Electronically FILED OO 0 J A Ln BA W N ND N N N N N N ND RE Em Em em em em e m = e m c o JI O N wn kA W O N = DO 0 N N N R E W N = O THE CIANI LAWFIRM by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 04/23/2020 11:24 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by J . Lara,Deputy Clef Lynne M. Ciani (149131) THE CIANI LAW FIRM 6303 Owensmouth Ave., 10® Floor Woodland Hills, California 91367 Telephone: (818) 936-2590 Email: Lynne@CianiLaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff ANGELA WHITE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ANGELA WHITE (aka BLAC CHYNA), Plaintiff. V. ROBERT KARDASHIAN (aka ROB KARDASHIAN); KRIS JENNER; KIM KARDASHIAN WEST (aka KIMBERLY KARDASHIAN or KIM KARDASHIAN WEST); KHLOE KARDASHIAN; KYLIE JENNER; AND DOES 1-100, Defendants. N r N r N r N r N N N r N N N N N r N N N N N N N N N r N r N N N r Case No.: BC680035 [Hon. Randolph M. Hammock - Dept. 47] [REDACTED: PUBLIC VERSION] PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS KRIS JENNER, KIMBERLY KARDASHIAN, KHLOE KARDASHIAN AND KYLIE JENNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Hearing Date: April 30, 2020 (vacated) Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: 47 Action Filed: October 17, 2017 Trial Date: TBD White v. Kardashian et. al. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ THE CIANI LAWFIRM Oo 0 9 O N wn kA W N = ND N N N N N N ND RE Em Em em em em e m = e m c o JI O N wn kA W O N = DO 0 N N N R E W N = O As is abundantly clear from Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Disputed Facts, there are a plethora of triable issues of material fact for each cause of action in this case.! PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS THE DEFENDANT IN THE CONSOLIDATED CASE, KARDASHIAN v. WHITE A. Unaired Footage from Season 2 of “Rob & Chyna” Proves that Rob Sustained No Physical Injuries from Chyna In particular, the unaired footage for “Rob & Chyna” Season 2 dated December 16, 2016 (Exh. C on Flash Drive) - only one day after Rob allegedly sustained “physical injuries” from an alleged “violent attack” by Chyna, including being beaten with a 6-foot metal pole - provides conclusive evidence that Rob had rot sustained any physical injuries whatsoever. The unaired footage taken on December 16, 2016 provides thirty-eight (38) minutes of the highest quality, up-close footage of Rob’s face, neck, arms, and legs. It is undisputed that Rob had no physical injuries from Chyna on December 16, 2016. No reasonable trier of fact could find otherwise. In this case, the unaired footage will greatly assist Chyna in proving by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants knew that their allegations that Chyna physically abused Rob in or around December 14 and 15, 2016 were false. Exhibit C alone should preclude a finding on this Motion that the Defendants’ statements were “true” and, therefore, not defamatory. ! Chyna will not oppose the Motion as to her False Light cause of action. Further discovery has confirmed that Defendants did not publicize their defamatory lie that Chyna physically abused Rob. Rather, they only communicated with E! and BMP executives in furtherance of their scheme to defame Chyna and to tortiously interfere with her Talent Agreement by getting Season 2 of Rob & Chyna cancelled. White v. Kardashian ez. al. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THE CIANI LAWFIRM © 00 J O N Un B A W N = ND N N N N N N N N m m e m e m e m e m e m pe c o JI O N wn kA W O N = DO 0 N N N R E W N = O ta Last week, | IEEE These devastating, contemporaneous admissions by Rob are fatal to his remaining claims against Chyna for assault and battery. Kylie Jenner dropped her frivolous claim for conversion against Chyna in March 2018 (along with dropping her baseless allegations that Chyna “threatened to beat up” Kylie and her sisters (C, 9 23; 1AC, 4 21); Chyna “intended to cause and did cause” Kylie to “suffer the apprehension of a harmful physical contact” (C, 9 53; 1AC 9 39); and that Kylie “endured several months of injuries” from Chyna (C, 9 9)). Rob is way past due in dropping his frivolous claims against Chyna as well. In this case, the new evidence further proves that Defendants maliciously defamed Chyna when they falsely claimed that she had “beat the shit” out of Rob’s face or “physically 2 Chyna’s counsel is still in the process of seeking permission to attach the entire DCFS report for the Court to review in camera. In the meantime, counsel will not be intimidated by baseless accusations that a “misdemeanor” has occurred in the process of counsel’s uncovering of Defendant (and Plaintiff) Rob Kardashian’s perjury in litigating a false claim of physical abuse against Chyna. White v. Kardashian ez. al. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THE CIANI LAWFIRM © 00 J O N Un B A W N = ND N N N N N N ND RE Em Em em em em e m = e m c o JI O N wn kA W O N = DO 0 N N N R E W N = O abused” Rob. However, Defendants went even further and used that defamatory lie to intentionally interfere with her existing Talent Agreement with E! in December 2016 and January 2017. See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Disputed Facts (“SSDF”). MATERIAL FACTS E!’s position in early January 2017 was that [||| GG I sc Exh. JJ. Within the less than a month, Defendants had achieved their unlawful goal: the behind- the-scenes cancellation of Season 2 of Rob & Chyna. See Exh. OO, ISSUE NO. 7: DEFENDANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ON THE ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION BECAUSE DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENTS ARE PROVABLY FALSE STATEMENTS OF FACT Statements that “Chyna beat the shit out of Rob’s face” or Chyna will proceed with “physically abusing Rob” are provably false statements of fact. This issue raises quintessential triable issues of material fact regarding the falsity of the claim that Chyna physically abused Rob. Indeed, Plaintiff is very confident that she will prove at trial that she never physically abused Rob on or around December 14-15, 2016. See SSDF. To support a claim for defamation as to each of the Defendants, Chyna need only establish that the individual defendants took a “responsible part” in the publication of defamatory matter. (Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1245; see also Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 712. All four Defendants took a “responsible part” in the publication of at least one defamatory statement in December 2016 4 White v. Kardashian ez. al. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THE CIANI LAWFIRM Oo 0 9 O N wn kA W N = ND N N N N N N ND RE Em Em em em em e m = e m c o JI O N wn kA W O N = DO 0 N N N R E W N = O and 2017 that falsely claimed Chyna had physically abused Rob. ISSUE NO. 8: DEFENDANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ON THE ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION BECAUSE DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENTS ARE DEFAMATORY An allegation the plaintiff is guilty of a crime is libelous on its face (see Civ.Code, §§ 45a, 46, subd. 1; Weinberg v. Feisel, 110 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1136 (2003)) and is actionable without proof of special damages. Walker v. Kiousis, 93 Cal. App.4th 1432, 1441 (2001). Fashion 21 v. Coal. for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, 117 Cal. App.4th 1138, 1145 (2004), as modified on denial of reh'g (May 18, 2004). Defendants’ statements all accuse Chyna of physically abusing Rob. Physical abuse is a crime. Therefore, Defendants’ statements are defamatory per se. ISSUE NO. 9: DEFENDANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ON THE ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION BECAUSE DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENTS ARE NOT PRIVILEGED If malice is shown, the privilege is not merely overcome, it never arises. Hailstone v. Martinez, 169 Cal. App.4th 728, 739-40 (2008). Defendants acted with malice when they repeated the lie that Chyna physically abused Rob. See SSDF. ISSUE NO. 10: DEFENDANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ON THE ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION BECAUSE DEFENDANTS ACTED WITH MALICE The rule of law is that where one willfully and intentionally slanders another, a presumption or inference of evil motive and malice arises. Malice may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances. ‘Although malice may not be inferred from the fact alone of the communication of a defamatory statement, Civil Code, § 48, the tenor of the statement may be evidence of malice.’ (citation omitted). Moranville v. Aletto, 153 Cal.App.2d 667, 672 (1957). Chyna never physically abused Rob or “beat the shit out of his face” and Kris Jenner 5 White v. Kardashian ez. al. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THE CIANI LAWFIRM OO 0 J A Ln BA W N ND N N N N N N ND RE Em Em em em em e m = e m c o JI O N wn kA W O N = DO 0 N N N R E W N = O knew it. At a minimum, Kris acted with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Kris knew that Rob had no bruises, no bumps, no broken bones, no limping, no blood/scabs, no scratches, no cuts, and no marks: clear and convincing evidence that Chyna did not physically abuse Rob and Kris knew it or acted with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Further, Kris’s text on December 15, 2016 that Rob should ‘1 referring to Chyna, is also evidence of malice. Not surprisingly, Kris | EEE <- SSDF. Malice on Kris’s part also may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances. The same is true for the remaining Defendants as well. A reasonable trier of fact could find that the lack of any provable physical injuries on Rob meant the Defendants knew Chyna had not physically abused Rob or that Defendants acted with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. See SSDF. ISSUE NO. 11: DEFENDANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ON THE ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAS SUFFERED HARM As a result of Defendants’ tortious conduct, Chyna has suffered economic and noneconomic damages in the millions of dollars. The “floor” of her economic damages is the $740,000 that Chyna would have received from E! for Season 2 of Rob & Chyna, but for Defendants’ tortious conduct. The defamatory lie repeatedly told by Defendants that Chyna physically abused Rob also has been extremely harmful to Chyna’s reputation. Defendants’ lie is defamatory per se and reputational damages are presumed by law. The TV industry is very “small” and word spreads quickly. The Defendants hold immense power in the TV industry (as opposed to respect, as evidenced by last year’s Emmys audience laughing Kim Kardashian off the stage) - and money talks. It also was extremely damaging to Chyna’s reputation to go from starring in the No. 1- 6 White v. Kardashian ez. al. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THE CIANI LAWFIRM Oo 0 9 O N wn kA W N = ND N N N N N N ND RE Em Em em em em e m = e m c o JI O N wn kA W O N = DO 0 N N N R E W N = O rated show on the E! network in 2016 with well over one million viewers each week to being kicked off the TV airwaves without “official” explanation from the network. Defendants’ defamatory lies only added fuel to the fire as to why Chyna was no longer on her hit show. Harm to Chyna’s reputation resulted in significant economic damages because her earnings as a reality TV star have declined dramatically since she last appeared on TV. Defendants’ tortious conduct toward Chyna has resulted in her being essentially blackballed from the TV industry. Mission accomplished for the spiteful and vengeful Kardashian clan. Chyna’s 2019 “docuseries” on The Zeus Network called “The Real Blac Chyna” paid significantly less than “Rob & Chyna” and reached far fewer viewers. The Zeus Network also has past (and possibly present) ties to NBCUniversal that made the network’s motives for the docuseries questionable. Likewise, the value of Chyna’s product endorsement deals have decreased significantly due to the reputational harm caused by Defendants’ defamatory lies and tortious interference. See SSDF. ISSUE NO. 12: DEFENDANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ON THE TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS BECAUSE THERE WAS BREACH OR DISRUPTION OF THE TALENT AGREEMENT CAUSED BY DEFENDANTS It is undisputed that the only contract in existence between Chyna and E! as of January 2017 was her Talent Agreement with E!. Critically, the law is clear that a plaintiff states a valid claim for intentional interference with contract when she can allege a valid, binding contract which was in full force and effect at the time of the alleged interference. See, e.g., SCEcorp v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.App.4th 673, 679 (1992); see also, Asahi Kasei Pharma Corp. v. Actelion Ltd., 222 Cal.App.4th 945 (2014) (plaintiff sued a third party for intentional interference with contract based on a License Agreement that had been terminated prior to the lawsuit; the 7 White v. Kardashian ez. al. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THE CIANI LAWFIRM OO 0 J A Ln BA W N ND N N N N N N ND RE Em Em em em em e m = e m c o JI O N wn kA W O N = DO 0 N N N R E W N = O appellate court nonetheless found that the License Agreement was a valid, enforceable contract at the time of the alleged interference and affirmed the jury’s verdict in excess of $300M). Chyna’s Talent Agreement with E! was in full force and effect at the time of Defendants’ interference in December 2016 and January 2017. The 3-year term had not expired. Moreover, Plaintiff now has proof that eight episodes of Season 2 of Rob & Chyna had been ordered in November 2016 and a multimillion-dollar budget had been approved by 1] See Exh. U. If Defendants had not intentionally interfered with Season 2 of Rob & Chyna, then Season 2 would have kept filming and would have aired in May 2017. The “Season 2 Train” had left the station and was heading straight towards its scheduled Prime Time spot on the E! network. The “Season Two Train” was “78 hours” of filming (months’ worth) into its journey when the Defendants intentionally derailed it before it got to its certain destination. Defendants caused a disruption to Chyna’s contractual rights, at a minimum. That is all that is needed to prove a claim for intentional interference with contract. With the “Season 2 Train” barreling down the tracks, it was going to take a BIG lie and BIG threat to derail it. Defendants knew this and had it all planned. The day after the worldwide announcement of E!’s Greenlight of Season 2 of its hit show, Rob & Chyna, Kris Jenner sprang into action with her “Chyna beat the shit out of Rob’s face” LIE that launched the Defendants’ campaign to get Season 2 cancelled. Via emails and in-person meetings, Defendants told E! executives that they would quit Keeping Up with the Kardashians if Season 2 was not cancelled. They also defamed Chyna by falsely claiming she had physically abused Rob. Like the plaintiff in Asahi, Chyna’s lawsuit requires the Court to “go back in time” to 8 White v. Kardashian et. al. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THE CIANI LAWFIRM © 00 J O N Un B A W N = ND N N N N N N ND RE Em Em em em em e m = e m c o JI O N wn kA W O N = DO 0 N N N R E W N = O when Chyna’s Talent Agreement with E! was still a viable contract. Because, make no mistake about it, Defendants succeeded in getting Season 2 of Rob & Chyna cancelled no later than February 4, 2017. See Exh. 00. On that date, ||| | GEE FEE, Pio to Defendants’ intentional interference, | - those were | bu for the tortious interference by Defendants. See Exh. P, Chyna’s Talent Agreement, {19(d) & q2(c); Exh. U, - ISSUE NO. 18: DEFENDANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ON THE THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS BECAUSE DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN INDEPENDENTLY WRONGFUL CONDUCT, NAMELY DEFAMATION Defendants’ statements that Chyna physically abused Rob are false and defamatory per se. Defamation is an independent wrong that satisfies the requirement of independently wrongful conduct by the defendant. See SSDF. For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication be denied in their entirety. Dated: April 23, 2020 Respectfully submitted, THE CIANI LAW FIRM _ Lyne TM. (Ciani_ Lynne M. Ciani Attorney for Plaintiff Angela White White v. Kardashian ez. al. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THE CIANI LAWFIRM Oo 0 9 O N wn kA W N = ND N N N N N N ND RE Em Em em em em e m = e m c o JI O N wn kA W O N = DO 0 N N N R E W N = O PROOF OF SERVICE Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles ANGELA WHITE, etc. vs. ROBERT KARDASHIAN, etc., et al. Case No.: BC680035 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 6303 Owensmouth Ave., 10 Floor, Woodland Hills, California 91367. On April 23, 2020, I served the following document described as: [REDACTED: PUBLIC VERSION] PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS KRIS JENNER, KIMBERLY KARDASHIAN, KHLOE KARDASHIAN AND KYLIE JENNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION The above-referenced document was served on the interested parties in this action as follows: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST. [ X] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused the document(s) listed above to be delivered electronically via One Legal, the electronic filing service provider used to file this document. [ X] STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under applicable law that the above is true and correct. Executed this 23rd day of April, 2020, at Woodland Hills, California. Lynne M. Ciani Lynne . Céanc 10 White v. Kardashian ez. al. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT | SERVICE LIST 2 || Martin D. Singer, Esq. 3 || Melissa Y. Lerner, Esq. 4 Todd S. Eagan, Esq. LAVELY & SINGER PROF CORP 3 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2400 6 || Los Angeles, California 90067-2906 7 || mdsinger @lavelysinger.com 8 mlerner @lavelysinger.com teagan @lavelysinger.com 9 [Attorneys for all Defendants] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 235 26 27 28 11 Har White v. Kardashian et. al. PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
