Nicole Richie’s former fiance, DJ AM, is suing the NY Daily News for libel and false-light invasion of privacy. Represented by the same firm as Rob Lowe in Nanny Gate 2008, DJ AM claims that a June 22 article detailing his purported lack of work and wages is false.
The NY Daily News reported:
“AM hit the big time in 2003 when he and Nicole Richie first hooked up, and his involvement in a celebrity couple earned him big dollars. By the time the two split in 2006, he was commanding six-figure salaries for a single gig.”
“These days, Goldstein has no famous girlfriend to help build his brand and won’t even talk about Nicole with reporters. That has lowered his stock to the point where, club owners say, he now gets a much smaller fee per gig.”
“Promoters in Miami, where AM used to sell out megaclubs Mansion and Privé, say they barely use him anymore. And you won’t see him in the Hamptons this summer, even though he has been a staple at events.”
“‘He has gone from making major bank and playing these huge club parties to doing private corporate events,’ says one booker who regularly uses Richie’s ex.”
DJ AM seeks at least $10 million in damages and says, among other things:
“The statements in the Article are false. DJ AM’s career continues to thrive.
“[H]ad Defendants even bothered to conduct even a cursory review of his MySpace.com web page, the would have instantly discovered that he continues to be employed by major nightclubs nationwide, including at the very cities and venues the Article alleges he has been unable to obtain steady employment.”
“DJ AM’s rates have steadily increased over the years.”
Popsquire’s perspective…
Although most celebrity defamation and libel lawsuits can be difficult to win, DJ AM may have a strong case here. Publishing false statements about a person’s earnings or career trajectory generally is a big legal risk for publications, compared to statements about pregnancies or break-ups.
According to E! Online, Jerry Seinfeld’s attorneys continue to ask a judge to throw out a lawsuit for trademark infringement and slander filed in New York by Missy Chase Lapine against Jerry and his wife, Jessica.
If you are not familiar with this case, here’s what you need to know…
Lepine’s book, “The Sneaky Chef: Simple Strategies For Hiding Healthy Foods In Kids’ Favorite Meals,” — a book about how to sneak veggies into kids’ meals — was released in April 2007.
Jessica Seinfeld’s book, “Deceptively Delicious: Simple Secrets To Get Your Kids Eating Good Food,” — also about how to sneak veggies into kids’ meals — was released in October 2007.
On October 8, 2007, Jessica Seinfeld appeared on Oprah to promote her book.
In response to accusations that his wife had plagiarized Lapine’s recipes, Jerry compared her to the killers of John Lennon and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. while making an appearance on Late Night With David Letterman.
In the papers seeking dismissal of the lawsuit, attorneys refer to Jerry’s comments as “overstatements of opinion for comic effect” and argue that “no reasonable viewer could have thought that Seinfeld really meant that Lapine…might become an ‘assassin’ simply because she has three names.”
Popsquire’s perspective…
For a statement to constitute defamation (the term that encompasses libel or slander), it must be a statement of fact and not an opinion. That’s why we see Jerry’s attorneys referring to the statement as a “overstatements of opinion for comic effect.”
Denise Richards and Charlie Sheen are best friends. If you believe that, then you definitely are new to Popsquire. If, on the other hand, you are a faithful Popsquire follower, then you may cringe when you read about this text message that Denise claims Charlie recently sent her:
“I hope you and your worthless retarded father get cancer and join your stupid mom. Rot in hell you [bleeping] whore.”
If Charlie did send this text to Denise, then it’s time to switch over to the Denise camp. If he didn’t send that message, then Charlie should sue for defamation. Remember, defamation generally is a false statement of fact that harms a person’s reputation.
Numerous media outlets claim that Ashlee Simpson is pregnant with Pete Wentz’s baby. If the reports are true, congrats! If not, they could constitute defamation. Defamation is any untrue published statement of fact that may harm a person’s reputation.
Realize, however, that defamation lawsuits brought by celebs can be difficult to win. Unlike regular folk, celebs generally have to meet a higher standard. Celebs have to prove that the alleged defamatory statement is false and was made with malicious intent, meaning that it was published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth.
Question: Which is more damaging to Ashlee’s reputation — lip syncing or being preggers? Talk to me — Papa Popsquire Don’t Preach!
You must watch the video below. It’s a very powerful use of YouTube to call attention to a pop culture/law collision! An Arizona band, The Asphalt, asks us to consider whether a producer stole the hook from their song, “Tonight,” and used it in Chris Daughtry’s “Feels Like Tonight.”
Most impressive is what appears to be an absence of defamation. The band doesn’t accuse the producer of stealing. Instead, the video simply asks viewers/listeners to decide for themselves. As you do so, consider that the legal question includes whether the two works are “substantially similar.”
Yeah, it’s a crazy vague term, so do your best and let Popsquire know what you think!
Now that you’ve caught up with all three lawsuits filed by Rob Lowe this week, you must be dying to know what happens next. Unfortunately, not much is likely to happen immediately, but here’s a quick run down of the general stages of litigation that may play out, depending on how far the cases proceed.
(1) Pleadings: The complaint is filed and served. The defendant generally has at least 30 days to respond either by denying the allegations or moving to dismiss the case.
(2) Discovery: This is where all parties exchange documents, take depositions, and learn as much information as they can about the other’s position. The discovery phase often represents at least 80% of any litigation.
(3) Trial: If the case is not settled or dismissed during the discovery stage, it goes to trial.
Believe it or not, a typical entertainment litigation from pleadings through trial can cost a party more than $300,000 in legal fees!
Update: After being the first to report the lawsuit, Popsquire has obtained a copy of the (ironic) defamation complaint filed by Perez Hilton. In case you don’t want to read the entire document, Perez vs. Taylor, here’s what you need to know.
Perez is suing for: (1) libel; (2) slander; (3) invasion or privacy; (4) harassment; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. The allegations include:
The defendant is Jonathan Wayne Lewandowski, aka Jonathan Taylor, aka Jaxson — a fellow blogger.
Jaxson made defamatory statements to the New York Post, Page Six, and other media outlets about a “purported agreement” between Jaxson and Perez to help Jaxson publicize his blog (www.jonathanjaxson.blogspot.com).
The statements include: (a) that Perez was using Jaxson as his “personal porn service;” and (b) Jaxson sent Perez sex tapes of himself in exchange for alerting Jaxson to breaking celebrity news.
Popsquire assumes he is not alone in celebrating that the sex tapes are notstarring Perez! Either way, these guys have lots of ‘xplainin’ to do, and Popsquire is here to listen.
In a new twist of irony, Perez Hilton is suing someone for defamation. According to the Los Angeles Superior Court docket system, a defamation case entitled “Mario Lavadeira dba Perez Hilton v. Jonathan Wayne Lewandowski aka Jonathan Jaxon aka Jonathan Taylor” was filed yesterday.
The docket states: “Defendant claimed Hilton was manipulating him for sex. He also disclosed his cell phone number.”
Popsquire is working on getting the complaint. Stick around!
Oprah’s Montecito neighbor, Rob Lowe, is keeping Popsquire busy today!
In addition to the lawsuit against former nanny, Laura Boyce, Rob and his wife alsoare suing (1) another former nanny (Jessica Gibson) as well as (2) a former chef (Peter Clements). According to Rob, these former employees allegedly revealed “confidential” information about the Lowe family and spread nasty rumors.
The nanny…
Rob claims she “made false statements to others to suggest that she had a personal and inappropriate relationship with [him] and, on at least one occasion, bragged about giving [him] massages during one of the family trips.” In addition, Rob claims that Gibson told others repeatedly that she was “romantically interested in [him] and stated she wished he would divorce Sheryl Lowe.” Click here to read the complaint yourself.
Popsquire’s perspective…
Telling someone that you are romantically interested in Rob Lowe does not constitute defamation. Think about it — that would make millions of people liable for defamation! On the other hand, stating that you give Rob massages during family trips might constitute defamation, depending on the situation and, of course, if it’s a false statement.
The chef…
Although lacking specifics about how the chef defamed the Lowe’s or breached a confidentiality agreement, the allegations detail the chef’s alleged wrongdoing that led to his termination, including, among other things: (1) having sex in Rob’s bed; (2) stealing prescription drugs; and (3) overcharging for food. Click here to read the allegations yourself.
Popsquire’s perspective…
Rob better be sure that the details about the chef’s wrongdoing are true. If not, Rob may be facing a defamation lawsuit himself. Remember, as discussed aqui, defamation involving a non-celeb is easier to prove!
Rob certainly has gone on the offensive. Either he has something to hide and is using litigation to scare these former employees, or he is doing everything he can to protect his family and promote truth.
What do you think? While you ponder, enjoy this Notorious B.I.G. classic, “Mo’ Money, Mo’ Problems.”
Rob Lowe and his wife, Sheryl, are slapping their nanny…with a lawsuit. Filed yesterday, the lawsuit seeks damages from the former nanny, Laura Boyce, for: (1) breach of contract; (2) defamation; (2) breach of duty of loyalty; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (7) intentional misrepresentation; and negligent misrepresentation.
In short, the Lowe’s claim that, despite signing a confidentiality agreement, the nanny divulged confidential information and spread nasty rumors about them.
Popsquire’s perspective…
The Lowe’s don’t specify the content of the rumors or purported confidential information in the allegations. The Lowe’s better prepare to divulge these specifics if they want to get anywhere with the lawsuit. Plus, don’t you just want to know?!
It’s somewhat risky for the Lowes to sue in conjunction with their confidentiality agreement. If the court finds that the agreement is not enforceable — which is entirely possible — the nanny might spill all the beans without any consequences.
What are the Lowes so concerned about? Are they hiding something? Or, are they simply doing what they need to protect their family? Popsquire will peep around for more information. Stick around!
Popsquire smells settlement. X17, which previously published an article claiming that Tony Parker cheated on Eva Longoria, issued this apology on Friday:
In December 2007, X17online.com published over ten articles concerning Tony Parker and a woman named Alexandra Paressant. Various of the articles asserted that, after Mr. Parker was introduced to Ms. Paressant by Thierry Henry at this wedding to Eva Longoria, Mr. Parker engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Paressant. Since the publication of these articles, X17online.com and X17, Inc. have discovered that Mr. Parker has never met with, or spoken to, Ms. or has he ever had sexual relations with her. X17online.com and X17, Inc. regret having been misled by Ms. Paressant and her representatives and apologize to Mr. Parker for any damage or inconvenience this may have caused him or his wife.
Parker filed a defamation lawsuit against X17 in December. This apology likely is part of a settlement agreement (click here to see Popsquire’s prediction from December). Expect a dismissal of the case soon!
In the meantime, enjoy this One Republic hit, “Apologize.”
Star Magazine claims that Drew Lachey and Cheryl Burke had an affair while traveling with Dancing With The Stars’ recent nationwide tour.
In case you live under a rock, you may need to know: (1) Drew, who is Nick Lachey’s brother and former member of 98 Degrees, is married to his high school sweetheart, Lea; and (2) Cheryl is a two time DWTS champ, including one win while partnered with Drew.
Popsquire’s perspective…
Set the clock on the lawsuit countdown! Realize, however, that defamation lawsuits brought by celebs can be difficult to win. Unlike regular folk, celebs generally have to meet a higher standard.
Celebs have to prove that the alleged defamatory statement is false and was made with malicious intent, meaning that it was published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth.
Popsquire hopes that Star’s report is false. If it’s true, though, Popsquire suggests that Lea blast this Jo-Jo hit in Drew’s direction…
Unfortunately, the Enquirer’s report that Patrick Swayze has cancer is true…sorta. Although Swayze has confirmed that he was diagnosed with cancer, his physician released this statement, denying that he has only five weeks to live: “Patrick has a very limited amount of disease and he appears to be responding well to treatment.”
Popsquire’s perspective…
Because truth is always a defense to defamation, the Enquirer is off the hook in terms of reporting that Swayze has cancer.
Although the statement about Swayze’s prognosis is in dispute, the Enquirer likely is in the clear on that one, too. To constitute defamation, a statement must allege “facts,” whereas a phrase about how long someone has to live likely would be considered an “opinion,” thereby providing the defense.
The National Enquirer is reporting that Patrick Swayze has five weeks to live, because he was “diagnosed in late January with pancreatic cancer that has spread to other organs.”
Popsquire’s perspective…
Popsquire is setting the clock on the lawsuit countdown. Realize, however, that defamation lawsuits brought by celebs can be difficult to win. Unlike regular folk, celebs generally have to meet a higher standard.
Celebs have to prove that the alleged defamatory statement is false and was made with malicious intent, meaning that it was published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth.
Popsquire hopes there is no truth to this report. If it is, then Popsquire dedicates this Gorillaz hit to Swayze…
Update: Swayze has confirmed that he is, in fact, suffering from cancer, but denies that he has only five weeks to live. His physician released this statement: “Patrick has a very limited amount of disease and he appears to be responding well to treatment.”
TMZ reports that one of its photogs spotted (at Ralph’s Supermarket) “someone Paris slept with, which narrows the field to … a football field.”
Popsquire’s perspective…
Aside from being extremely funny, this statement may constitute defamation. It clearly involves a published statement of fact (i.e., that Paris has slept with so many people that they would fill a football field) that could harm a person’s reputation.
Popsquire would LOVE to see this turn into a lawsuit. Imagine the arguments…
Paris could evoke “truth” as a defense by listing everyone she slept with and proving that her bed post numbers are fewer than TMZ’s projection.
TMZ could argue that Paris’ reputation – based on starring in a sex video and flashing her punani to photogs – was not harmed in any way by the statement.
Popsquire can only hope to write about such an event. In an effort to make wishes come true, Popsquire dedicates this Dionne Warwick classic to the cause…
Everyone knows that humor often serves as a defense mechanism, but now Jerry Seinfeld is using it as a legal defense!
According to the AP, Jerry’s attorneys are asking a judge to throw out a lawsuit for trademark infringement and slander filed in New York by Missy Chase Lapine against Jerry and his wife, Jessica.
If you are not familiar with this case, here’s what you need to know…
Lepine’s book, “The Sneaky Chef: Simple Strategies For Hiding Healthy Foods In Kids’ Favorite Meals,” — a book about how to sneak veggies into kids’ meals — was released in April 2007.
Jessica Seinfeld’s book, “Deceptively Delicious: Simple Secrets To Get Your Kids Eating Good Food,” — also about how to sneak veggies into kids’ meals — was released in October 2007.
On October 8, 2007, Jessica Seinfeld appeared on Oprah to promote her book.
In response to accusations that his wife had plagiarized Lapine’s recipes, Jerry compared her to the killers of John Lennon and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. while making an appearance on Late Night With David Letterman.
In the papers seeking dismissal of the lawsuit, attorneys refer to Jerry’s comments as “overstatements of opinion for comic effect.”
Popsquire’s perspective…
For a statement to constitute defamation (the term that encompasses libel or slander), it must be a statement of fact and not an opinion. That’s why we see Jerry’s attorneys referring to the statement as a “overstatements of opinion for comic effect.”
It’s very difficult to prove trademark/copyright infringement when it comes to recipe books. As a result, if the defamation claim is dismissed, expect that the rest of the lawsuit will go away, too. Popsquire will keep you posted!
Check out this letter in which Jessica Simpson’s attorneys demand that OK! Magazine retract a story that claims: (1) Tony Romo dumped Jessica; and (2) Ashlee is distancing herself from Jessica.
It’s a pretty standard demand letter, but Popsquire wanted to share some of his favorite lines:
“Lest you suffer from the misimpression that your publication of rank speculation about Ms. Simpson is protected by the First Amendment, please be advised that OK! cannot escape liability for its defamatory screed….”
“OK! is hereby placed on formal notice that Ms. Simpson will no longer tolerate this sort of personal attack masquerading as journalism…”
Popsquire just loves when lawyers get all worked up. It makes him get up and dance to this Olivia Newton John classic…
Popsquire trusts you are aware of the unauthorized Tom Cruise autobiography being released today. If not, here’s what you need to know.
“Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography,” by Andrew Morton, explores the Tom’s love life, rumors about his sexuality, his connections to Scientology and his family.
Tom’s attorney, Bert Fields, has called the book “a bunch of tired old lies about Tom and his religion.”
Popsquire’s perspective…
Popsquire is setting the clock on the lawsuit countdown. Realize, however, that defamation lawsuits brought by celebs can be difficult to win. Unlike regular folk, celebs generally have to meet a higher standard.
Celebs have to prove that the alleged defamatory statement is false and was made with malicious intent, meaning that it was published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth.
Popsquire’s prediction…
Although Tom is no stranger to litigation, he may not sue over this book. Sometimes, it may be better to ignore the book or release a statement denying its veracity instead of providing publicity in the form of a lawsuit.
If Popsquire is wrong, he will gladly cover the lawsuit and trial. Popsquire is here to serve!
Have you noticed that although many media outlets are *asking* whether Tony Parker cheated on Eva Longoria, no one seems to be accusing him directly? Smart media outlets examine the risk of defamation lawsuits, even though it’s difficult for celebrities to win such cases. As a result, you may notice that most outles are reporting only that “Alexandra Paressant told x17 that she had an affair” with Parker. So, even if the affair is made up, it’s accurate to say that Parressant accused him. Tricky, tricky.
Nicole Richie’s former fiance, DJ AM, is suing the NY Daily News for libel and false-light invasion of privacy. Represented by the same firm as Rob Lowe in Nanny Gate 2008, DJ AM claims that a June 22 article detailing his purported lack of work and wages is false.
No Comments » | 
Dare To Defame | Tagged: adam goldstein, defamation, dj am, false light, law, libel, mandy moore, nicole richie, nightclubs, pop culture, slander, spinning | 
Permalink
Posted by russell wetanson
Star Magazine
Everyone knows that humor often serves as a defense mechanism, but now Jerry Seinfeld is using it as a legal defense!
