Plaintiffs Firm Can't Revive Defamation Suit Over Negative Online Reviews
The Second District Court of Appeal was "troubled" that Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo and name partner Alexander Cohen failed to cite "directly applicable contrary authority" in a case where it upheld a win for a former client's daughter accused of making defamatory posts on review sites, including Yelp and Avvo.
October 04, 2019 at 04:15 PM
4 minute read
Plaintiffs firm Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo and name partner Alexander Cohen have struck out in a bid to revive a lawsuit stemming from negative online reviews of the firm posted on Yelp, Avvo, Facebook, Ripoff Report, and Google.
The Second District Court of Appeal on Thursday upheld a trial court victory on an anti-SLAPP motion for Arta Lahiji, the daughter of former firm client Nahid Lahiji. The court found that Abir Cohen had "not advanced anything beyond speculation" that Arta Lahiji was the author of the posts at issue, which Nahid Lahiji informed the firm that she wrote.
The law firm had argued that Arta Lahiji's win under the state's anti-SLAPP statute, which protects a person's free speech activity from legal claims, should be overturned since she denied making the posts and they, therefore, weren't her speech. But in a 13-page opinion upholding the lower court's ruling, Justice Brian Hoffstadt wrote that the Second District had ruled just last year in Bel Air Internet v. Morales that defendants could rely on the allegations within a complaint for anti-SLAPP purposes. The plaintiffs, Hoffstadt pointed out, didn't mention the Bel Air decision in their appellate papers.
"We are troubled by Cohen and the firm's failure to cite this directly applicable contrary authority anywhere in their briefs," wrote Hoffstadt, who was joined in the opinion by Justices Elwood Lui and Victoria Chavez.
Neither Cohen nor Abir Cohen partner Boris Treyzon, who represented the firm on appeal, immediately responded to messages Friday morning.
According to Thursday's opinion, the defendant's mother, Nahid, had hired Cohen and the firm to handle a dispute with her home insurance company. The firm won some preliminary recovery and Nahid Lahiji authorized Abir Cohen to retain $120,000 from that recovery, but she eventually fired the firm and Cohen. The firm then placed a lien on any further recovery from the insurance company.
Soon thereafter, a Yelp user named "AI L." and with Arta's photograph posted a review claiming to have hired Cohen to handle a "home insurance claim." AI L. wrote that Cohen used a law student to negotiate with the insurer, mismanaged case expenses, and repeatedly yelled when asked when the checks would be clear. The review said the firm had been "underhanded and shady" and had an "awful moral compass," among other things. An identical review appeared anonymously on the legal review site Avvo two days later. A few weeks later, identical reviews were posted on Ripoff Report by a user identified as "Nancy" in "Redondo Beach" and on Google by "Nahid Lahiji."
Abir Cohen, claiming all the posts were made by Arta Lahiji, sued her for defamation on Dec. 19, 2017. According to Thursday's decision, Nahid Lahiji sent an email to Cohen the month after the suit was filed explaining that she, and not her daughter, had posted the reviews. The firm, however, did not add Nahid Lahiji as a defendant and pursued discovery against Arta Lahiji even in the face of an automatic discovery stay after Arta Lahiji's lawyers filed her anti-SLAPP motion.
Arta Lahiji's lawyer, Jamie Keeton of Schlichter & Shonack, said that it seemed that Abir Cohen was targeting her client to try to get her mother to go back and change the negative reviews.
"I was really surprised that a law firm would file something like this, particularly not naming her mother in it," Keeton said.
Keeton said she thinks that her client found her via the internet, so she understands the value of online reviews. But she said the court's decision shows that "you can't basically try to bully people to change a post."
Thursday's decision also upholds the decision by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Cunningham III that awarded $36,855 in attorney fees.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Asks: Should Tom Girardi Serve Sentence in a Medical Facility or Behind Bars?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 2The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 3Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 4For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 5As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250