4/17/01 - [HITT] Bloomberg seeks attorney's fees and costs of $327,622
As is becoming quite popular to say: "Be careful who you SLAPP." The following comes from HITT's (formerly Hitsgalore, now Diamond Hitts Production) most recent 10K:
=====
Libel Action.
On April 27, 2000 the Registrant filed a Complaint for Libel in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC 228991 against Bloomberg, L.P. ("Bloomberg") a Delaware limited partnership, and David Evans ("Evans"), a reporter with Bloomberg's news service, Bloomberg News. The lawsuit alleges that Bloomberg and Evans, through Bloomberg News, published a series of defamatory articles on May 11 and May 12, 1999, which contained certain false and defamatory statements regarding the Registrant. As a result of the publication of the articles, the Complaint alleges, the rice of the Registrant's stock dropped about 53% in one day. The Complaint seeks damages against Bloomberg and Evans in excess of $500,000,000.
In July 2000, the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles ("the Court") denied Bloomberg's first Motion to Strike, holding that Bloomberg and Evans failed to meet their burden of proof of showing the application of California's "anti-SLAPP" statute. On October 22, 2000, after giving the defendants a second opportunity to present evidence, the Court granted the defendants a "renewed" special motion to strike, brought pursuant to the "anti-SLAPP" statute and dismissed the Registrant's Complaint for Libel. The Court also awarded the defendants attorney's fees in an amount to be determined at a future date after an evidentiary hearing and upon a motion to be filed by Bloomberg. Bloomberg filed its motion for attorney's fees and costs on January 8, 2001 seeking an award of $327,622. The Company filed a reply to Bloomberg's motion on February 14, 2001. The Company is unable to determine the amount of attorney's fees and costs that will be awarded in favor of Bloomberg and against the Company. The Company intends to appeal the Court's decision.
sec.gov
=====
Note: The next scheduled meeting in this case will be to discuss the Motion for Attorney Fees and will be held next Wednesday, 04/25/2001, at 08:31 am in department 36 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles. For a complete docket of the case, please see: lasuperiorcourt.org |
