Keith A. Fink and Associates

 By Bill Hetherman

   LOS ANGELES (CNS) - A lawyer for a woman suing a Hollywood agent for
alleged sexual harassment is claiming success in serving one of the defendant's
celebrity clients, Jennifer Aniston, with legal papers asking her to testify in
a deposition.
   Published reports show the legal documents regarding Heather Devlin's
lawsuit being placed on the windshield of Aniston's sport-utility vehicle
outside the Sunset Tower hotel on Thursday night, then being picked up by her
bodyguard.
   Keith A. Fink, Devlin's lawyer, said the resistance of celebrity
witnesses in the case to accept subpoenas has forced his office to wait for
them outside fashionable establishments alongside the paparazzi.
   ``It is unfortunate that we had to waste time and money trying to serve
Ms. Aniston, but this was necessitated by defendants' game of hide-and-seek,''
Fink said. ``Every witness in this case who is a celebrity, the defendants
refuse to voluntarily produce or give us contact information.''
   Devlin's attorneys want to take testimony from the former ``Friends''
star as well as Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and Rachel Zoe -- star of the Bravo
network reality television show ``The Rachel Zoe Project'' -- concerning a
lawsuit against the plaintiff's former boss, Todd Shemarya.
   Shemarya helped Pitt and Jolie get $15 million for photos of their
twins. His clientele also includes Matthew McConaughey and Christina Aguilera.
    Unlike agents who help famous clients get film deals, brand agents like
Shemarya help celebrities take advantage of their fame by arranging contracts
that result in free luxury goods and designer brands.
   Devlin filed her sexual harassment and wrongful dismissal suit against
Shemarya and his company, Todd Shemarya Artists Inc., in Los Angeles Superior
Court in November 2008 alleging he made vulgar jokes in the workplace about
celebrities.
    Shemarya is alleged by Devlin to have subjected her to a barrage of
offensive sexual comments.
   According to Devlin's suit, she was forced to hear jokes by Shemarya at
work about Pitt, McConaughey, actor Djimon Hounsou and singer k.d. lang, all
centered on their sexuality or private parts.
   Devlin also alleges she was present while Shemarya engaged in vulgar
telephone conversations in the office with his female friends, including
Aniston, producer Constance Schwartz and longtime Pitt rep Cynthia Pett-Dante.
   She also maintains Shemarya fired her as his assistant to make way for
his former gay lover, Parke Steiger.
   Devlin's attorneys say information obtained in the depositions will help
them prepare their opposition to Shemarya's motion to throw out the case,
scheduled for Feb. 2.
   Another hearing is scheduled Dec. 22 on whether Devlin's lawyers are
entitled to the addresses of all four celebrities, although the service of
papers on Aniston may make the hearing regarding her moot.
   Devlin's attorneys say Pitt and Jolie could have crucial information and
that the privacy rights of the pair are not absolute. They point to their
client's deposition regarding alleged misappropriation of expensive merchandise
by Shemarya.
   ``(Devlin) testified that (Shemarya) had ordered her to commit fraud by
requesting products from various high-end labels on behalf of Mr. Pitt and Ms.
Angelina Jolie when, in fact, the products were for (Shemarya's) own use and
were ordered without Mr. Pitt's knowledge,'' according to the plaintiff's court
papers.
   Devlin's lawyers say they want to depose Aniston and Zoe based on a
sworn declaration by Shemarya in which he says both women told him they had
problems with Devlin.
   ``In or about 2006, Jennifer Aniston called me (sounding) very unhappy
and complained about Heather having called Jennifer's assistant to gossip,''
Shemarya's declaration states. ``I spoke with Heather about Jennifer's
complaint, and she denied having done anything wrong.''
   In the Zoe example, Shemarya says Devlin was not a reliable travel planner.
   ``In ... 2006 ... Zoe called me very upset and complained that Heather
had booked her to travel on the wrong date, had not given her information she
needed for the job and had not followed through with her,'' Shemarya stated.
   Zoe told Shemarya she did not want to work any longer with Devlin, so he
had to remove her from the stylist's account, he says.
   ``I confronted Heather with Zoe's complaints and she denied that she had
done anything wrong and sought to blame others,'' Shemarya stated.
   The agent also says he replaced Devlin with a woman, and that his
relationship with Steiger ended two years before the man began working with
him.
   Shemarya's lawyer, Adam Levin, states in his own sworn statement that
the motion by Devlin's attorneys ``implicates the fundamental privacy rights of
Pitt, Jolie and Aniston, non-parties to this litigation.'' Levin does not
mention Zoe.
   Copies of letters from the law firm of Lavely & Singer -- attorneys for
Pitt, Jolie and Aniston -- objecting to the Devlin motion are contained within
court papers in the case. The letters state that all three celebrities
constantly deal with ``unwanted, harassing and/or even threatening intrusions
by overzealous fans, unbalanced or psychotic pursuers and even certain
paparazzi.''

 Jon Voight Ordered to Pay Attorney Fees
By Bill Hetherman

Actor Jon Voight and the parents of his manager must reimburse $100,000 in attorney fees in a lawsuit they filed against two New Zealand producers who had sued the three claiming they steered them wrong on movie projects.

Daybreak Pacific Ltd. producers Paul and Mark Huljich sued Voight, along with Hank and Dorothy Paul, and others, in federal court in February 2006, claiming fraud and breach of contract and seeking millions of dollars over failed business investments.

The Huljiches maintained they would not have invested in film projects with Steven Paul but for Voight's alleged assertions that members of the Paul family were people of integrity.

The Pauls, who are in their 70s, are the parents of Voight's manager, Steven Paul.

The Huljiches on June 26 were awarded a $630,000 judgment in the federal court suit, but the judgment was against defendants in the case other than Voight and the Pauls.

After being found innocent, Voight and the Pauls alleged in a malicious prosecution complaint filed May 28 in Santa Monica Superior Court that the producers and their attorneys had no reasonable grounds for suing them.

Voight maintained the Huljiches sued him and his manager's parents solely to get a settlement from the manager.

The lawyers for the Huljiches filed motions to dismiss the parts of the Superior Court case against them on grounds it was brought to keep their clients from enforcing the $630,000 judgment, and on Aug. 10, Santa Monica Superior Court Judge Elizabeth A. Grimes dismissed the part of the case against attorney Peter J. Anderson, who represented the Huljiches for a short time, according to Anderson's lawyer, David J. Wilson.

Later that month, court papers were filed on behalf of Voight and the Pauls dropping their case against former Huljich attorneys Petty Tsay and David Rose. Tsay and her firm, Eisner Frank & Kahan, then filed a motion for attorneys' fees.

Grimes ruled that Voight and the Pauls must share in paying $100,000 in those fees.

And now, the attorneys who were sued for malicious prosecution may sue the actor for malicious prosecution.

"The suit against the ... law firm had no basis and was an attempt by the plaintiffs here to extort a reduction in the amount awarded in the underlying matter," Tsay attorney Keith A. Fink said. "While we are happy with the order ... this doesn't unscramble the negativity my clients had to endure from this baseless lawsuit. We will be filing a malicious prosecution action against Mr. Voight."

Attorney Joe Hariton, who represents all three plaintiffs, did not immediately return a call for comment on today's ruling.

Voight and the Pauls were never able to serve the Huljiches with the lawsuit, Fink said.

Playmate Victory: Woman's Lawsuit Against Playboy Centerfold of the Year Dropped

Playboy Playmate of the Year Ida Ljungqvist won a
round in court when a woman dropped a lawsuit alleging the centerfold teamed
with the plaintiff's estranged husband to take child support from her children.

A Santa Monica Superior Court minute order dated Monday stated that
Katrina Kantner's case was dismissed.

Ljungqvist's lawyer, Keith A. Fink, said Kantner decided not to pursue
her lawsuit after she and her new attorney were told they faced the likelihood
of a malicious prosecution action.

Kantner's lawyer, Robert E. Gentino, did not immediately return a call
for comment.

Kantner filed the lawsuit May 28. She alleged her husband, Doug Kantner,
gave Ljungqvist more than $90,000 in cash and gifts while failing to honor
his obligation to pay her $10,000 a month in child and spousal support.

Fink said his client was not engaged in any kind of amorous relationship
with Doug Kantner and that she was being targeted because she is a celebrity.

"The claims against Ms. Ljungqvist were entirely false and spun from
whole cloth by Ms. Kantner in an attempt to harm her ex-husband, who she is
still involved with in a nasty divorce," Fink alleged.

"The most maddening of the false allegations to me was that Ms. Kantner
wasn't paid in full by her husband for all child and marital support," he
said. "This was a lie and she was paid in full."

Ljungqvist, 28, is the first African-born Playmate. She has raised funds
for charities that help malnourished children and provide medical care to HIV-
positive children in her native Tanzania, Fink said.