Keith A. Fink and Associates

Judge Inclined to Grant Order Soon on Musician's Video Deposition

by Bill Hetherman

Sex Pistols frontman Johnny Rotten did not get the immediate order he sought today to keep a videotaped deposition he is set to give tomorrow in a woman's assault suit out of the public eye.

But Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Terry A. Green told lawyers for the woman, Roxane Davis, and the punk rock musician during an unscheduled hearing today that he is inclined to grant the request in the near future.

The judge said the only reason he was not issuing a "protective order'' on the video today was that defense lawyers had not given sufficient notice of their motion to Davis' attorneys.

Green said that given the singer's celebrity status, it "makes perfect sense'' to issue such a directive, which would allow the video to be seen only
by a small circle of people, including the lawyers, their clients and expert witnesses they plan to call during the trial.

"'m interested in the case being advanced on the merits,'' Green said. "I don't want counsel and their clients performing for a worldwide audience.''

The judge set a follow-up hearing on the motion for Oct. 17. He said that in the interim, he believes Davis' legal team is "professional enough to not immediately sell the tape to MTV.''

Davis filed her lawsuit June 4, alleging harassment based on sex, retaliation, wrongful termination, assault and battery. She is seeking unspecified damages.

The 52-year-old punk rocker, whose real name is John Lydon, allegedly was unhappy with Davis concerning accommodations she had arranged for him at a luxury hotel in connection with his appearance on a television show.

Davis's lawsuit names Lydon -- who has denied any wrongdoing -- along with numerous other individuals and entities, including The Kirby Organization Inc.

According to her court papers, the company had a joint role in hiring her as a talent producer for the Fuse Television Network reality show "Bodog Battle of the Bands'' early last year.

Rotten's alleged tirade against Davis occurred on Jan. 23, 2007. She claims he shouted obscenities and hit her in the face because he was unhappy
that the Ritz-Carlton hotel room where she had dropped him off did not have a door to the adjoining room where his assistant was staying, forcing him to step outside and walk a few feet down the hallway.

Rotten continued to scream sexual epithets and obscene insults at her as she ran toward an elevator ``in fear of her life,'' according to her court papers.

Davis claims that when she complained to her supervisor, he told her,"You get paid to be treated like (epithet) ... now get back to Rotten,'' and she was later fired.

Keith A. Fink, one of the plaintiff's lawyers, said Lydon's concern about the deposition may indicate he is worried the public will learn about
such things as his large budget for his hairstylist and his insistence that his agent -- named Rambo -- have seats and rooms next to his wherever they travel.

"Either (Lydon) intends on going off on one of his usual four-letter word tirades ... and he is concerned that I, unlike the media ... won't
tolerate it ... or the public may learn about his bizarre penchant to be tied at the hip with Rambo and his endless concern with his hair to be coiffed by a high-priced hairstylist,'' Fink said.

Lydon's lawyer, Dennis K. Wheeler, said he was concerned Davis' lawyers might provide the video of the Lydon deposition to entertainment news outlets, mentioning TMZ.com and "Access Hollywood.''

Kamelia Yadegari, another of Davis's lawyers, said she and her associates have no intention of giving the video to the media and only wanted to have the proper amount of notice before the motion was brought.

Wheeler said short notice was given because Lydon only recently was told of the deposition and immediately objected to it being videotaped.

In a lighter moment, the judge told Wheeler that a jury might not be sympathetic to someone with someone with a last name like Rotten.

"Are you sure you want to go to trial with a client named Johnny Rotten?'' Green asked. ``That's like have a criminal case with someone named
"I'm a crook.''

Wheeler replied that he would refer to his client as John Lydon if the case goes to trial.

The judge told Wheeler to "give my regards to Johnny Rotten. With a name like that, how can you not love him?''

Green also acknowledged that he was not a strong student of pop music culture. He said a juror in his courtroom once said he needed to leave because he was employed by a well-known entertainer -- Mariah Carey -- the judge conceded he had never heard of.

Gay Waiters Claim Gay Restaurant Owners Sexually Harassed Them

by Bill Heatherman

Gay twins who worked as servers at a Los Feliz restaurant were sexually harassed by the gay men who owned the eatery, their lawyer told a jury today. Jed and Wyatt Lorenzen, 32, sued Vermont Restaurant owners Manuel Mesta and Michael Gelzhiser in November 2007 claiming the family-oriented eatery at 1714 N. Vermont Ave. had a hostile work environment.    

"In a family environment, you don't touch employees, make sexual advances, you don't hit on them,'' said lawyer Sarah E. Hernandez, who represents the brothers. But the lawyer for the restaurant owners, Jonathon Kaplan -- who in a brief statement said he was foregoing a chance to address jurors so they could make a decision based on the testimony -- urged the jury to clear his clients of any wrongdoing. "I'm giving up my closing argument as a way of showing you that I have faith in your abilities to arrive at a true and just verdict,'' Kaplan said. The Lorenzens, who were hired as servers at the restaurant in 2005, alleged that Mesta and Gelzhiser targeted them for lewd remarks and other harassment, although Jed Lorenzen acknowledged that Gelzhiser never touched him in an inappropriate way.   

Wyatt Lorenzen testified last week that he showed up for a Halloween party at the restaurant in 2005 in a "naughty Girl Scout'' costume and that Mesta put his hand up the dress he was wearing and told him the uniform made him "look like a schoolgirl who was deserving and asking to be raped.'' Jed Lorenzen testified that Gelzhiser told him he touched himself while looking at a photo of the Halloween party and often asked which of the siblings had the "hotter (posterior).'' Hernandez told jurors that nothing changed when the brothers complained to restaurant manager Heather Ohm. "Ohm knew this conduct violated the law and she did nothing,'' Hernandez said. Wyatt Lorenzen quit working at the restaurant in June 2007, while his brother said he was fired in November 2006 after rejecting Mesta's advances. The jury began deliberating late this afternoon and will resume on Monday.

Twin Brothers Win Gay-on-Gay Sexual Harassment Suit
by Kilian Melloy

A sexual harassment case was settled in favor of gay twin brothers who brought suit against the two gay restaurant owners who they said had subjected them to sexually inappropriate comments.

The brothers were awarded $1,000 in the suit, seeing only part of their claim upheld by the court, which rejected claims that the brothers had suffered infliction of emotional distress and retaliation, reported a Mar. 3 article at Daily Breeze.com.

The brothers, Jed and Wyatt Lorenzen, 32, worked at Vermont Restaurant in Los Feliz, Calif.

The business is owned by Michael Gelzhiser and Manuel Mesta, the article said.

The brothers claimed that the owners made sexually explicit comments to them, including comparing portions of their physiques to debate which one was "hotter."

The brothers’ lawyer, Sarah E. Hernandez, was cited as saying that the suit was not about the money.

Said Hernandez, "It’s harder to prove sexual harassment with men because, unlike women, they don’t break down and cry on the stand."

Jed Lorenzen echoed the sentiment that the monetary award was not the motivating factor behind the suit. The article quoted him as saying he was "thoroughly happy with the verdict.

"The money was not as important."

Gilzhiser reacted to the award, which capped a 16-month process, including nine days at trial, with the words, "All of this for that?," the article reported.

The defendants’ lawyer, Jonathon Kaplan, said, "I would have preferred that it would have been a complete defense verdict.

"But I think the fact the jury only awarded $1,000 to each plaintiff speaks volumes about their case."

Link

Lawyer Who Sued Company CEO is Target of Claimed Cyber-Attack Campaign
by Martha Neil

In nearly 20 years as a trial lawyer, Keith Fink has encountered plenty of hardball litigation tactics. But the cyber attacks he has suffered since he began representing former employees of American Apparel in litigation against the company are unique.

"I've never experienced it, I don't know any lawyer that's experienced it, and I'm sure I'm never going to experience it again in my career," he tells ABAJournal.com.

In an apparent effort to discourage and discredit Fink, company employees have launched an Internet attack on his character, as the New York Post reports it has documented in internal American Apparel e-mails.

In an article last week, the newspaper details the cyber campaign it claims the company has launched against Fink, who who has filed multiple lawsuits against American Apparel and its chief executive, Dov Charney, on behalf of various former employees: "According to internal e-mails allegedly written by American Apparel staff and obtained by the Post, company officials are buying Web ads and feeding and building sites that allege a litany of malfeasance by the Los Angeles-based lawyer."

Among the efforts, the Post says, was text inserted into a Wikipedia entry about Fink. In it, as of mid-January, he was described as an "ambulance chaser" and worse. The newspaper also says that at least one website apparently was set up anonymously for the purpose of discrediting Fink, according to the internal American Apparel e-mails.

And, Fink himself tells ABAJournal.com, he believes the company is also responsible not only for this and other website criticism but Internet ads and even a critical—and, he says, factually inaccurate—print ad that ran prominently on Jan. 8 in the University of California Los Angeles campus newspaper, the Daily Bruin. Fink is teaching a class on free speech in the workplace at UCLA.

Although Wikipedia has taken down the critical entry about Fink in the website's free online encyclopedia, other Internet attacks are still up (and can readily be found by doing a name search on Google or another search engine).

Responding to a Post request for comment, American Apparel's general counsel said the e-mails relied on by the newspaper are unauthenticated and declined to discuss the matter further.

The Post article doesn't explain how the newspaper obtained the claimed American Apparel e-mail copies. But Fink says he believes one of the company's 10,000 or so employees has been sending them out anonymously.

Asked how he plans to deal with the cyber attacks, Fink says he doesn't have time to try to respond to them individually and needs to focus his energies on representing his clients in their litigation against American Apparel.

"They're never going to intimidate or silence me, so … these efforts are all in vain," he tells ABAJournal.com. But, he adds, "I'm going to kick their butt in trial in my cases."

Link