Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Judge Tosses Ronald Tutor's Lawsuit Against Aramid


Ruling forces Tutor to pay legal costs, with two more court cases still pending.

Tutor, the CEO of a large construction company who got into the movie business and teamed up with investor David Bergstein, brought the lawsuit alleging he had paid Aramid and related entities $2.9 million to settle claims related to a ThinkFilm loan he had made to finance movies. The lawsuit charged that Aramid got the money and Molner signed an agreement on behalf of Aramid that released certain claims.

Upset that creditors like Aramid then launched a scorched earth war of involuntary bankruptcy and other lawsuits, Tutor hit back by suing them for breach of contract and tortious interference.

On Tuesday, Los Angeles Superior Court judge Michael Paul Linfield rejected Tutor's lawsuit, saying that Aramid and Molner coudn't be sued over efforts related to their role in the bankruptcy of Bergstein's companies.

After Tutor brought the lawsuit, the defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion, which provides for special protection of activity that arises from the First Amendment -- not just free speech, but also a right to petition in court.

In granting the motion, the judge ruled that Tutor's claims emanated from lawsuits and bankruptcy filings -- that his suit was "expressly based” on the defendants' conduct in preparing, filing and prosecuting litigation against Tutor and Bergstein. As such, these claims were barred by "litigation privilege." In other words, Tutor and Bergstein can’t sue Aramid for suing them.

The judge also said that Tutor failed to show a probability of prevailing on his clams in the suit. “Plaintiffs arguments are unpersuasive,” the judge wrote in his ruling. “It is apparent that the (amended complaint by Tutor) is based on protected conduct.”

Now that a judge has agreed to SLAPP away Tutor's suit against Aramid with prejudice, it can't be refiled. It also means that Aramid and Molner can demand that Tutor now pay their legal bills. A hearing on that is set for March 2013. Aramid is represented by Daniel Rozansky of Strook and Strook. Tutor is represented by Robert Nida of the law firm Castle & Associates.

There are two other suits still outstanding. One, brought by Bergstein and his company Graybox against Aramid, makes similar allegations. A more significant case brought by Bergstein and Tutor, also pending in front of Judge Linfield, claims that because attorney Susan Tregub helped Aramid and Molner, and Aramid helped Tregub in her breaches of the law, Aramid should pay them damages and all of their legal costs.

Read More: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/judge-tosses-ronald-tutors-lawsuit-401513

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.