Harrison Barnes PLC, on behalf of its client BCG, prevails against Robert Kinney after the California Court of Appeal granted the motion to strike and dismissed Kinney’s lawsuit.

Click below to read the latest developments on this story:

SLIME FOR CASH: Above the Law Joins Albert’s (a.k.a. Robert Kinney’s) Decade-Long Ballistic Cyberbullying Campaign to Destroy Competitor for Firing Him

On June 23, 2014 the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District dismissed all six of Robert Kinney’s causes of action against BCG Attorney Search (“BCG”), a legal recruiting company represented by Harrison Barnes PLC. This Court of Appeal also remanded the case, instructing the trial court to enter a revised order with respect to the awarding of attorney fees to BCG in light of all causes of action being dismissed. The Court of Appeal also awarded costs on appeal to BCG. View the Court of Appeal’s opinion (Case No.B250188) at https://www.harrisonbarnes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ROBERT_KINNEY_et_al.pdf.

This lawsuit was precipitated in response to an earlier California lawsuit filed by Harrison Barnes PLC’s clients against Robert Kinney for defamation associated with a disparaging online post made by Kinney on RipoffReport.com. (See Case No. GC041766). As alleged in the record, Kinney, using the pseudonym “Albert,” blasted BCG and its affiliated companies and allegedly made false representations about BCG’s business practices. After that lawsuit was dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, Kinney filed the lawsuit underlying this case against BCG alleging malicious prosecution. Kinney based this claim on his belief that BCG’s commencement of the prior litigation to protect its reputation from Kinney’s unfounded, derogatory accusations was “malicious” and “brought without probable cause.”

In addition to malicious prosecution, Kinney brought five other causes of action, including: statutory and common law appropriation of name or likeness, unjust enrichment, unfair competition, and intentional interference with prospective economic relations. These five causes of action were based on Kinney’s claim that an employee profile of him still remained on the BCG website despite the fact he had been fired from BCG years earlier. Harrison Barnes PLC promptly moved to strike all six causes of action alleged in the lawsuit under California’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) law. The trial court granted the motion in part and dismissed the malicious prosecution action, awarding BCG $2,500 in attorney fees, but denied the motion with respect to the other five causes of action.

Harrison Barnes PLC appealed on BCG’s behalf contending that the trial court should have granted the motion to strike under anti-SLAPP on all causes of action. Harrison Barnes PLC prevailed in its arguments that the profile about Kinney was an issue of public interest (and therefore protected speech) and that Kinney had not shown a probability of prevailing on the merits for the remaining causes of action because they were time-barred by the statute of limitations. As a result, Harrison Barnes PLC succeeded in its efforts to convince the California Court of Appeal to overrule the trial court and sustain the motion to strike with respect to all of Kinney’s claims against BCG.

This is neither the first nor the only instance of litigation between Robert Kinney and BCG. There is a case currently pending Texas Supreme Court Review (Case No. 13-0043) and on review from the Third Court of Appeals at Austin, Texas (Case No. 03-10-00657-CV). This case involves nearly identical parties and has the following case name: Robert Kinney v. Andrew Harrison Barnes (a/k/a Harrison Barnes); BCG Attorney Search, Inc.; Employment Crossing, Inc.; and J.D. Journal, Inc.

In this Texas case, the trial court granted BCG’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Kinney’s claims in their entirety. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal on November 21, 2012 and Harrison Barnes PLC anticipates that the Texas Supreme Court will affirm the trial court’s dismissal. This belief is held largely due to an amicus brief submitted by renowned Constitutional expert Professor Erwin Chemerinsky in support of BCG (see https://www.harrisonbarnes.com/2014/02/erwin-chemerinsky-submitsamicus-brief-in-support-of-harrison-barnes/).

Harrison Barnes PLC attorneys are proud of their high-quality work product and their significant contributions to their clients’ successes. In addition to being among the preferred choice for litigation matters, Harrison Barnes PLC attorneys have ample experience in enforcing free speech rights and will continue safeguarding the fundamental rights of their clients.

About Harrison Barnes PLC:

Harrison Barnes PLC is a Malibu-based firm that focuses on providing top quality representation to the Malibu community and has won millions of dollars for its clients since its inception. For more information about the firm or for a consultation, call 310.598.1719 or visit http://harrisonbarnes.com.

The post Robert Kinney’s Lawsuit Dismissed after California Court of Appeal Grants Anti-SLAPP Motion Filed by Harrison Barnes PLC first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Malibu, CA – Harrison Barnes, the founder and principal of Harrison Barnes PLC, is currently involved in a case in front of the Supreme Court of Texas, where the most influential First Amendment scholar in the United States, Erwin Chemerinsky, has assisted our side by submitting an amicus brief.

On February 6, 2014, Erwin Chemerinsky and Professor Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, experts in First Amendment and Internet law, urged the Supreme Court of Texas to rule in favor of Harrison Barnes in the lawsuit Kinney v. Barnes. Professor Erwin Chemerinsky is the founding Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. He has frequently argued matters of constitutional law in front of the nation’s highest courts, including a United States Supreme Court decision involving injunctions in defamation cases. In addition, Professor Lidsky has written extensively on issues of Internet free speech, cyberbullying, and defamation and other privacy torts, including the article, Silencing John Doe: Defamation and Discourse in Cyberspace, 49 Duke L.J. 855 (2000), which was referenced by Kinney in his brief to the high court (but note Professor Lidsky submitted an amicus brief in support of Harrison Barnes – not Kinney).

Kinney was an employee of a legal recruiting firm run by Harrison Barnes. Barnes terminated Kinney’s employment because Kinney devised an unethical kickback scheme, attempting to pay a law firm under the table to hire one of his candidates. Several years after his termination for attempting to bribe someone, Kinney posted a variety of statements disparaging Harrison Barnes and his companies. Instead of using his real name, Kinney lied and used the name “Albert” to disguise his identity. After years of investigation and litigation, Barnes was able to learn “Albert” was Kinney. Despite Kinney hiring a well-known attorney to try and keep his identity secret, Kinney’s identity was ultimately ordered released by two separate courts.

Harrison Barnes contended that these statements constituted defamation and subsequently filed suit against Kinney in California state court for “anonymously maligning Barnes and his companies online.” In August of 2007, a publication owned by Harrison Barnes posted a non-defamatory news item on the website JD Journal about the California litigation. This news item reported on the allegations made in the California suit, including the history of the employment relationship between Harrison Barnes and Kinney, Kinney’s termination, Kinney’s establishment of a business designed to compete with Harrison Barnes’ legal recruiting firm, and Kinney’s decision to post maligning comments about Harrison Barnes and his companies on a website.

Claiming that these statements about the California litigation constituted actionable defamation, Kinney responded to the JD Journal posting by filing a lawsuit against Harrison Barnes for defamation seeking injunctive relief. Both the trial court and the court of appeals in Texas have thrown out Kinney’s case on the grounds that even assuming arguendo that Harrison Barnes’ posting on JD Journal was defamatory (which it is not), that the injunction requested by Kinney would violate the Texas Constitution because it would act as a prior restraint on and infringe upon Harrison Barnes’ First Amendment Rights to free speech.

The Texas Supreme Court is expected to rule in Kinney v. Barnes soon, and experts in First Amendment and Internet law have urged the Court to rule in Harrison Barnes’ favor and dismiss Kinney’s defamation lawsuit.

In another related action in California between Kinney and Barnes, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District dismissed all six of Kinney’s causes of action, including malicious prosecution and misappropriation. The Court, who ruled on June 23, 2014, determined that Kinney’s lawsuit was barred under the statute of limitations and that Barnes and the other Defendants were entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. To read the Court’s ruling in its entirety, click here.

Harrison Barnes PLC attorneys have ample experience in defamation, internet, and First Amendment law, as well as general litigation, employment law, release estate transactions and litigation, bankruptcy, divorce and family law and criminal law. Harrison Barnes PLC will continue to fiercely defend the rights of their clients.

At Harrison Barnes PLC, the attorneys are proud of their work and of their contributions to their clients’ successes. A commitment to serving the client’s needs best while focusing on high quality work has made this law firm among the preferred choice for litigation matters. “Facing a great opportunity or a major crisis, you need to trust the experience, creativity, and dedication we provide. We are proud to be lawyers,” says founder Harrison Barnes.

About Harrison Barnes PLC:

Harrison Barnes PLC is a Malibu-based law firm that focuses on providing top quality representation to the Malibu community and has won millions of dollars for its clients. For a consultation or to learn more about Harrison Barnes PLC, call (310) 598-1719 or visit https://www.harrisonbarnes.com.

The post Erwin Chemerinsky, the Most Influential First Amendment Scholar in the United States, Submits Amicus Brief in Support of Harrison Barnes first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Harrison Barnes PLC filed a lawsuit in a U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on behalf of two screenwriters who spent substantial amounts of time, money, and effort creating, collecting, and distributing a screenplay which was copyrighted by the screenwriters through the Library of Congress and was also registered with the Writers Guild of America. Informant Media, Inc., through President/Executive Judy Cairo (known for her work as producer for Crazy Heart (2009), producer for Hysteria (2011), executive producer for Erased (2012) and producer for Stuck in Love (2012)) entered into a literary option purchase agreement with the screenwriters for the rights to their screenplay. Ultimately the option agreement was terminated pursuant to the agreement.

The screenwriters are informed and believed that Luis Mandoki (director and producer, known for directing When a Man Loves a Woman (1994), Message in a Bottle (1999), Angel Eyes (2001) and Innocent Voices (2004) was given access to their screenplay as part of his involvement with Informant Media, Inc. After reading the screenplay, Mandoki then developed a competing screenplay that was written on the same unique topic as their screenplay (the events that took place in Terezin concentration camp in World War II and the artistic revolution that took place there). The screenwriters are informed and believe that Mandoki and Cairo shopped around the “new” screenplay to various parties in the entertainment industry. Plaintiffs are also informed and believe that Athena Ashburn (who produced and starred in The Elevator (1996), garnered a “Best Supporting Actress” award at the New York Independent Film & Video Festival for her work in The Theory of the Leisure Class (2001) and co-produced Bobby (2006)) contributed to the screenwriters’ copyright being infringed on.

The lawsuit seeks damages of at least $1 million and an injunction preventing Informant Media, Inc., Cairo, Mandoki, and Ashburn from marketing any work or screenplay that is a derivative of the Plaintiffs’ copyrighted material, according to the complaint filed.

Harrison Barnes PLC attorneys have ample experience in entertainment law, as well as general litigation, employment law, release estate transactions and litigation, bankruptcy, divorce and family law and criminal law. Harrison Barnes PLC will continue to fiercely defend the rights of their clients, by filing lawsuits such as this matter for Copyright Infringement.

At Harrison Barnes PLC, the attorneys are proud of their work and of their contributions to their clients’ successes. A commitment to serving the client’s needs best while focusing on high quality of work has made this law firm among the preferred choice for litigation matters. “Facing a great opportunity or a major crisis, you need to trust the experience, creativity, and dedication we provide. We are proud to be lawyers,” Harrison Barnes.

About Harrison Barnes PLC:

Harrison Barnes PLC is a Malibu-based law firm founded in 2004 by Andrew Harrison Barnes. It focuses on providing top quality representation to the Malibu community and has won millions of dollars for its clients over the last decade and has handled criminal matters across Southern California. You can get more details on Harrison Barnes PLC by calling 310.598.1719 or visiting https://www.harrisonbarnes.com.

The post Harrison Barnes PLC Files Lawsuit Against Hollywood Producers for Stealing Script first appeared on JDJournal Blog.