Alyssa slammed the daughter-mother duo.
She argued the lawsuit they filed was “plainly retaliatory” and part of a “continuing effort to discredit [her].”
Her complaint alleged she racked up the $350,000 in out-of-pocket expenses while participating in the rescue efforts with Katherine’s nonprofit. Alyssa said the defendants refused to reimburse her despite “longstanding verbal understandings.”
“After [Alyssa] attempted to seek reimbursement and quietly resolve the matter, [Katherine, Nancy and their non-profit] instead launched a smear campaign to discredit her of which this lawsuit is a part,” her lawsuit alleged.
Katherine Heigl.
Alyssa said the statements she made on social media were a “response to the public attack and were based on truthful and well-documented facts.” Her response argued, “Since these posts involved commentary, opinion, or criticism related to matters of public interest or were directed at persons involved in public controversies, they qualify as protected conduct.”
Her filing continued, “Her decision to publicly defend herself was made only after sustained reputational harm and falsehoods disseminated by plaintiffs. Her speech was not only protected, it was necessary to correct the record.”
She added, “The timing and content of the complaint reflect another step in an attempt to silence and punish defendant for speaking about plaintiffs’ own conduct in the charitable space – speech that is indisputably connected to an issue of public interest.”
In a declaration, Alyssa said, “Following my requests for reimbursement, plaintiffs began making negative and false statements about me to others in the rescue community, which statements made their way online through third parties, in what I experienced as a smear campaign. I remained silent for a long period despite the escalating reputational harm “
Alyssa also alleged, “I am not the only dog rescue that has had these experiences. In fact, in my understanding based on discussions and investigation, other dog rescues that were involved in the same program as we were with plaintiffs had almost identical if not identical problems. Additionally, numerous other dog rescues had smaller pledges and promises not fulfilled by plaintiffs.”
Alyssa demanded the lawsuit filed against her be thrown out of court.
