\ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 L w O c o G y K z A P L C 2 V u a B e d S e 2 W o a H s C o n a 9 c - a O \ * k U » t O ' — 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Gary Kurtz, Esq. SB N 128295 LA W OFFICE O F GARY KURTZ A Professional La w Corporation 20335 Ventura Boulevard , Suite 200 O J3 > r Woodland Hills, California 91364 hr®£f$At Telephone: 818-884-8400 V€?Sf E>isM p ? ^ Telefax: 818-884-8404 fiiC ^ ,, t E-Mail: [email protected]LO& * ^''j; Attorney in pro per ~'Ofy £V), SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES GARY KURTZ, ) Case N o. Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT F O R DAMAGES A N D ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR: vs. ) ) 1 . Defamation; DAVID BERNIS a n d DOES 1 to 50,) 2, False Light - Invasion O f Privacy; inclusive. ) 3. Unfair Business Practices; a n d ) 4. Injunction. Defendants. ) ) For his complaint for damages and injunctive relieve, Plaintiff Gary Kurtz alleges th e following: i 1. Plaintiff Gary Kurtz ("Plaintiff' or "Kurtz") is and was at a ll material time a competent adult w h o resides in the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff is also a licensed attorney, who is licensed an d qualified to practice la w in the States o f California, Illinois a nd Missouri but has his office in Woodland Hills, California. Complaint for Damages and Equitable Relief - 1 -
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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
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."
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,
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