'Hurt Locker' lawsuit claims breach of agreement with U.S. military

By Eriq Gardner

We've tracked down a copy of the complaint filed today in New Jersey District Court by the Iraq war veteran who claims producers of "The Hurt Locker" ripped off his life story.

As we've noted, Master Sgt. Jeffrey S. Sarver faces a long road uphill in showing that filmmakers breached his rights in making the film.

We also noted that Sarver's best claim might be that the film was wrong in its veiled depiction of him. And indeed, in addition to claims for right of publicity and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the defendants are being sued for defamation for portraying a character who is a "bad father," "messed up," "reckless," "unstable," enjoys playing cruel practical jokes on people, etc.

Judge SLAPPs Joe Francis, rules Playboy model's claims relevant to 'treatment of women'

By Eriq Gardner

"Girls Gone Wild" founder Joe Francis has been given a SLAPP by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge in a defamation case that stemmed from him allegedly punching a Playboy model.

Former Playmate of the Year Jayde Nicole was sued by the GGW mogul after she told TMZ that Francis "grabbed my hair and he punched me in the face ... he pushed me to the ground ... he kicked me in my stomach and my chest..."

Francis claimed Nicole had libeled and slandered him, as well as painted him in a false light. The case was somewhat ironic considering the number of times Francis has been on the receiving end of lawsuits by girls claiming exploitation.

Now judge Mark Mooney has granted Nicole's special motion to strike Francis' complaint (anti-SLAPP motions allow courts to dispose of cases on free speech grounds if they might squelch discussion of matters of public interest). Mooney ruled that Francis is "a public figure" whose treatment of young women (and the public discussion of that treatment) makes Nicole's allegations relevant to a matter of public interest. From the judge's ruling:

Kim Kardashian sued for Twitter defamation

By Eriq Gardner

Kim Kardashian makes a lot of dough endorsing products on her Twitter feed, but might the cookie soon crumble?

The reality TV star is getting the Courtney Love treatment, meaning a lawsuit over allegedly defamatory statements she posted on Twitter.

The plaintiff in the case is a Miami doctor who created and markets a cookie diet and weight-loss program. Dr. Siegel's Cookie Diet has become a popular subject for celebrity news vehicles like Entertainment Tonight. In turn, Dr. Siegel's website links to these news articles and broadcasts in an effort to bolster its own legitimacy.

The appearance of an endorsement has upset Kardashian, who tasked her lawyers with demanding that Dr. Siegel take down the links. Kardashian's stamp of approval is worth a lot these days. According to recent reports, she earns up to $10,000-per-tweet, making her Twitter feed by some calculations worth more than any website.

According to Dr. Siegel's complaint, filed in Miami circuit court last week, Kardashian took it into her own hands to disclaim any connection with the cookie diet. In late October, she made two tweets:

• "Dr. Siegal's Cookie Diet is falsely promoting that I'm on this diet. NOT TRUE! I would never do this unhealthy diet! I do QuickTrim!"
• If this Dr. Siegal is lying about me being on this diet, what else are they lying about? Not cool!" 

Dr. Siegel now claims these statements failed to include the fact that Kardashian is a paid spokesperson for QuickTrim. Her Twitter feed has more than 2.7 million followers, and we'd be surprised if her lawyers weren't boning up on new FTC disclosure guidelines for celebrities and bloggers. Kardashian's $10,000-per-tweet endorsements, however, are hardly a secret.

The litigation in the oven is just getting hot. How did news outlets like Entertainment Tonight come to believe celebrities like Kardashian were eating to cookies to lose weight? We expect to see a countersuit soon with a possible answer. 

Former film exec sues TMZ for $20 mil

By Matthew Belloni

The ex-president of producer Jon Peters' company sued TMZ today for $20 million over an article that allegedly branded him a thief and a rapist.

Ronald Grigg, an attorney and former head of Peters Entertainment, filed suit for defamation in Los Angeles Superior Court over a December 24, 2008 report entitled "Famous Producer Alleges Fraud, Theft, Date Rape" that detailed a lawsuit Peters had filed against Grigg. "The article states that (Grigg) committed crimes during his employment, and as such, portrays him as a loathsome criminal," the complaint says.

When the lawsuit was filed, Grigg was in the middle of an employment dispute with Peters and suffered irreparable harm due to the statements in the article, he says.

Among the allegations in the TMZ piece, which the suit says is still on the site (even though we haven't been able to find it) UPDATE BELOW:

• Grigg stole computers from Peters' office

• Grigg drugged two drunk women with "Special K" and raped them on Peters' property.

• Grigg "went on a campaign of deceit" while Peters was in a "vulnerable" state recovering from surgery to remove a tumor.

TMZ did not respond to our request for comment. But judging by the headline of the piece, we're guessing the site reported on allegations in the Peters lawsuit. Without seeing how they couched those allegations, it's hard to tell whether they merely restated what was said in the lawsuit (which is usually allowed under the First Amendment) or went further into potentially defamatory waters. Grigg claims TMZ failed to investigate the matter and include Grigg's side of the story in the article, giving rise to claims for libel and false light and at least $20 million in damages.

 Grigg is represented by Ray Kermani in Beverly Hills.

UPDATE: Thanks to those with better Googling skills who forwarded us the original TMZ piece. The site is pretty careful attributing the allegations to the Peters complaint, which might shield it (and founder Harvey Levin, also sued personally) from liability under the fair reporting privilege of the First Amendment.   

Marty Singer demands blogger stop being mean to Demi Moore

By Eriq Gardner

We're not surprised to hear that Demi Moore tasked attorney Marty Singer to tame a blogger who had the nerve to suggest that a little Photoshopping on December's W cover made her look like "she had some sort of weird car accident that left a wedge of meat missing."

After all, celebrties hire Singer all the time to do strange stuff, including stopping sex tapes, theatrical plays, reality show marriages, and, if you're Tiger Woods, photos in magazines proving out-of-wedlock affairs.

We're also not surprised to hear that Singer attempted to muzzle the blogger who picked apart Moore's W cover by claiming his cease-and-desist letter was a "confidential legal communication."

Others may scoff at this sort of claim, but Singer has elevated C&D letters to a whole new realm of creative expression. Shouldn't he be able to copyright and otherwise protect them. Don't you agree, Jeremy Piven?

Moore's willingness to go after the blogger is more surprising, frankly. 

What possible reason would compel the actress to set the record straight? After all, the only reason we know about this guy is because Singer sent a letter demanding that he retract his claim that the photo was manipulated. 

Keith Olbermann tells Bill O'Reilly to sue 'Law & Order' for defamation

By Eriq Gardner

On last night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, the MSNBC host challenged Fox News' Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck to sue "Law & Order" creator Dick Wolf for defamation.

Olbermann was referring to a recent episode of L&O: SVU where a character played by John Larroquette made this comment about a fictional inflammatory talk show host named Gordon Garrison:

Garrison, Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, all of them. They're like a cancer spreading ignorance and hate. I mean, they have convinced folks that immigrants are the problem, not corporations that fail to pay a living wage or a broken health care system.

O'Reilly then attacked the episode as "simply defamatory and outrageous" and called Wolf a "coward." 

In response, Olbermann said, "Well, sue. C'mon, tough guy. That's defamatory and outrageous? Sue!...If you don't sue, you are saying in effect, 'I Bill'O agree that I am a cancer, spreading ignorance and hate.' Or are you afraid you can't prove you don't spread ignorance and hate?"

Of course, an opinion isn't grounds for a defamation lawsuit — and Olbermann slyly riffs on an imaginary trial where O'Reilly tries to prove falsehood. But theoretically, O'Reilly could sue Wolf for the character of Gordon Garrison. After all, "Law & Order" has been sued before over false statements made about a fictional character with an identifiable real-life counterpart.

A bigger problem in any potential defamation lawsuit would be that as a public figure, O'Reilly would need to show actual malice.

Here's the whole clip:

  

Why Ron Livingston didn't sue Wikipedia

By Eriq Gardner

Actor Ron Livingston and his lawyer may be in the process of showing others how to fight anonymous Internet pranksters.

On Friday, the actor best known for "Office Space" filed this lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court. At issue is an anonymous individual who keeps changing Livingston's Wikipedia profile and creating Facebook pages to create the appearance he's in a gay relationship. Livingston is alleging that his unidentified troublemaker committed "despicable acts," including libel, invasion of privacy, and misappropriation of name and likeness.

One might wonder why Livingston isn't suing Wikipedia. 

Here's the problem: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives broad protections to web hosts on libel claims by stating, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

We figure that Livingston's lawyers at Santa Monica's Kinsella Weitzman firm realize that battling Wikipedia directly wouldn't be the best strategy.

We're guessing that Livingston will next attempt to subpoena Wikipedia and Facebook for the identification of the user, followed by a request for an injunction against the user from making further updates. 

This might be the best legal recourse available for Livingston — and anybody targeted by anonymous defamation on the web. Unfortunately, the litigation is going to come at a price. The litigation is now part of Livingston's official legacy—and is, of course, fair game for his Wikipedia page.

Judge: Dixie Chick didn't defame man by suggesting role in murders

By Eriq Gardner

An Arkansas district court has decided to let outspoken Dixie Chicks vocalist Natalie Maines off the hook for suggesting a man was responsible for the 1993 murders of three 8-year-old boys.

Judge Brian Miller shrugged off the interesting question of whether Maines deserves the same kind of protections that journalists get when relying upon public documents. Instead, Judge Miller based his ruling on a more traditional reading of defamation law.

In 2007, Maines was inspired by two HBO documentaries that reviewed the 1994 conviction of Damien Echols in the so-called West Memphis Three case. Some evidence seemed to point to another individual, Terry Hobbs, and Maines penned an open letter to fans on the Dixie Chicks website. She described evidence from a habeas corpus petition "showing that Damien Echols was wrongfully convicted" and pointed to DNA tests showing a hair found in a ligature used to strangle one of the victims belonging to Hobbs. 

Hobbs sued, and Maines made an interesting defense in her motion for summary judgment: She asserted a "fair report privilege," which would have entitled her — and maybe all bloggers of this world — a shield from defamation when relying upon public documents and proceedings. Journalists get this privilege.

In his ruling on Tuesday, Judge Miller pokes some holes in Maines' journalistic chops, saying the singer didn't actually read the habeas petition filed by Echols, instead relying upon notes prepared by a publicist. Nevertheless, the judge said the "fair report privilege" motion is moot.

That's because Judge Miller has a much easier out. Hobbs is a "limited purpose public figure" because he voluntarily injected himself into public controversy, and as such, Judge Miller finds that no reasonable jury can find "actual malice" on the part of the Dixie Chick.

$110 million lawsuit says 'Bruno' and Letterman defamed Palestinian leader

By Matthew Belloni and Eriq Gardner

Here we go again.

A few months back we noted the displeasure that a group of West Bank Palestinian insurgents had expressed with Sacha Baron Cohen's escapades in "Bruno."

Now Ayman Abu Aita, the leader of the Al Aqsa Bartyrs Brigade, is filing a libel and slander lawsuit against  Cohen and NBC Universal over his portrayal in "Bruno."  The case will be filed in federal court in the District of Columbia. The plaintiff says Cohen represented himself during filming as a German filmmaker doing a film about the Palestinian cause. The film allegedly portrayed Aita as a "terrorist group leader."

In addition, according to a press release, David Letterman and CBS will be named defendants as "The Late Show" featured the scene during an interview segment with Cohen last July.

Cohen has been remarkably adept at dodging legal claims from the people featured in his movies. (Here are a few examples.) We'll see how he takes on a group of pissed-off Palestinians.

Aita is seeking compensatory damages of at least $110 million and an injunction against further DVD distribution of the movie.

We're checking with Universal to see if the studio has a comment.

UPDATE: As expected, no comment from Universal. 

2ND UPDATE: Here's a copy of the complaint. Besides the individuals and companies named above, "Bruno" director Larry Charles and media company Gannett are also named as defendants.

Business manager vs. lawyer in Black Eyed Peas spat

By Eriq Gardner

Talent reps know it's not unusual for managers, lawyers, publicists and agents to develop rivalries amongst each other. But what happens when the bickering reaches extreme levels?

Witness a new lawsuit filed by Sean Michael Larkin, president and founder of Larkin Business Management. Last week in Los Angles Superior Court, Larkin filed a $5 million defamation claim against Helen Yu, a California lawyer who represents some of the performers in a "successful, world-famous music group" he manages.

The complaint doesn't specifically identify the band, but we've got reason to believe he's talking about the Black Eyed Peas.

Larkin acknowledges that through an inadvertent oversight, he did not timely file tax returns for the band. Yu allegedly used this opportunity to pounce. 

"Yu hatched an underhanded, deliberate and malicious scheme to ruin Larkin's reputation and poach his clients through lies, misrepresentations and falsehoods," says the complaint.

Larkin accuses Lu of anonymously sending two letters — one to the president of the music group's record label and the other to a key financial advisor for the label's president — that stated that Larkin lied and stole from his clients, overcharged commissions, made phony accounting, shredded documents, cooked the books and ran a "Madoff-like ponzi scheme."

The letters triggered a record label investigation, which Larkin says revealed no improprieties. Now represented by Skip Miller at Miller Barondess, Larkin is demanding at least $5 million in libel damages.