Celebrity Lawsuits
Eva Longoria’s Restaurant, Beso, Sued…Again!
In 2008, entrepreneur/actress Eva Longoria opened Beso, a Latin restaurant located in the heart of Hollywood. Naturally, at the outset it was packed with big celebs such as Brad Pitt, Courtney Cox, and Ryan Seacrest. It was quite a hot spot. It also garnered and continues to garner solid reviews on Yelp, Open Table and Trip Advisor. So, what’s with all the lawsuits? Well, thankfully none of them are for food poisoning. But, not so sure Hollywood elite are going to return there instead of heading straight for Catch, arguably the hottest hot spot of late 2016 and likely 2017!
The most recent suit against Beso, filed on December 20, 2016, is for injury and premises liability and seeks damages in excess of $25,000. Premises liability is a legal term and pretty self explanatory: an injury occurs on someone’s property. In order to win a premises liability case in California the injured party (plaintiff) must prove that the defendant owned, occupied, leased or controlled the property, was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property, the plaintiff was harmed and that defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing that harm. In this case, Paul Michael Flores claims that he was struck several times while at Beso, by a Beso employee. Further complicating things for Beso is that the incident occurred during an after party for one of Longoria’s movie, Lowriders; and Flores alleges that violence that night was foreseeable because of actors from East LA gangs were present at the party and Beso knew they would be present. This is not good news for Longoria. Would have been better had a random patron on a random night struck Flores. I’ll keep an eye on this lawsuit but settlement likely assuming Flores’ injuries are real and the evidence supports his claims.
As for Beso’s other lawsuits? The 2010 and 2013 lawsuits also claimed premises liability and injuries one involving a physical altercation and another involving a slip and fall. Those suits were ultimately both resolved and dismissed. In 2011, Beso was hit with another slip and fall lawsuit that has also been resolved. (There’s another 2011 suit that is contract based and named Eva Longoria individually as a defendant but that relates to her failed Las Vegas location under the same name.)
So, whether Longoria and her team (which includes celebrity chef Todd English) can keep fighting these lawsuits and still run a successful establishment in a town overflowing with restaurants and clubs remains to be seen but certainly all this violence is not helping.
Outpatient Surgery Centers and Medical Malpractice: The End of Joan Rivers
At 81, Joan Rivers was enjoying something of a Hollywood rebirth. At the helm of the television show, Fashion Police, her wry commentary was garnering fans of all ages, all over the world. To anyone with a set of working eyes it was more than obvious that Joan was not one to shy away from cosmetic surgery. She regularly admitted that she had lots of it—from a face-lift to a neck lift to eye surgery, among many other procedures. So, on September 4, 2014 when she visited the Yorkville Endoscopy Clinic (hereinafter “the Clinic”) for an endoscopy no one was worried that anything would go wrong with this pretty routine procedure, after all, she was a frequent visitor to the operating room. But sadly, things did go wrong, terribly wrong. Joan went into cardiac arrest on the operating room table, was rushed to Mount Sinai Hospital, and died a week later.
In 2015, Melissa Rivers, Joan’s daughter, who has appeared on television with her mother, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit in New York. In that suit, Melissa claimed that doctors performed unauthorized medical procedures, took a selfie in the operating room with Joan while she was anesthetized, and failed to act as her vital signs deteriorated. Specifically, the suit alleged that doctors performed a laryngoscopy on Joan’s vocal cords, a procedure for which they did not have consent. Moreover, apparently the anesthesiologist in the operating room that day voiced concern as to what that procedure would do to Joan’s ability to breathe, but that Lawrence Cohen, the gastroenterologist performing the endoscopy, summarily dismissed that concern. The Clinic and the doctors involved initially denied all of the allegations (Though in November 2014 the Clinic did confirm that Dr. Cohen was not currently performing medical procedures there nor was he serving as the Clinic’s medical director).
In May 2016, the Clinic settled Melissa’s lawsuit for a confidential amount. Given Joan’s earning capacity, even at the age of 81, combined with the facts surrounding her death I can tell you that the settlement was likely very substantial. It is important to note that despite the Clinic’s initial denial of wrongdoing and the fact that the settlement is confidential (Post settlement Melissa stated that the Clinic did ultimately admit fault) the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services performed an investigation in connection with Joan’s death. Those records are public and what they found was this: the Clinic did not have properly recorded medication records, the doctors did take those alleged selfies, the Clinic had not received informed consent for all of the procedures they performed on Joan that day, and the staff hadn’t recorded the comedian’s weight before sedating her (weight is one factor anesthesiologists consider when determining the amount of anesthesia required). Moreover, it should be noted that in 2015, because the Clinic failed to correct deficiencies implicated in her death they were prohibited from having its services paid for by Medicare and Medicaid funds. What exactly are the people at Yorkville Endoscopy thinking? Disgraceful. There is no doubt that Melissa was relieved to settle the matter rather than endure litigation—it would have been long and emotional. And the fact that those selfies remained protected and not released to the public is also a good thing.
As you may know by now about me and about PROOF, in general, we try to find some good in even the most tragic of situations, so if there is to be one positive thing to come out of Joan’s death it is that Melissa Rivers has stated that she “will work towards ensuring higher safety standards in out-patient surgical clinics.” That work is very important as according to a 2011 study by the Journal of American Medical Association the proportion of successful lawsuits filed by outpatients or their families has reached 43% of total malpractice suits and is growing: In 2009, more than half of adverse events leading to malpractice suits occurred in outpatient setting, resulting in settlements that added up to $1.3 billion.” With so much work clearly to be done in this area, having a powerful voice like that of Melissa Rivers behind the fight is impactful. We are sorry for your loss Melissa and Cooper, we were big fans. Rest in peace, Joan Rivers.
Wolf of Wall Street and War Dogs: More in Common than Jonah Hill
The Wolf of Wall Street and War Dogs are big budget films that involve big money, big drug use and . . . Jonah Hill. While all of that is enough to make these cautionary tales about excess and greed (Why is it that I can’t write the word greed without an image popping into my mind of Michael Douglas shouting Greed is Good to a packed room?) successful in Hollywood terms it also has been enough to have both films deeply embroiled in another American institution—the justice system.
Let’s talk first about The Wolf of Wall Street. The two lawsuits the 2013 film is facing face are quite varied and interesting.
Andrew Greene, one of Jordan Belfort’s (“the Wolf” as it were) colleagues is suing Paramount Pictures and The Wolf of Wall Street filmmakers for defamation. Greene claims that the character in the movie, Nicky “Rugrat” Koskoff is based on him and inaccurately and unfairly represents him. In the film, Rugrat is the toupee wearing, drug abusing, Belfort follower who is seen in the film being teased about his hair, or lack thereof. In real life, Greene worked at Stratton Oakmont, was in Belfort’s inner circle, was known by the nickname “Wigwam” and wore a toupee (Note, he’s toupee-less now and sports a shiny, bald, head.) Despite all the reports of wild times at Stratton Oakmont, Greene claims he never acted like Rugrat—he didn’t drink, do coke, take ‘ludes or enjoy X-rated private plane rides. He even has gone so far as to say he thought Belfort’s treatment of women was “highly offensive.” Most importantly and critical to making a defamation claim, Greene says he has suffered damage as a result of this erroneous depiction and that he has had a hard time getting work since the movie came out. (Greene first tried to block the movie from release; clearly that didn’t happen.) The legal goings-on in this lawsuit are actually very complex and though some of Greene’s claims have been dismissed, others remain live and viable. So much so that Martin Scorsese, the director of The Wolf of Wall Street and Terrence Winter, the screenwriter, have given depositions in the matter. Leonardo DiCaprio, whose production company, Appian Way produced the film along with Paramount Picture, has been ordered to provide testimony, but due to Leo’s busy travel and work schedule, his deposition has not yet been taken. Greene’s lawyers aren’t sitting idly by waiting for a break in Leo’s Cannes-Cabo-Capri travel schedule. In June 2016 they asked the court to order that Leo sit for a deposition. That motion was granted; but, still, so far, Leo has not been sworn in to tell the truth with a court reporter present. Not that any of us will get to read the deposition transcript or see the video if it’s filmed. No doubt Leo’s lawyers will see to it that it is sealed and under a protective order.
The second lawsuit involving The Wolf of Wall Street is much more pervasive. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a 136 page civil complaint claiming that as a result of well-connected fraudulent individuals more than $3 billion (yes, that’s billion with a “B”) was stolen from the Malaysian people and used, among other things, to fund production of The Wolf of Wall Street, a film which allegedly cost more $100 million to make. Specifically, the US government seeks civil forfeiture (this is a civil not a criminal case currently so no prison time for anyone if convicted) of some of those assets, namely profits from the 2013 film. Bit ironic, no? A film about fraud, which made close to $400 million the subject of this type of lawsuit? And the really sad part? According to Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell, “the Malaysian people never saw a penny of profit from that film.”
And now on to War Dogs. This suit is kind of like the suit against the Wolf of Wall Street filmmakers and kind of not. I write this not to confuse you but so that you can easily see the distinctions. Yes, an individual (through his own entertainment company) is suing and claiming violation of his likeness but here the claim isn’t that a reputation is being sullied, rather the plaintiff preferred that he, not Warner Brothers, be the one to address his reputation in a public forum. Yup, that’s it. Efraim Diveroli, the former arms dealer upon whom the film War Dogs is based is suing for breach of a non-disclosure agreement, misappropriation of his likeness rights and conversion of confidential and proprietary information. Diveroli is claiming that before Warner Brothers was doing a film about him and his life, he had already met with a Hollywood producer in an effort to sell the rights to the 360 page screenplay he wrote called “Once a Gun Runner.” The problem was that while he was in prison for the very crimes he allegedly wrote about, Rolling Stone published an article by reporter, Guy Lawson, called Arms and the Dudes that tells the story of Diveroli (Lawson then published a book on the topic with the same title.). It is Arms and the Dudes that formed the basis of War Dogs according to Warner Brothers. They believe they are not at fault because they legally securing the rights from Guy Lawson to make a film based on Arms and Dudes and that Diveroli didn’t start writing his life story until months after their deal with Lawson was publicized. Moreover, Warner Brothers isn’t seeking ownership of Diveroli’s story at any level. In fact they’ve gone so far as saying that if Diveroli doesn’t like how War Dogs came out, he should tell his story himself.
Warner Brothers has asked the court to dismiss the case; and, in doing so they’ve broken out the big guns in support of their motion: The Constitution. Warner Brothers says War Dogs is protected by the First Amendment. How so? Well, that’s where Anti-SLAPP comes in (Their motion to dismiss is based on Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation and the purpose of it is to stop malicious or frivolous lawsuits that chill free speech). Warner Brothers argued that War Dogs story is a matter of public interest and therefore the film is protected speech. In their motion, they stated, “Movies generally — and especially those that dramatize front-page news events — are shielded by the First Amendment, and no person has an exclusive right to tell or to shape such stories.” So far no ruling on the motion to dismiss but I have seen War Dogs and have read the filings. I’m on Warner Brothers side on this one.
And, we at Proof want to say a big thank you to Jonah Hill for starring in movies that keep us up to date on the never-ending tales of greed and avarice. Thanks, Jonah!
Game Over for Lindsay Lohan in Video Game Case
Lindsay Lohan is no stranger to the judicial system, but this time she was a plaintiff (not a criminal defendant) seeking compensation from Grand Theft Auto V’s (GTA V) developer, Rockstar Games, and parent company, Take-Two Interactive Software, for featuring a game character, Lacey Jonas, allegedly modeled off of her. Karen Gravano, star of Mob Wives, filed a separate suit against the same defendants, claiming that another game character, Andrea Bottini, resembled her appearance, her voice and her life story.
The basis of both claims were similar: a violation of a New York right-of-publicity law which says that use of a person’s image or voice for advertising or trade purposes is unlawful without consent from the individual. Both Lohan and Gravano argued there was no prior permission or consent to use what they claimed were their images and/or voice. As for Lohan’s claims, the lawsuit noted two specific images of a “red bikini girl” that are seen on the GTA V box cover and at the start of the game. Ms. Lohan’s legal team contended that the cartoon blonde woman is a rendition of Lohan whose bikini, accessories, hair, and peace sign all resemble her. The lawsuit states “The Plaintiff has been using the peace sign hand gesture for years before and after its use in the video game.” The second image at issue appears on the disc cover and displays a woman being frisked by a police officer. The character is wearing a fedora style hat, sunglasses, daisy dukes and a white tee shirt with words Love First on it. Lohan’s lawyers claimed that the defendant “capitalized on the use of [the Plaintiffs] clothes style” and that there appeared to be an LO on the character’s shirt which is “subliminally suggesting ‘LO’ for Lohan”. Not sure how else you can spell LOVE without an “L” and an “O” but Lindsay’s lawyers still made this claim with a straight face. They further argued that a GTA V player avatar, whose mission includes helping a celebrity actress escape the paparazzi, includes identical events to Lohan’s real life (like all the fun times she had at Chateau Marmont where she allegedly racked up more than $45,000 in unpaid bills).
In March, a New York judge denied Defendants’ motion dismiss the case. They appealed that decision and, on September 1, 2016, an appellate panel of 5 judges, who combined the Lohan and Gravano matters as they addressed the same legal issues, dismissed the lawsuits, saying “…this video game does not fall under the statutory definitions of advertising or trade.” Basically this means that even if the depictions of the characters did resemble Lohan and Gravano the right of publicity law on which the claims were based was not applicable and did not provide legal protection. The judges found that the game lacked direct name references and exact facial features of Gravano and Lohan and that it had its own unique story, characters, dialogue, and environment. All of that combined with the player’s ability to choose how to proceed in the game, render it a work of fiction and satire and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Who knew Lindsay Lohan would play a role in the development of constitutional law??
Well, looks like it’s Game Over for Lohan and Gravano—unless they appeal; and I don’t think that’s likely.
Actor Darius McCrary is Facing Some Serious Family Matters
Darius McCrary, you may remember his as “Eddie” from “Family Matters,” and his estranged wife, Tammy Brawner, are embroiled in a bitter domestic violence dispute with both sides claiming violence against the other.
In shocking allegations, Brawner asked for a restraining order against her McCrary on February 10, 2017 claiming that the one-time sitcom star held their one-year-old daughter, Zoey, over a pot of boiling water and saying he wished she had never been born. She says he threw objects at her (Brawner) that almost hit Zoey. Brawner claimed that the actor has been abusive for years, coming home drunk and on drugs, and striking her during violent outbursts.
After hearing the claims, a judge granted Brawner, who was once a Harlem Globetrotter, a restraining order. McCrary didn’t let things end there. He made several digs about his ex on social media calling her a “failed gold digger baller” but in a very interesting turn of events, he sought a restraining order against Brawner saying that she’s the one who is abusive to him. Among his claims? She threw an iron at him. A judge granted McCrary’s request for a temporary restraining order. Now they both have one! Not easy to parent when dual orders are in place!
By the way, this isn’t McCrary’s first family related claim. A prior ex, Karrine Steffans, accused McCrary of domestic violence and child abuse. Steffans said that she saw McCrary beat his son with a spoon. McCrary has also been arrested for failing to pay child support.
This is one very complex family matter! Let’s hope Zoey, the couple’s daughter, is spared as much as possible and can grow up in a healthy, loving, nonviolent home.
Here’s How Hulk Hogan Wrestled $140M Away from Gawkerr
By now you have probably heard that in March 2016, Hulk Hogan won a $140 million verdict against Gawker Media, an online media company and blog network. Here is a quick overview of what happened: Hulk Hogan’s real name is Terry Bollea. In 2012, Gawker Media posted a video of Mr. Bollea (Hulk Hogan) having sex with his former friend’s now ex-wife. Despite multiple requests to have the the video taken down, Gawker refused. Eventually Hogan filed suit and the case went to trial. In general, people who are deemed to be “public figures” have a lower expectation of privacy than we mere mortals do. At trial, Gawker argued that Hulk Hogan is a public figure and therefore posting and maintaining that video on their site did not invade his privacy. Hulk Hogan disagreed and said the video was not his public persona, Hulk Hogan, but rather a video of Terry Boella as a private citizen in his private capacity. The jury agreed with Hogan/Boella and awarded him $140 million in damages. So, Hulk gets the money and all is well that ends well, right? Not so fast. Gawker filed bankruptcy after the verdict and has appealed the case. There are talks of settlement but so far nothing. PROOF will keep an eye out and keep you posted on any developments.
Teresa and Joe Giudice Thought They Were Above the Law
Teresa and Joe Giudice of Real Housewives of New Jersey notoriety (notice I don’t say fame) bragged constantly on air and social media about their family, their money and their material possessions. To many, they were brash, rude and offensive so in 2013 when they faced a federal multi-count indictment detailing white collar crimes ranging from conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud to making false statements on loan applications, to bankruptcy fraud, among other things, there was not a great deal of empathy for the showy duo. (Note that Joe faced additional charges for failing to file tax returns from 2004-2008.)
Teresa and Joe pleaded not guilty to the charges in the federal indictment and so solid (delusional?) was Teresa’s belief in her innocence that her lawyer stated that they were looking forward to vindication. As we all well know, that vindication was not to come because on March 4, 2014, Teresa and Joe struck a plea deal with prosecutors. They each pleaded guilty to various counts of fraud; Joe’s plea included a count for failing to file tax returns.
On October 2, 2014, the mother of four was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison. Joe was sentenced to 41 months, followed by possible deportation to Italy, where he was born (his parents moved him to the Garden State when he was a year old). In addition the couple was ordered to pay $414,000 in restitution.
From the bench, U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas, who presided over the case, said to Teresa, “For a moment I thought about probation but I think a period of confinement is absolutely necessary in this case.” The judge added, “I don’t honestly believe that you understand or respect the law. I need to send a message. In the eyes of the law, it doesn’t matter who you are. There are consequences to pay.”
And pay they have … Teresa went off first and began her sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut on January 5, 2015. She was released two months early on the morning of December 23, 2015. Respected Elizabeth New Jersey criminal lawyer, Michael Borneo, said the following about Teresa’s sentence: “Judges typically have tremendous discretion when sentencing a criminal defendant. It amazes me how often clients show disrespect to the court and learn this lesson the hard way. By all accounts, Teresa Giudice could have avoided prison. Her poor attitude tilted the scales of justice against her.”
Joe is a different story and is currently serving his 41-month sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey. Note that this matter isn’t Joe’s first run-in with the law nor his first criminal conviction. In November 2013, he stood trial on charges that in 2010 he used his brother’s marriage and birth certificates to illegally obtain a driver’s license. Joe’s license had been suspended as a result of a DUI earlier that year and apparently he thought this was a good way to get a new one! All that waiting around at DMV for nothing. Joe was convicted, his license was revoked for 12 months, and he was sentenced to 20 days of community service.
Many of us had hoped that being convicted of a crime, publicly humiliated, and shipped off to prison forcing her to be away from her beloved daughters (despite her many shortcomings it is obvious that Teresa is committed to her family and loves her girls very much) would have changed Teresa but it appears it did not. Teresa maintains her innocence and ignorance about the charges levied against her. She still posts pictures of herself and her girls on Instagram which depict a lavish style–one of fancy clothes, jewelry, and just plain over abundance. Prison may be a reality check for many but not for this Jersey reality queen.
I do give great credit to Judge Salas for allowing Joe and Teresa to serve their sentences at different times so that one parent could be home with the children while the other was “locked up”. The kids didn’t ask for this drama in their lives and having both parents gone at the same time would have been very traumatic for them.
If you enjoyed reading about the criminal mess these New Jersey “celebs” created for themselves, please visit the rest of PROOF for more of our one of a kind take on celebrity news.
Top Criminal Lawyer Elizabeth NJ
[Category: Teresa Giudice | New Jersey | Top Criminal Lawyer Elizabeth NJ]
Celebrities & the Law
Commentary without the usual nonsense. Jill is a founder of one of the nation’s most respected trial law firms, a law professor, and a former prosecutor.
Tupac and the Truth: Journalist Sues Lions Gat for Copyright Infringement
PROOF readers you likely know by now, I love intellectual property cases and this one about the new Tupac movie is topping my charts (Bad pun. I’m a sucker for them and until you all complain, I’m not sure I’ll be able to stop making them). Here’s what’s going on and it’s really quite interesting from both a storytelling and a legal perspective.
In a recently filed lawsuit, journalist Kevin Powell claims that portions of the Tupac Shakur biopic, All Eyez On Me, were directly inspired by several cover stories Powell penned for VIBE magazine prior to the rapper’s death. Powell is suing the writers and producers of the movie, including Lions Gate Films, for copyright infringement. He said the following in a statement posted on his Facebook page, “After viewing the movie twice in the past few days, it is clear that my exclusive Vibe cover stories on Tupac Shakur (when he was alive), were lifted, without proper credit or compensation of any kind to me, and used in ALL EYEZ ON ME.”
The film purports to be a biopic telling the story of a real man’s life, so if you’re wondering how Powell can claim copyright infringement to a story that’s not his in the first place, this is where things get interesting. One of the central claims in the recently filed lawsuit is that Powell recognized a central character from his own articles, a character that he fabricated. Yes, made up! “The name and character of ‘Nigel’ in the Original Work was specifically created by the Plaintiff without the authority or encouragement of Tupac Shakur,“ says Powell’s lawyer, Keith White. “This made-up character was copied and pasted into Defendant’s film to play the same central character and role in the Infringing Work as he did in the Original Work.” (FYI: the infringing work is All Eyez on Me and the original work are Powell’s articles).
According to White, Nigel was an “embellishment” of a real person, Jacques “Haitian Jack” Agnant, a music executive said to be influential in Tupac’s life. In his articles, Powell referred to the exec only by Nigel, the fictitious name. To be clear: no person in Tupac’s life was named Nigel! Perhaps because Powell referred to Nigel in interviews that the name Haitian Jack (the real person) and Nigel (the made up person) became conflated in popular culture before this film was made and released. However, if that’s the case, then Lions Gate should have made this connection very clear or called the character by his proper name, Haitian Jack, or even better should have asked Powell for the authority to use the name Nigel and discussed appropriate compensation and/or recognition for that use. Interesting that in a recent interview with actor Cory Hardrict, who plays Nigel in All Eyez On Me, he refers to his character as Haitian Jack but on IMDB Cory is listed as playing the character of Nigel. There’s not a mention of anyone named Jacques Agnant or Haitian Jack anywhere on the entire IMDB cast list for the movie. PROOF is curious to know how they referred to Cory’s character on set or in the script or when the actors was discussing the character with the director.
It is kind of a bummer for Powell to have to admit to this Nigel embellishment as some might consider that a lapse in journalistic integrity but the lawsuit cites several additional claims of infringement including, but not limited to, that in the film there is a focus on the ongoing relationship between Tupac and a journalist, (Apparently, no other project about Tupac has this as a featured relationship.) and also that the film concentrates on a sequence of arrests between 1991 and 1993 and that the pacing and coverage of these arrests is exactly like that of Powell’s. To the full complaint and all of the allegations, click here.
We do know that the filmmakers were well aware of Powell’s articles (this is kind of a given in that anyone doing even cursory research of Tupac’s life would have come across Powell’s Vibe articles; they were very widely read) as the lawsuit references an interview by one of the film’s producers, LT Hutton, in which Hutton admits that “all of the interviews” that Tupac gave were used to inform the film.This statement is pretty telling in that it confirms that Powell’s work was referenced for the film. To what degree they were referenced and whether that rises to the level of infringement is what a jury is going to have to decide.
Powell seeks compensation from the film’s box office sales, requests that the film be pulled from movie theaters (Specifically, he wants the court to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent further broadcast of the film) and wants defendants to destroy all copies of the movie, among other things.
Note that despite poor reviews and complaints voiced by Jada Pinkett Smith (via Twitter) and 50 Cent (via Instagram) about various aspects of the film, All Eyez on Me brought in $27 million during its first weekend in national theaters. One thing about this complex intellectual property case is clear however: Powell’s claims are not small ones and the matter is not going to go away quietly. That’s just not the kind of person Kevin Powell is.
Celebrity Makeup Lines: Everyone’s Getting Sued
Some of the most successful celebrity makeup lines are being hit hard with lawsuits – and big dollar ones at that. Let’s hope these celebrities have been wearing their waterproof mascara! Kim, Kourtney and Khloe Kardashian are facing a $180 million lawsuit regarding an alleged breach of contract over their Kardashian Beauty line. Hillair Capital Management is suing the Kardashian women for failing to promote the line. Hillair came to the rescue of Kardashian Beauty in July 2014 when the former distributor, Boldface, was experience financial struggles. Hillair agreed to (heavily) fund Kardashian Beauty as long as the Kardashian sisters actively promoted the products via social media.
We all know these famous sisters run the social media world – Kim herself can reach nearly 80 million Instagram followers or nearly 50 million Twitter followers with a single post. But the number of promotional Kardashian Beauty posts, on the other hand, isn’t looking so hot. Hillair claims that the sisters not only failed on social media, but also failed to stand by their products and even spoke out against the line in an attempt to abandon Hillair and secure more money with different investors. And, in a very related matter, the Kardashians filed their own lawsuit against another cosmetic company, Haven Beauty, claiming that the company unjustly used the Kardashian name to promote and sell beauty products. So many products; so many problems.
The uber talented Katy Perry recently launched a beauty line in collaboration with CoverGirl. Hard Candy, a rival cosmetic company is shouting, “copycat” with regard to Perry’s logo on that CoverGirl packaging and has filed a lawsuit claiming that the small heart that appears on Perry’s products is the same one that Hard Candy has been using on their lipstick. Hard Candy wants Perry’s products to be banned from sale and also demands a share of the profits that have already been made. The matter is nowhere near resolving so PROOF will await the legal fireworks from the sidelines and keep you posted.
Trump Got Sued on His First Monday on the Job!
Donald Trump is no stranger to the justice system. He has filed lawsuits and has been sued many, many times. In fact, a USA Today analysis found 3,500 legal actions by and against Trump. 3,500!!! It’s almost unbelievable, isn’t it? Well, we can add one more to the list because on the first Monday of his new job, President Trump was slapped with a lawsuit (He was also sued last week by a former Apprentice contestant).
On January 23, 2017, leading ethics experts filed a massive lawsuit against Trump alleging that his business relationships with foreign powers and foreign players violates the Constitution, specifically they allege that his actions violate the little known emoluments clause. As with any constitutional claim the legal issues are complex but, simply stated, the emoluments clause prohibits federal officials from receiving financial benefits from foreign governments. President Trump’s companies have multimillion-dollar real estate deals with foreign powers and it is those dealings, among others, the suit claims, that violate the emoluments clause. Two easy to understand examples are that The Bank of China, one of the five biggest state owned commercial banks in China, is a tenant of Trump Tower and is also as a lender in another building in New York City in which Trump has a significant partnership interest.
Trump has been fighting the conflicts issue for months as it was continually raised during the campaign. In response to such complaints, Trump said that although he would not sell his ownership in his company, The Trump Organization, he would hand over control of it to his two adult sons, Donald Trump Jr and Eric. He also promised that his company would not make any more deals abroad and would donate profits from foreign governments that stay in his hotels to the U.S. Treasury (Hmmm. Let’s see if that happens!). Naturally, Trump’s camp has praised his actions to limit his conflicts. In fact one of his lawyers, called his efforts to do so, “extraordinary.” But that’s what his side is saying. Esteemed and widely regarded government ethics lawyers and experts say Trump’s steps to remove conflicts of interest are not enough and that is why this lawsuit was filed today.
The truth is that no other president has had such wide and deep foreign business dealings. The Trump Organization, has stakes in real estate holdings in 20 countries, including Turkey and South Korea. And, Trump has not lived a life of public service, his life, to date, has been about him, about how to amass wealth and how to serve his own interests. With this history in conjunction with the breadth of his foreign business dealings in a company he still owns, it’s hardly surprising that people are worried that Trump will put his personal financial interests above those of the people of the United States.
The pedigrees of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are impressive and include attorney Norman Eisen, an ethics adviser to Barack Obama, Richard Painter, a former George W. Bush adviser, and Constitutional law scholars Erwin Chemerinsky and Laurence H. Tribe, among others. But despite the background and experience of these scholars and attorneys, this is no open and shut case—at any level. In fact, whether the plaintiffs even have standing (the right to sue) and whether or not the emoluments clause even applies to the office of the president, and more specifically, to Trump’s actions, has already been raised.
Two things we do know for sure? This case is going be heavily litigated by both sides and that list of 3500 Trump lawsuits is going to continue to grow to over the next four years.
If you want more details about Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v Donald J. Trump, click here for a copy of the complaint filed on January 23, 2017 in federal court in New York.
Here’s What You Should Know About the Allegations of Sexual Harassment Against Casey Affleck
Casey Affleck’s Oscar nomination and ultimate win has dredged up some history I am sure he hoped was long forgotten. Back in 2010, Affleck was sued in two separate matters by two different women for sexual harassment, among other things.
Producer Amanda White sued Affleck for damages in excess of $2 million and cinematographer Magdalena Gorka sued Affleck for damages in excess of $2.25 million, alleging that Affleck verbally and physically harassed them while making the film “I’m Still Here.” Affleck settled with both women out of court for undisclosed amounts. Interestingly, these suits have gone relatively unnoticed — that is until Affleck started getting praise for his work in Kenneth Lonergan’s Manchester by the Sea. The proverbial can of worms was then open and the media and the entertainment industry were all talking about these cases. Many thought the lawsuits would and should mar his chances at an Oscar. But, as the world watched, Casey Affleck was named Best Actor for the lead role in Manchester By The Sea. Several in attendance at the awards show were not happy about the win. On social media, the disappointment and disgust has been much more apparent.
We at PROOF have reviewed the complaints filed in LA Superior Court against Affleck. From reading those complaints and other documents, here’s what we know about White and Gorka’s lawsuits. White claimed that during filming Affleck constantly discussed his “sexual exploits” and that he even instructed a member of the crew (Antony Langdon, a good friend of Affleck and of Joaquin Phoenix, who, it should be noted, is referenced throughout the complaints as the film, I’m Still Here, is a documentary about Phoenix) to show White his penis. White also alleged that Affleck tried to get her to stay in his hotel room, but when she said no, he “grabbed her in a hostile manner in an effort to intimidate her into complying.”
Gorka relayed a similar story in her suit, describing an incident in which Affleck crawled into bed with her while she was sleeping–he was in his underwear. Gorka claims that the “I’m Still Here” crew was staying at the actor’s apartment after a long night of shooting. (Affleck and Phoenix decided not to put the crew up in a hotel but rather had them stay at Affleck and Phoenix’ apartment.) According to the complaint, Gorka says that Affleck said she could stay in his room while he stayed on the couch, but that she woke up to Affleck “lying in bed next to her” and “he had his arm around her, was caressing her back, his face was within inches of hers and his breath reeked of alcohol.” Gorka says that she asked the Affleck to leave and he got angry. She called her time on the film, “the most traumatizing of her career.”
There is great deal more of detailed allegations in the these complaints and you can read them for yourselves by clicking here and here. They’re pretty shocking.
At the time the suits were filed, Affleck denied all of the allegations and even threatened to file counterclaims against the women. He did not do so in either matter. Instead he settled them both for undisclosed amounts. As we have previously discussed on PROOF there are many reasons people choose to settle cases and they hold true for Affleck as well. It could be that he did what was alleged, felt remorse and wanted to compensate the women for it or it could be that he didn’t want the stress of the lawsuits, was worried about the effect on his career, or it could be any number of things. We do know that it was clearly in Affleck’s best interest to keep these cases as quiet as possible. Settling them for undisclosed sums (and likely a requirement that the victims not speak publicly about them) served that interest pretty well.
What is frustrating in this Trump era is that another man seems to be rewarded despite engaging in bad behavior. Yes, there is a distinguishing factor here in that these allegations are in no way related to his work on Manchester by the Sea. There are no allegations of offensive behavior on that set or, for that matter, any recent allegations against Affleck for sexual harassment. Maybe these lawsuits served as a wakeup call to him and caused him to change his treatment of women. Certainly, that is a possibility. Still though, there is something that just doesn’t feel, right, just or fair that Hollywood is rewarding a male actor who has this in his not-so-distant past and that it occurred in an environment related to his work as an actor.
Another aspect of this matter disappointing us at PROOF? When Affleck was asked about the allegations, his response was to say that the claims were baseless attacks on his family and that he does not feel a responsibility for what happened, and that “it was settled to the satisfaction of all. I was hurt and upset — I am sure all were — but I am over it.”
Affleck may be over it, as well as the members of the Academy, but women, especially those in the industry certainly are not.
Seeking more celebrity news? Check out other PROOF articles. We cover celebrity news like no one else!
Nick Cannon Sued for Stealing Unsuccessful App Idea
Nick Cannon may have just quit “America’s Got Talent” because he felt he was mistreated by the show (he said he felt silenced, controlled, and treated like a piece of property) – but he has even more drama ahead of him: he’s facing a lawsuit on an entirely unrelated matter.
Enrico Taylor is suing Cannon for allegedly stealing his idea for a talent discovery app. Taylor is seeking $1.75 million in damages.
In court documents, Taylor claims he met Nick in early 2015 and hoped to get Mariah Carey’s ex interested in his new app. The disgruntled app-maker says he told Cannon that he was working with rapper Birdman, who is the co-founder of Cash Money Records, to create a digital talent search app called “I Discover Stars.” Taylor claims that Cannon said he liked the idea but then Taylor never heard back from him about it. Five months later Cannon launched his own digital talent search app, N’credible.
Allegedly, Cannon’s app was intended to be an extension of his management and music company, N’credible Artists, and was for comedians, singers and rappers to audition for the former “America’s Got Talent Host” without him actually having to physically be at the audition. Sounds like a good idea, right? Apparently though wannabe superstars didn’t flock to it. Taylor is claiming that not only did Cannon steal his idea, but also says that because Cannon’s app was a total bust, Taylor can’t get his own app off the ground – and now he wants $1.75 million as a compensation. That is quite a circuitous legal argument and not sure how persuasive it is going to be in a court of law. Think about: Taylor is seeking big bucks for an unsuccessful idea?!
We at PROOF are looking forward to seeing the evidence that comes out in this matter but if we were advising Cannon (which we are not–and here comes the PROOF legal disclaimer: nothing on PROOF should be construed as giving legal advice or the creation of an attorney client relationship) we would not recommend settling at this point.
Discussing celebrity news is what we enjoy most at PROOF. Please visit the rest of our site for more of our one of a kind take on celebrity news.