Published by Zach Arnold on June 8th, 2009 in Current Events
Print
| 
Email
| 
RSS 
Last week, news broke of a lawsuit filed by Quinton “Rampage” Jackson’s ex-trainer, John “Juanito” Ibarra. Ibarra sued Tito Ortiz over comments Ortiz made last year about how much Ibarra allegedly charged for training camps in Big Bear, California. Ibarra is suing not just Ortiz but also is suing every MMA web site and media outlet that carried Ortiz’s comments or commented on what Ortiz had to say.
In some respects, this is the first big lawsuit case launched against so many web sites at one time. It’s an ambitious lawsuit that will have, in my opinion, some rough terrain to travel in the legal system as far as success is concerned. Our friend Todd Martin at MMA Payout summarized the Ibarra lawsuit in this manner:
“United States law is highly protective of free speech, and as a result defamation claims brought by public figures are very hard to win in America. That’s why there is a tabloid newspaper industry which makes money frequently printing bizarre, harmful and completely untrue stories about American celebrities.
Ibarra’s claim says that Ortiz’s libelous statements were that Ibarra is a “thief” and has “taken advantage of Rampage.” But those statements seem to simply be Ortiz’s judgment of Ibarra based on the facts about what he charged for training camps. They aren’t demonstrably true or false. That will present a major problem for Ibarra.”
I have typed out the legal filing that was made available online late last week for a reference point in the future. Because so many MMA web sites have been sued here by Ibarra, don’t expect much talk about this case to be made online outside of the message boards and a select few web sites.
Text from legal court filing last week by Juanito Ibarra’s attorneys:
FILED
Los Angeles Superior Court
June 05, 2009
John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk, By Shaunya Wesley, Deputy
Samuel Krane (SBN 38381)
Samuel J. Smith (SBN 242440)
KRANE & SMITH
16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 600
Encino, California 91436
Tel: (818) 382-4000
Fax: (818) 382-4001
Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN IBARRA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DISTRICT
CASE NO. BC415273
Complaint for:
1. Defamation;
2. Invasion of privacy (false light);
3. Intentional infliction of emotional distress; and
4. Negligent infliction of emotional distress
JOHN IBARRA, an individual, Plaintiff, vs.
JACOB CHRISTOPHER ORTIZ, also known as TITO ORTIZ, an individual; PUNISHMENT ATHLETES ENTERPRISES, a California Corporation; DAVID C. CARPINELLO, an individual; JUSTIN BOLDUC, an individual; PUNCH DRUNK GAMER, INC., a Colorado Corporation; YAHOO! INC., a Delaware corporation; CHICKIP, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company doing business under the fictitious business name Cage Potato; SERGE MARCHES, an individual; DARRAGH CREAMER, an individual; SKY GLOBAL SPORTS, LLC.,a California Limited Liability Company doing business under the fictitious business name of FIGHT SPORTS MAGAZINE; KRIS KARKOSKI, an individual; JIM BANKOFF, an individual; TYLER BLESZINSKII, an individual; LAUREN FISHER, an individual; SPORTSBLOGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation doing business under the fictitious business name BLOODY ELBOW; JOSH KAMPSCHMIDT, an individual; ROBYN LASS, an individual; FUTURE US, INC., a California corporation, doing business under the fictitious business name of BALLHYPE; PRAMIT MOHAPATRA, an individual, BROWN RECLUSE MEDIA, LLC., a Limited Liability Company doing business under the fictitious business name FIGHTTICKER; MATT BOONE, an individual; CHRIS HOWIE, an individual; CLICKSPARK, LLC., a New York Limited Liability Company doing business under the fictitious business name MMA NEWS; SAM CAPLAN, an individual; FIVE OUNCES OF PAIN, an entity of unknown form; HOUSTON CHRONICLE; and DOES 1 through 40, Inclusive, Defendants.
Plaintiff JOHN IBARRA (“Plaintiff”), for his complaint, alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff JOHN IBARRA (“Plaintiff”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual, residing in the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, Defendant JACOB CHRISTOPHER ORTIZ, also known as TITO ORTIZ (“Defendant Ortiz”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual, residing and/or transacting business in the State of California.
3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant PUNISHMENT ATHLETICS ENTERPRISES a California Corporation (“Punishment Athletics”) is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California and engaged in business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, Defendant DAVID C. CARPINELLO (“Defendant Carpinello”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual, residing and/or transacting business in the State of Colorado.
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, Defendant JUSTIN BOLDUC (“Defendant Bolduc”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual, residing and/or transacting business in the State of Colorado.
6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant PUNCH DRUNK GAMER, a Colorado Corporation (“Punch Drunk”) is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado and engaged in business in the County of Littleton, State of Colorado.
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant YAHOO!, INC. (“Yahoo!”) is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation organized and existing by the virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware and engaged in business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant CHIKIP, LLC, (“CHIKIP”) is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a limited liability company organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California and engaged in business in the County of Los Angeles, State of Califoria.
9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, Defendant SERGE MARCHES (“Defendant Marches”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual, residing and/or transacting business in the State of California.
10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, Defendant DARRAGH CREAMER (“Defendant Creamer”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual, residing and/or transacting business in the State of California.
11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant SKY GLOBAL SPORTS, LLC, (“Sky Global”) is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a limited liability company organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California and engaged in business in the County of Los Angeles, State of Califoria.
12. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, Defendant JIM BANKOFF (“Defendant Bankoff”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual, residing and/or transacting business in the State of California.
13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, Defendant TYLER BLESZINSKI (“Defendant Bleszinski”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual, residing and/or transacting business in the State of California.
14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, Defendant LAUREN FISHER (“Defendant Fisher”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual, residing and/or transacting business in the State of California.
15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant SPORTSBLOGS, INC. (“Sportsblogs”) is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California and engaged in business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
16. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, Defendant JOSH KAMPSCHMIDT (“Defendant Kampschmidt”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual, residing and/or transacting business in the State of California.
17. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, Defendant ROBYN LASS (“Defendant Lass”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual, residing and/or transacting business in the State of California.
18. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant FUTURE U.S., INC. (“Future, U.S.”) is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California and engaged in business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
19. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, Defendant PRAMIT MOHAPATRA (“Defendant Mohapatra”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual, residing and/or transacting business in the State of California.
20. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant BROWN RECLUSE MEDIA, LLC, (“Brown Recluse”) is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a limited liability company organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California and engaged in business in the County of Los Angeles, State of Califoria.
21. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, Defendant MATT BOONE (“Defendant Boones”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual, residing and/or transacting business in the State of California.
22. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, Defendant CHRIS HOWIE (“Defendant Howie”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual, residing and/or transacting business in the State of California.
23. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant CLICK SPARK, LLC, (“Click Spark”) is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a limited liability company organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California and engaged in business in the County of Los Angeles, State of Califoria.
24. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, Defendant SAM KAPLAN (“Defendant Kaplan”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual, residing and/or transacting business in the State of California.
25. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, Defendant FIVE OUNCES OF PAIN (“Five Ounces”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual, residing and/or transacting business in the State of California.
26. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant HOUSTON CHRONICLE (“Houston Chronicle”)_ is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas and engaged in busienss in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
27. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, Defendant KRIS KARKOSKI (“Defendant Karkoski”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual, residing and/or transacting business in the State of California.
28. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise of defendants DOES 1 through 40, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsibile in some manner for the events, acts, occurrences and liabilities alleged and referred to herein. Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of these DOE Defendants when the same are ascertained.
29. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at all times mentioned herein each of the Defendants were, and now are, acting as the employee, agent, principal, officer, partner, joint venturer, alter ego, co-conspirator, director or other representative of one or more of the remaining defendants and, in doing the things herein mentioned, was acting within the scope and course of such employment, agency, partnership, joint venture, conspiracy or other relationship, and with the permission, authorization, ratification and consent of the other defendantsn.
30. Plaintiff is informed and believes that DOES 1 through 10 are alter egos of Defendants; are otherwise responsibile for their activities. When the true names and capacities of these DOES have been ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this Complaint accordingly.
31. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times herein mentioned, each Defendant, was the agent, employee, and joint venturer of each other Defendant, and in doing the things herein alleged was acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment and joint venture and with the permission and consent of such other Defendants.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
32. During the last twenty-eight years, Plaintiff has been engaged in the pugilist and the mixed martial arts industries. Plaintiff has trained and/or worked with more than fifteen world champions in such fields and both Olympic Gold medal winners and Amateur champions. In addition, Plaintiff is the founder of USA MMA, Inc., a non-profit organization that organizes amateur MMA shows nationwide, the co-founder of the National Trainer and Cutman Association, the founder of the World Class MMA and Boxing, Inc. fitness club and has been the recipient of numerous awards in the industry.
33. During the period from July, 2005 through July, 2008, Plaintiff was the trainer and manager of Quinton “Rampage” Jackson (“Jackson”), a well known mixed martial artist and a prominent figure in the Ultimate Fighting Champion industry. During this period, Jackson obtained six straight wins, including a UFC championship. On his sixth win, Jackson became the first and only disputed light heavyweight champion of the world.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Defamation Against All Defendants)
34. Plaintiff repeats, repleads and realleges paragraphs 1 through 33, inclusive, of this Complaint and incorporates the same herein by the reference as though set forth in full.
35. Defendant Ortiz is a well known mixed martial artist and former Ultimate Fighting Championship fight and one of the sports’ biggest stars.
36. On or about September of 2008, Defendant Ortiz gave an interview to Defendant Carpinello in which he made false, malicious and libelous statements that Plaintiff is a “thief” and has stolen from and taken “advantage of Rampage.” This publication continues to be published on the website of Defendant Punch Drunk Gamer. A true and copy of the publication is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth.
37. Subsequent to that time, numerous MMA and UFC related websites published the comments made by Ortiz and in some instances, added defamatory remarks to their publications.
38. By way of example, Defendant Chikip published an article entitled “Tito Ortiz Confirms Juanito Ibarra’s Scumbaggery” which contained a large photograph of Plaintiff with a quote below it from the well known film “Scarface.” The quote states “Ju know what a ‘chazzer’ is, Juanito? Thassa pig that don’t fly straight.”
39. By way of further example, Defendants Future US, Inc. and Five Ounces of Pain published articles which falsely claim that since Rampage Jackson fired Plaintiff, Rampage jackson has all but been removed from an industry related lawsuit filed by White Chocolate Management against Plaintiff and Jackson for $10 million.
40. Defendants published the foregoing statements with the intent to disparage Plaintiff, personally, and in his business, trade, and profession.
41. The information contain in and implied by the publication conveys false and defamatory information that Plaintiff is dishonest; that Plaintiff has stolen from his fighters; that Plaintiff is not trustworthy; that Plaintiff places his own personal interests ahead of the fighters he manages; that Plaintiff engages in self-dealing; that Plaintiff is liable for the claims brought by White Chocolate against Plaintiff and Rampage; and that the foregoing information has been confirmed by Defendant Ortiz.
42. Defendants created their websites and magazines to provide news and gossip about the UFC and the MMA worldwide. Defendants orchestrated these publicity campaigns to promote themselves and their companies, in press releases and internet publications through a campaign of false, defamatory and malicious accusations against Plaintiff.
43. Defendants conveyed such false and defamatory meanings through each of their specific statements as well as the combination of such statements and the juxtaposition of words, which in the aggregate in each publication, and in the context of all publications, conveyed the foregoing defamatory and false meanings of and concerning Plaintiff.
44. Each of the statements posts by Defendants, and the implications thereform, is false, libelous and damaging to Plaintiff, both professional and personally and are tremendously damaging to Plaintiff’s personal and professional reputation.
45. At the time of Defendants’ publications of these false and defamatory statements, implications and meanings, Defendants knew of their falsity or were made with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity and failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity of each statement set forth above.
46. The statements made above would be highly offensive to the reasonable person.
47. Plaintiff is a private citizen and his reputation is not a matter of public concern.
48. Defendants’ false and defamatory campaign of self-promotion was published continously over the internet twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week and continues unabated to this day.
49. As a direct and proximae result of Defendants’ false and defamatory campaign of self-promotion, Plaintiff has suffered actual and consequential damages, including but not limited to damages to his reputation. Plaintiff has sustained and will sustain damages and suffered anxiety, worry, mental anguish and emotional distress, and other incidental damages, attorneys’ fees and out of pocket costs, in an amount not yet ascertained but within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintaiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the exact amount of his damages wen the same have been finally ascertained.
50. Defendants’ conduct was undertaken with the intent to injure Plaintiff, or with a willful and conscious disregard of his rights, and constitutes clear and convincing evidence of despicable, outrageous, oppressive and malicious conduct pursuant to Section 3294 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants for the sake of example and to punish Defendants for their unlawful conduct.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (For Invasion of Privacy (False Light) Against All Defendants)
51. Plaintiff repeasts, repleads and realleges paragraphs 1. through 50, inclusive, of this Complaint and incorporates the same herein by the reference as though set forth in full.
52. The statements made by Defendants as alleged herein placed Plaintiff in a false light.
53. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual and consequential damages, including but not limited to damages to his reputation. Plaintiff has sustained and will sustain damages and suffered anxiety, worry, mental anguish, and emotional distress, and other incidental damages, attorneys’ fees and out of pocker costs, in an amount not yet ascertained but within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the exact amount of his damages when the same have been financially ascertained.
54. Defendants’ conduct was undertaken with the intent to injure Plaintiff, or with a willful and conscious disregard of his rights, and constitutes clear and convincing evidence of despicable, outrageous, oppressive and malicious conduct pursuant to Section 3294 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants for the sake of example and to punish Defendants for their unlawful conduct.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Against All Defendants)
55. Plaintiff repeats, repleads, and realleges paragraphs 1 through 54, inclusive, of this Complaint and incorporates the same herein by the reference as though set forth in full.
56. This conduct complained of was extreme and outrageous and done for the purposes of unlawfully hurting Plaintiff, while known that Defendants’ conduct was likely to cause Plaintiff to incur extreme emotional distress.
57. As a direct and proximate result of said Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has sustained and will sustain damages and suffered anxiest, worry, mental anguish, and emotional distress, and other incidental damages, attorneys’ fees and out of pocket costs, in an amount not yet ascertained but within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the exact amount of his damages when the same have been finally ascertained.
58. Defendants’ conduct was undertaken with the intent to injure Plaintiff, or with a willful and conscious disregard of his rights, and constitutes clear and convincing evidence of despicable, outrageous, oppressive and malicious conduct pursuant to Section 3294 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants for the sake of example and to punish Defendants for their unlawful conduct.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (For Neglient Infliction of Emotional Distress Against All Defendants)
59. Plaintiff repeats, repleads, and realleges paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, of this Complaint and incorporates the same herein by the reference as though set forth in full.
60. Defendants, in making and publishing the false and defamatory about Plaintiff and engaging in the conduct described above, negligently caused Plaintiff extreme emotional distress.
61. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged hereinabove, was unlawful and outrageous, and done for the purpose of unlawfully intimidating and hurting Plaintiff.
62. As a direct and proximate result of said Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has sustained and will sustain damages and suffered anxiest, worry, mental anguish, and emotional distress, and other incidental damages, attorneys’ fees and out of pocket costs, in an amount not yet ascertained but within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the exact amount of his damages when the same have been finally ascertained.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, individually, and each of them, as follows:
On the First Cause of Action:
1. For compensatory and consequential damages in an amount to be proved at trial but which amount exceeds this Court’s jurisdictional minimum.
On the First, Second and Third Causes of Action:
1. For exemplary and punitive damages according to proof.
On All Causes of Action
1. For reasonable costs incurred in this action.
2. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper
DATED: June 4, 2009
KRANE & SMITH
By: Samuel Krane, Samuel J Smith
Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN IBARRA
Special Offers »
Interact With Us »
