By: Libi Uremovic | Original Article at Patch.com
In Order To Sell Home David Dillon Must Pay Off The $57,000 Judgement Against Urban Logic Consultants
In 2010 Urban Logic filed a Lawsuit in an attempt to stop the Citizen’s group Beaumont Citizens for Responsible Growth (BCRG) from exposing their illegal activities. After losing their Lawsuit and Appeal Urban Logic was ordered to pay $57,000 in attorney fees to BCRG.
Dave Dillon, a Principals in Urban Logic, Beaumont Economic Development Director, and Watermaster Board Member, is desperately trying to sell his house, but there is a Lien on his property because Urban Logic has never paid the $57,000 Judgement to Beaumont Citizens for Responsible Growth (BCRG).
Recently Dillon requested the Court remove the Lien proclaiming “It’s an emergency”. The Court was not impressed that two years have expired and Urban Logic still had not paid as directed by the Judgement. The Court denied Dillon’s request and Ordered that he pay his debts to remove the Lien from his property.
As Principals of Urban Logic; Deepak Moorjani and Ernie Egger also have Liens on their property and each Lien is for the entire $57,000. Dillon has the option of getting 1/3 of the $57,000 from Egger and Moorjani or paying the entire $57,000 himself to remove the Lien.
Below is a summary of the Lawsuit from leagle.com:
On October 7, 2010, Urban Logic filed its complaint for equitable relief and damages (the complaint) against BCRG alleging causes of action for defamation and trade libel and seeking an injunction.
On or about January 10, 2011, BCRG filed a SLAPP motion to dismiss the complaint against them (the motion). They argued that their actions in the underlying lawsuit were protected by the anti-SLAPP statute (§ 425.16, subd. (e)(3)) because their acts where in furtherance of their right to free speech under the state and federal Constitutions.
Urban Logic filed opposition to the motion arguing that it had a probability of prevailing on the merits of the lawsuit (the opposition). Urban Logic conceded that the motion involved protected speech activity and that they were public figures and that it must show that BCRG’s libelous statements were made with “actual malice.”
The matter was heard by the superior court on February 15, 2011. The superior court then ruled, “Turning to the facts presented, even if the Court considered all of the evidence submitted . . ., and even if Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of falsity (preponderance standard), Plaintiffs have not shown evidence of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.” The statements that Bingham was consumed with rage against Urban Logic did not demonstrate malice in statements on the website. The motion was granted.
BCRG contend they are entitled to reasonable attorney fees on appeal. The trial court’s order granting the special motion to strike pursuant to section 425.16 is affirmed. BCRG is awarded costs on appeal and attorney fees in an amount to be determined by the trial court on remand.
1. SLAPP is an acronym for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.” ( (2002) , 57.)
2. All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated.
3. There is a letter from Moorjani to the FBI dated March 2009 but no confirmation as to the outcome of the investigation.
4. At oral argument, counsel for Urban Logic argued that only one claim of actual malice need be shown in order for the ruling of the trial court to be reversed. Since, as we discuss, that actual malice was not shown on any of the claims, reversal is not warranted.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20CACO%2020121105015Dave Dillon is trying to sell his house, but there’s a Lien on his property because Urban Logic has never paid the $57,000 Judgement to Beaumont Citizens for Responsible Growth (BCRG). Dillon requested the Court remove the Lien proclaiming “It’s an emergency”.
Below is a summary of the Lawsuit from leagle.com:
On October 7, 2010, Urban Logic filed its complaint for equitable relief and damages (the complaint) against BCRG alleging causes of action for defamation and trade libel and seeking an injunction.
On or about January 10, 2011, BCRG filed a SLAPP motion to dismiss the complaint against them (the motion). They argued that their actions in the underlying lawsuit were protected by the anti-SLAPP statute (§ 425.16, subd. (e)(3)) because their acts where in furtherance of their right to free speech under the state and federal Constitutions.
Urban Logic filed opposition to the motion arguing that it had a probability of prevailing on the merits of the lawsuit (the opposition). Urban Logic conceded that the motion involved protected speech activity and that they were public figures and that it must show that BCRG’s libelous statements were made with “actual malice.”
The matter was heard by the superior court on February 15, 2011. The superior court then ruled, “Turning to the facts presented, even if the Court considered all of the evidence submitted . . ., and even if Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of falsity (preponderance standard), Plaintiffs have not shown evidence of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.” The motion was granted.
BCRG contend they are entitled to reasonable attorney fees on appeal. The trial court’s order granting the special motion to strike pursuant to section 425.16 is affirmed. BCRG is awarded costs on appeal and attorney fees in an amount to be determined by the trial court on remand.
1. SLAPP is an acronym for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.” ( (2002) , 57.)
2. All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated.
3. There is a letter from Moorjani to the FBI dated March 2009 but no confirmation as to the outcome of the investigation.
4. At oral argument, counsel for Urban Logic argued that only one claim of actual malice need be shown in order for the ruling of the trial court to be reversed. Since, as we discuss, that actual malice was not shown on any of the claims, reversal is not warranted.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20CACO%2020121105015