This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

Nicko LaCoste v. Daniel Keem

Published: Aug. 28, 2020 | Result Date: Jul. 13, 2020 | Filing Date: Mar. 10, 2020 |

Case number: 2:20-cv-02323-RGK-JPR Bench Verdict –  Defendant

Judge

R. Gary Klausner

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Raoul J. Severo
(Law Offices of Raoul Severo)


Defendant

Eric M. George
(Ellis, George, Cipollone, O'Brien & Annaguey LLP) Daniel Keem

Kim Zeldin
(Browne George Ross LLP) Daniel Keem

Eric A. Westlund
(Browne George Ross LLP) Daniel Keem


Facts

Plaintiff Nicko "Romeo" Lacoste, the owner of The California Dream Tattoo, filed suit against Defendant Daniel "Keemstar" Keem, the owner DRAMAALERT, a channel streamed on social media outlet that includes Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat for interference with prospective economic advantage and interference with contractual relations.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended Defendant falsely accused Plaintiff of pedophilia in several videos that were played on social media platforms, which included Instagram, Twitter, and Youtube. Specifically, Plaintiff contended Defendant publicized a video of Plaintiff that depicted Plaintiff participating in a sexually charged conversation with a minor. Plaintiff contended Defendant used the videos to destroy Plaintiff's business, reputation, and attempted to ruin Plaintiff's career. Plaintiff further contended Defendant caused Plaintiff to lose business contracts as a result of the surfaced videos, and also caused substantial damage to Plaintiff's earned income and profits.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied Plaintiff's contentions and filed a special motion to strike Plaintiff's complaint against him under California's anti-strategic lawsuit against public participate statute.

Result

The court granted Defendant's special motion to strike the complaint, finding that the claims arose from activities protected under the anti-SLAPP statute and Plaintiff had failed to show a minimal probability of prevailing on his claims.


#135351

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390