Bernis Complaint

8/2/2019 Bernis Complaint

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bernis-complaint 1/8

\

2

34

5

6

7

8

9

10

LwO

coG

yK

zAPLC

2

V

uaB

e

dS

e2

Wo

a

HsC

ona9

c

-aO\

*kU»tO'—

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Gary Ku rtz, Esq. SB N 128295LAW OFFICE OF GARY KURTZ

A ProfessionalLa w Corporation20335 VenturaBoulevard, Suite200 O J3 >rWoodlandHills, California91364 hr®£f$At

Telephone: 818-884-8400 V€?Sf E>isM p?̂Telefax: 818-884-8404 fiiC ^ ,, t

E-Mail: [email protected] LO& * ^''j;

Attorneyin pro per ~'Ofy £V),

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTYOF LOS ANGELES

GARY KURTZ, ) Case No.

Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND) INJUNCTIVE RELIEFFOR:

vs. )) 1. Defamation;

DAVID BERNIS and DOES 1 to 50,) 2, False Light - InvasionOf Privacy;inclusive. ) 3. Unfair BusinessPractices; and

) 4. Injunction.Defendants. )

)

For his com plaint for damages and inju nct ive relieve, Plaintiff Gary Kurtzalleges th e

following:

i

1. Plaintiff Gary Kurtz("Plaintiff' or"Kurtz") is and was atall material timea

competentadult who resides in the State of California,County of LosAngeles. Plaintiffis

also a licensed attorney,who is licensed an d qualified to practice law in the States of

California,Illinoisand Missouribut has hisoffice in Woodland Hills, California.

Complaint forDamagesand EquitableRelief- 1-



O O £

•s|£

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. Defendant DavidBemis ("Bernis") is an individual whoresides in N ew York

but who publishes defamatory communicationscalculated to reach audiences an d cause

damagesto Plaintiffin Californiaan d other states.3. The true names an d capacities, whether ind iv idual ,corporate, associate or

otherwise, of Defendants herein namedas Does 1 through 50, inclusive,are unknownto

Plaintiff,who, therefore,sues said Defendantsby such fictitiousnames. Plaintiff will seek to

amend this complaint tostate the true namesan d capacities of these Doe Defendants when

they have beenascertained. At the time of the wrongfulacts described in this complaint, all

named Defendantsand Does 1 through 50, participated in some or all of the acts herein

alleged,whetheras principal,agent, alter ego,employer, employee, or representative of someor all of the other Defendants, actingwithin the course and scope of said agency and

employment. Plaintiffis informed an d believes an d thereon alleges that each of the

Defendants sued hereinas a Doe is responsible in some manner for the events an d

happenings referredto herein, thereby legally causingthe injuries an d damages as herein

alleged.

4. The subject matterat issue in this actionwas the subject matterof a pervious

action entitled Kurtzv. Weberman, LASCCase No. LC084486 (hereinafter"the WebermanAction") that resultedin a judgment fo r Kurtz an d against Weberman in the amount of

$1,500,000.00. Plaintiff is informedand believes and based thereon alleges that Weberman

supplies the defamatory contentat issue, which Defendants in this action publishon

Weberman'sbehalf. Th e instant website startedbroadcastingdefamatory informationafter

Plaintiffwas able to seize similar defamatorypages from Weberman . Defendant Bernis then

knowinglyfacilitatedrepublicationof substantially sim ilar defamatory material on similarly

named web sites. The parties, namely Webermanan d Defendants in this action, are co-

conspirators in a maliciousschemeto cause injuriesto Kurtz and to obstruct the legal process

of removing the offensive and false materialfrom pub lication. Bernis continues to

Complaintfor Damagesan d EquitableRelief-2 -



9" W ' Iill(S «

• s § i-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

demonstrate his active participation in the Web erman/Bernisconspiracy by acts designed to

maintainthe use of his websites to publish defamatory information.

5. Jurisdiction is based on Defendants' decisionto publish defamatory materialabout a Californiaresident, whom Defendan ts know has a law practice in California, in such

a manner as to bereasonably calculated to be read inCalifornia, have its main effect in

Californiaand cause damages toPlaintiff in California.

First Cause of Action

Defamation

[B y PlaintiffAgainst Defendants]

6. Plaintiff reallegesthe allegationsse t forth in paragraphs 1 through 5, above,

and incorporates themby this reference.

7. At all relevanttimes, Defendants havecaused to be published on the Internet

and republished on a daily basis at the URL, http://steverombom.organd linked pages,

defamatory information,includingthe following:

7.1 The false and defam atory statement about Kurtz: "Themaggot can nolonger practice law."

7.2 The false and defamatory statement that Kurtzand private investigator

Steven Rambam threateneda 14-year old boywith rape.

7.3 The false an d defamatory statement that Kurtzis a "degenerate sex-addict

reprobate " who "wants to subvert the very essence of American

jurisprudence by seizing these URLleases from Dave Bemis without due

process of law."7.4 The false and defam atory statement that: "Gary A lan K urtz Steve

Rambam'sfriend,business partnerand attorney is a freakin pervert."

Complaintfor Damagesand Equitable Relief- 3 -



s2s 2

<l «a - r f ia S£

.O OJ j»

£ g J

i l l

1

2

34

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15 The false claim that:"Click KURTZ's HP's to see the women KURTZhas

humiliatehim."

7.6 The false and defamatory statement that: "GARY REACHES LEVELFOUR ON HUMANPLEXJOHN AND HOOKER RATING PAGE."

7.7 A false claim that a post on a bondage site fo r "GacyK91364" is

attributable to Kurtz.

7.8 The false and defamatory statement that"Gary Alan Kurtz, is a sexual

pervert,a masochistand a degenerate...."

7.9 The false and defamatory statement that: "GARY KURTZ RAPEDONE

OF HIS CLIENTS THEN KURTZAND STEVE ROMBOM HAD HERCOMMITTED TO A MENTA L HOSPITAL"

7.10 The false and defamatory statement that: "KURTZAND MARKOWITZ

ATTEMPT TO SHAKE DOWN BEYONCE W ITH A BOGUS LAWSUIT.

THESE MEN AREEXTORTIONISTS."

7.11 The false and defamatory statement that: "Among those he is in

communicationwith are corruptcivil judges and members of institutions

that are supposed to oversee nursinghomes, old age homes etc."7.12 The false and defamatory statement that Kurtz an d Private Investigator

Steven Rombom fabricated data to discredit MySpace.com regarding

Registered Sex O ffenders who have profiles onMyspace.

7.13 The false and defamatory statement that Kurtzconspired with the clerk of

the courtfo r Hon. Lisa HartCole to perpetrate an injustice and prevail in a

lawsuitagainstWeberman.

7.14 The false and defamatory accusation that Ku rtz was workingwith JudgeCole and her clerk in orchestrating courthearings to deprive Webermanof

du e process.

Complaintfor Damagesand Eq uitable Relief-4 -



il

1

2

34

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7.15 The false anddefamatoryaccusation thatKurtzwas JudgeCole's partner in

closing downantt-nazi websites.

8. Statements contained in these web pages arefalse and defamatory, and theyare m alicious becauseat the tim e that theypublished these materials, Defendants sho uld have

knownor hadactual know ledgeof the false na tureof the publication.

9. In publishing the attached documents, Defendants acted intentionallyand

maliciously,with the actual intentto cause injuriesto Kurtz and with a conscious disregard

of Kurtz'sfeelings and well being.

10. As a further direct and proximate resultof Defendants' conduct, Kurtz has

suffered business and persona)losses, including being subjected to hatred, ridicule,scorn,embarrassment,humiliation,and hurt feelings, and he has sustained emotional traumaand

distress, depressionand anger. In the WebermanAction,damages from the same information

was adjudged to be $15 miiiion. The inform ation has been on the Internet forconsiderable

timeafter those damages wereawarded,so the current damages are significantly higher.

11. Further, in doing the things alleged above, Defendants have beenguilty of

oppression, fraudand malice, so Defendants' conduct, constitutes malice and oppression

sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages. As a direct and proximate resultofDefendants' conduct, as alleged above, Kurtz has sustained damages, and is entitled to

punitivedamages in and am oun t exceedingth ejurisdictional minimumof this Court.

Second Cause of Action

False Light- Invasion O f Privacy

[B y Plaintiff Against Defendants]

12. Plaintiff realleges the allegationsset forth in paragraphs 1 throug h 11, above,

and incorporates the mby this reference.

Complaintfor Damages and Equitable Relief-5-



m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1.5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13. Bypublicationof the attached documents, Defendants made public disclosures

which placed Kurtz in a false light.

14. The statements contained in the attached documents arefalse, offensive and

objectionable toplaintiff, and they w ould be offensive and objectionable to anyreasonable

person.

15. Statements contained in the attached documents are malicious in that

Defendants should have known or had actual knowledge of the false nature of the

publication.

16. In publishing the attached documents, Defendants actedintentionally an d

maliciously,with the actual intent to cause injuries to K urtz andwith a conscious disregard

of Kurtz'sfeelingsand well being.

17. As a further direct and proximate result ofDefendants' conduct, Kurtz has

suffered business and personal losses, including being subjected to hatred, ridicule, scorn,

embarrassment, humiliation,and hurt feelings, and he hassustained emotional traumaand

distress, depression and anger.

18. Further, in do ing the thing s allegedabove, Defendants have been guilty of

oppression, fraud and malice, so Defendants'conduct, constitutes maliceand oppression

sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages. As a direct and proximateresult of

Defendants' conduct, as alleged above, Kurtz has sustained damages, and is entitled to

punitivedamages in and amoun t exceeding thejurisdictionalminimumof this Court.

Third Cause of Action

Unfair Business Pra ctices

[By PlaintiffAgainst Defendants]

19. Plaintiff realleges the allegationsset forth in paragraphs 1 through 18, above,

and incorporates them by this reference.

Complaintfor Damagesand Equitable Relief-6-



3 g56 -

o n j«* B S

I I I

i

2

34

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20. During the past two years and con tinu ing to the present, as alleged herein ,

Defendants have engaged in a systematic courseof conduct that has had the wrongful

purpose andeffect of unfair business practices, namely the publication of false, fraudulent,and defamatory informationon certain Internetweb pages in order to garner Internettraffic

to increase thenumberof "hits" and,therefore, thevalue of Defendants' w ebsites.

21. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants,an d each of them, have engagedin

acts of unfair business practiceswithin the meaningof Business an d Professions Code§

17200, etseq.

22. The acts, conduct, andfailures to act of Defendants, asalleged herein,have

caused and are causing,an d unless enjoined an d restrained by this Court will continue tocause Plaintiff great an d irreparable injury which cannot be adequately compensated or

measured in money. Plaintiff has no adequate remedyat law and will suffer immediateand

irreparable injury, loss an d damage unlessan appropriate temporary restraining order,

preliminary injunction,and permanentinjunction are issued to prevent ongoing andfurther

wrongfulacts.

Fourth Cause of Action

Injunctive Relief

I By Plaintiff Again st D efendants]

23. Plaintiff realleges the allegationsset forth inparagraphs I through22, above,

and incorporates the mby this reference.

24. By reason of the foregoing,Defendants) have tortiousiy engaged in acts

which authorizeequitable remedies suchas disgorgementand the issuance of an injunction

to prevent the repetitionof the tortious conduct,includingwithoutlimitation,acts of known

defamation,acts of know false light invasion of privacy an d acts of unfair business practices

Complaint forDamagesand EquitableRelief-7 -



ill

n 6 .3 « «

S J 1

1

23

4

5

6

78

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

within the meaning of the California common law and Business and Professions Code §

17200, etseq.

25. As a further direct and legal result of the acts and misconduct alleged above,

plaintiff is entitled to an injunction preventing the continued publication of the information

and materials described herein.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for a judgment against all Defendants as follows:

1. For compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial but exceeding

the jurisdictional minimumof $25,000.00;

2. For general damages in an amount to be proven at trial but exceeding the

jurisdictional minimumof $25,000.00;

3. For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

4. For an injunction preventing the continued publication of the information and

materials described herein;

5. For alt costs allowed at law; and

6. For all further and additional damages as this Court deems just and proper.

LAW OFFICE F GARY KURTZ

A Professional L ^ H V Corporation

Dated: December 30,2011

Attorney in pro per

Complaint for D amages andEquitableRelief-8-

Documents

Bernis Complaint