Legal Blog: Evolution Film Company Off The Hook in #RHOBH Dog Bite Case

Posted on Apr 27 2015 - 1:48pm by Stacy Slotnick, Esq.

Kim Richards_RHOBH

Since 1987, Evolution Film & Tape, Inc. (“Evolution”) has provided commercially successful non-fiction programming. They were pioneers in a nascent reality TV world before the medium became hip and highly lucrative. Current programs they produce include Bravo’s hits “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills,” “The Real Housewives of Orange County,” and “Vanderpump Rules,” along with the new sensation “Botched” for E!.

Today, Evolution is breathing a sigh of relief as it has formally been removed from Ellen Catherine Rozario’s (“Kay”) lawsuit. In a decision dated April 22, 2015, Judge André Birotte, Jr. GRANTED Defendant Evolution’s Motion to Dismiss WITH PREJUDICE in the matter of Ellen Catherine Rozario v. Kim Richard et al. (2:14-cv-09540). A court case that is dismissed “with prejudice” means that it is discharged permanently and plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same claim. 

READ: Bravo Under Fire! Should Bravo Producers Be Held Liable For Kim Richards Dog Bite Attack?

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule) 12(b)(6), dismissal is proper where there is either a lack of clear legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged. The writing was on the wall. It did not make logical or legal sense for producers of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills (“RHOBH”) to be on the hook for damages sustained as the result of an attack by Kim Richards’s dog, Kingsley. But what we could not predict was the way in which the judiciary would so swiftly scrap Kay’s case against Evolution.

On a motion to dismiss, the cards are stacked in favor of the nonmoving party since allegations of fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (Kay). Newdow v. Lefevre, 598 F.3d 638, 642 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1612 (2011).

However, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of the claims in the complaint. It demands more than a bare, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Here, Plaintiff asserted Evolution was liable under two legal theories: intentional misrepresentation and conspiracy to commit intentional misrepresentation.

All About the Tea posters should take their betting acumen to Vegas. In previous blog posts, AATT posters deduced that Kay could not prove she justifiably relied on Evolution’s misrepresentation as to Kingsley’s alleged “sweet and cuddly” behavior on the RHOBH. The Court agreed. It found Plaintiff’s intentional misrepresentation claim to be unsupportable, a.k.a. a loser.  The Court comes right out and says it understands justifiable reliance is normally a question of fact but it becomes a matter of law when “reasonable minds can come to only one conclusion.” See pg. 6 of the Order. 

READ: Legal Blog: Motion Filed To Dismiss Kim Richards Dog Bite Lawsuit 

Essentially this means sensible minds can only conclude that Evolution did not misrepresent Kingsley’s temperament. In a noteworthy footnote on pg. 10 of the April 22, 2015 Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim that the show represented Kingsley as “playful and loving.” The Court observed, “the RHOBH depictions Plaintiff points to actually display an aggressive dog … Plaintiff’s complaint focuses on Ms. Richards’s statements during the episode, instead of focusing on the dog’s actions.”

The Court questions how Kay can assert a claim for misrepresentation in painting the dog as “playful and loving” when the episode cited in the complaint shows the dog attacking someone. The Court averred on pg. 10, “The trainer eventually subdues the dog’s charge, but it is evident that the dog has the ability to exhibit aggressive behavior.” We agree! Plaintiff’s confidence in Bravo’s “cuddly” depiction of the dog was severely misplaced.

real-housewives-of-beverly-hills-season-4-gallery-episode-401-17

Plaintiff cannot hold the production company liable for damages stemming from a situation conveyed on the show because the facts do not suggest Evolution intended or had reason to expect that the substance of the episode would be repeated or its contents communicated to someone like Kay, and that it would influence her conduct around the dog.

Here, Plaintiff never saw the RHOBH episode she references or any other episode for that matter. There were no facts in the complaint that Plaintiff’s daughter, who apparently watched the RHOBH episode at issue, even said anything to her about any particular episode. Judge Birotte explained on pg. 2 of the Order, “Plaintiff’s daughter did not make any affirmative statements to Plaintiff about the dog’s behavior.”

Kay “must plead that … she actually relied on the misrepresentation” in the RHOBH episode. See Mirkin v. Wasserman, 5 Cal. 4th 1082, 1096, 23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 101, 858 P.2d 568 (Cal. 1993). The Court disagreed with Kay’s “justifiable reliance” theory of the case because no one overtly or affirmatively communicated these supposed RHOBH representations as to Kingsley’s lovability to her. Even if the show was the reason for Kay’s daughter having a comfort level with the dog, the daughter’s reliance cannot be attributed to Kay.

Then, Kay takes the position that she indirectly relied on her daughter’s lack of concern as an indicator to believe that the dog was not dangerous. She contends that it was reasonable for her to trust her daughter’s unspoken conduct. The Court was not buying this fallacious legal argument. Instead, it held on pg. 5, “the complaint falls short in alleging a viable claim for intentional misrepresentation.” 

kim-richards-default-judgment-pp

Turning now to Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim, in a civil conspiracy, a coconspirator (Evolution) effectively adopts, as his or her own, the torts of other coconspirators (Kim) within the scope of the conspiracy. Therefore, if Kim committed a tort in furtherance of a conspiracy between her and Evolution, Evolution would be responsible for damages even though it was Kim’s negligence that caused Kay’s injuries.

Conspiracy theories get a bad rap, sometimes fairly, for being more shock than substance. Remember, Plaintiff here claimed Evolution and Kim jointly engaged in a scheme to misrepresent Kingsley as sweet and cuddly to a class of people that not only watch RHOBH but also visit Kim’s home. The Court rejected this argument. “This inconceivable conjecture … cannot support a claim for civil conspiracy.”  See pg. 9 of Order.  Take note Judge Birotte labeled Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim “inconceivable,” meaning it was not even close.

The Order described that Kim did not act as Evolution’s agent at the time of the incident. If an employee’s (Kim) act that causes injury to another is purely personal in nature, it is not related to the employer’s (Evolution) business.  Basically, Kim was not doing anything connected to her employment at Bravo when Kay was bitten and thus Evolution should be held liable for Kim’s conduct.

The complaint specifically stated Plaintiff and her daughter visited Kim as overnight guests, and they both had a pre-existing relationship with Kim. Neither the visit nor the dog bite occurred during the taping of the show. In fact, there are no allegations of RHOBH crew members being present at any point during the visit. See pg. 8 of Order. Aside from referring to Kim as Evolution’s “agent” and concluding that Kim furthered a scheme to misrepresent Kingsley, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations do nothing more than assert naked claims devoid of facts.

READ: Order GRANTING Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

Grab your gavel, join the conversation, and let us know what you think about the decision to grant Evolution’s Motion to Dismiss.

 

“Like” us on Facebook  “Follow” us on Twitter and on Instagram 

About the Author

Stacy Slotnick, a.k.a. The Foxy Jurist, holds a J.D., cum laude, from Touro Law Center and a B.A., summa cum laude, from the University of Massachusetts Amherst Commonwealth Honors College. Stacy is the recipient of the Honors Deans Award; Simon and Satenig Ermonian Memorial Scholarship; College of Social and Behavioral Sciences Opportunity Scholarship; and College of Humanities and Fine Arts Scholarship. She is also a William F. Field Alumni Scholar, an honor bestowed upon the most academically distinguished students. In law school, Stacy won two CALI Excellence For The Future Awards® and received an Achievement Scholarship. She is a member of the New York Bar. As an entertainment lawyer, Stacy counsels clients on contracts, branding, and public relations strategy. She negotiates with agents, producers, production companies, and lawyers to secure rights to projects on behalf of high-profile clients. Her clever, spirited, no holds barred legal analysis can be found in articles for The Huffington Post. * Facebook   * LinkedIn   * Twitter

  • Elizabeth Fisher

    Kim better start saving her coins – the judge just dismissed the “deep pockets” out of the litigation. Kathy and Rick may have to write her a check because this woman is going to get paid.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      OMG could you imagine. Sometimes we forget Kim comes from a monied family but would they bail her out of this situation?

      • Jennymckitty

        I think they may.

        • Stacy Slotnick

          If the Hiltons foot the bill, she will resort to her old ways (and perhaps engage in more irresponsible, tortious behavior) because she hasn’t been confronted with the consequences for her actions. You do the crime, you do the time.

          • Jennymckitty

            Kim Richards? Engage in reckless behavior? I’m sure once she returns from he rehab spa, after receiving facials and massages, that behavior will be in the past.

          • cait

            Of course it will ! She’ll need to move on and find a new bar !

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Isn’t that a travesty? There are probably a slew of legitimate centers that offer care to those seeking help for substance abuse but there are also those places in which it is more getaway than get help.

          • cait

            I said yesterday, if she can find a good friend (ahem, ahem,) wonder who that could be ? to bring her “five a day” supplements, she’ll stay forever, and ignore the nasty people outside !

      • Elizabeth Fisher

        Judging by her injuries, and punitive damages, I would think she could get awarded $300,000-$400,000. What do you think?

        • Stacy Slotnick

          I promise we will be covering this precise issue in significant detail later in the week. Stay tuned for that blog!

      • cait

        If this happens, and the family help, (yet again) I hope they make the check out to the recipient, directly, or Kay won’t be seeing much of it !

        • Stacy Slotnick

          That is such an excellent point, cait! Kim has been known to be shifty with money/funds. The entire first season of RHOBH portrayed Kim as being irresponsible, and Kyle and Mauricio had to take care of her because she was a loose canon. Unfortunately, that is the hallmark of someone struggling with substance abuse. If the Hiltons continue the cycle of cleaning up her mistakes, Kim will be no more inclined to change her behavior.

          • cait

            I keep saying, she needs to hit rock bottom, face down in the mud, before she rolls over and looks up at the stars !

          • Stacy Slotnick

            I think you are right. In many instances, a legal action will be a wakeup call that behavior has to change. I don’t think that is the case here. In fact, nothing seems to penetrate with Kim as to this case. Remember, Kay alleged that she called him to try and resolve settlement of her medical bills shortly after the dog bite on March 20, 2014 to no avail. Kim’s M.O. seems to be “out of sight, out of mind” and she does not take accountability for her acts. Reminds me of another Bravolebrity that has been in trouble with the law…

          • cait

            Well folk, I’m famous now so you can’t touch me ! I done nothing wrong ! Blubber Bieber should get drafted onto these shows, he sure fits the profile of TG and KR !

          • Stacy Slotnick

            I got a huge laugh from your latest post. This sense of entitlement and invulnerability is a common thread among TG and KR. Will they change once released from jail and out of rehab, respectively? Time will tell but the likelihood of soaring transformations is probably unlikely.

          • cait

            Yeeaah Buuttt, Stacy, can’t you arrange to have that little creep shoved into a cannon and re-patriated to Canada ?
            Everytime I bring this up, I get inundated with “PLEASE, NOOOH” petitions from Canada !

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Seriously you are hysterical. Repatriation? Very clever and creative.

          • cait

            RepratiaRROK. If you need to push it “

          • Bad Barbie

            I have no idea WTF is it going to take to deport Bieber back to Canada. Canada is so full of shyte with their immigration laws that you can’t even visit if you have been arrested before. They wont grant you entry unless you file for a letter of pardonship and that costs between $3-7,000 to get BTW.

            Yet, here you have this schmuck breaking US laws left and right and he’s not even a citizen. Some of the laws are grounds for deportation but money talks.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            I wonder what Dr. Phi’s Real Housewife Exclusive will reveal tomorrow! Will Kim dig herself into a deeper hole and/or admit things she shouldn’t when it comes to legal actions being lodged against her?

      • Bad Barbie

        I hope Kyle doesn’t even look her way. F Kim! It is about time she faces the consequences of being a shitty person.

        • Stacy Slotnick

          There is no question her world is falling apart and she has yet to hit rock bottom. The jig is undeniably up. Not only was she arrested earlier this month and charged with public intoxication, trespassing, resisting an officer, and battery on a police officer but her legal woes stemming from this case are just beginning.

          • Bad Barbie

            Oh well! Now she will know what it is to have no support from her “horrible and mean” sister Kyle. If I were Kyle, I’d finally show Kim how vile and horrible sister I am.

  • WestCoastFeed

    Right decision, Thanks again, Stacy.
    Now can anyone confirm that animal control has impounded Kingsley?

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Good call, WestCoastFeed. I give major credit to AATT posters for predicting this one. I agree that it was the right decision and based on the way the court laid out their reasoning, it was a relatively easy one at that.

      It is illegal to allow your dog in Los Angeles to assault, menace or threaten another person or other animal. Failure to control your dog could result in losing your dog and the right to own a dog for three years. Section 53.34 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. Surely the county has grounds to impound the dog but whether they have is a question yet to be answered.

  • Jennymckitty

    I’m glad the court came to the right decision. I don’t think anyone who watched felt that Kingsley was ever portrayed as cuddly. (He is awfully cute, though). I have to say that I’m selfishly a little disappointed. We were thisss close to seeing a Bravo contract.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Excellent catch, nay fetch, Jennymckitty! Should the case against Evolution have gone forward, we necessarily would have seen portions of the contract Bravo had with Evolution during the discovery and then perhaps trial phase of the case. But, alas, there was no way for the court to find in favor of Kay since reasonable people could only conclude one thing: the depiction of Kingsley on RHOBH was one of a vicious and aggressive animal.

  • Addie2U

    Yesterday I read the dog was ((finally) removed from Kim’s home on Saturday by Animal control (the same day she entered rehab). Does anyone know why it wasn’t removed earlier — since the dog has viciously bitten at least 2 people — don’t most states have bite laws?? Also since Kim rents her home, wouldn’t part of the responsibility fall on the landlord for allowing her to keep this dog in HIS home??

    • Elizabeth Fisher

      That was reported on a “less than reputable site” and that site is the only one that is saying that. I believe nothing that is reported on that site. I would imagine that Kim is having Kingsley either boarded or with a trainer while she is in rehab.

      • Stacy Slotnick

        Good call. Thanks for the information, Elizabeth!

        • WestCoastFeed

          She provides no documentation but wants to be given credit for the exclusive.

          • Elizabeth Fisher

            Exactly WestCoastFeed. She is super-sketchy at that site.

            Stacy Slotnick, another reason I have a hard time believing Animal Control is involved (and it could be for all I know), is no one filed a complaint with the Police Department when they were attacked by Kingsley. The Bravo crew didn’t file a complaint, Kyle and Alexia didn’t file a complaint, the dog trainer didn’t file a complaint, and I don’t think Rozario filed anything with the police department since she was a “family friend.” I don’t know how things work out in California, but could Animal Control get involved if no complaints are filed with the police department?

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Absolutely. Animal Control could get involved even if a police report was not filed by Kyle, Kay, or the Bravo crew because Kay filed a complaint against several parties, indicating that she was injured as a result of a dog bite from Kingsley. A civil complaint re dog bite may certainly be the basis for an investigation. Moreover, hospital records can also form the basis for Animal Control to act on behalf of the city or state. Time will indeed tell what happened or is happening with Kingsley.

          • Addie2U

            Thanks Stacy but I’m still curious if the landlord would hold any responsibility for allowing a PitBull to reside in his rental property. Don’t all insurance companies require special insurance for certain breeds?

          • Elizabeth Fisher

            Stacy and I had this conversation a couple of weeks ago. I live in Louisiana and when I was a renter (and bought renter’s insurance) and then became a homeowner and changed my policy to a homeowner’s policy, I was told by my insurance company that neither policy would not cover damages caused by pits, dobermans or rottweilers. That’s why I’m a “cat person.”

          • Addie2U

            Thanks Elizabeth. I ended up searching for “Landlord Liability for Tenants’ Dogs” & found →

            Actual knowledge. To be held liable, a landlord must actually know that a tenant’s dog is a danger to others. In practice, that means the landlord must know that the dog has already threatened or injured someone.

            A landlord who ignores overwhelming evidence of the danger posed by a tenant’s dog does so at his peril. Such an irresponsible landlord may be punished by being made to pay extra damages (called punitive damages) over the amount needed to compensate the victim.

            So if the landlord wasn’t aware, he’s got nothing to worry about.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            The California cases interpreting whether a landlord is liable for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog are a bit all over the map. One California court held that the landlord is under a duty to inspect and discover the propensity for viciousness of dogs whose owners rent on the landlord’s property. In this instance, our discussion is purely academic since Kay has not gone after Kim’s landlord or management company. Why do you think that is?

          • RubyT

            Because Evolution has deeper pockets.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Most definitely Evolution is – correction was – the deep pocket defendant in this case. But Kay’s arguments regarding Evolution’s culpability were so strained and tenuous it was a Hail Mary pass to try and make them legally responsible. Do you think the court appropriately granted their Motion to Dismiss even if no other defendant in this case can make Plaintiff whole again?

          • RubyT

            yes, i do. it’s pretty clear that kingsley is a dangerous dog. but she must have seen the footage in a different way than most of us do. it’s human nature to want someone to pay for our pain. if kim had accepted any responsibility, and offered support of any kind, i wonder if she would have sued anyone. kim should count her blessings that her niece isn’t suing her, too.

          • Bad Barbie

            I agree with you.The production should not have allowed this dog to even be around their crew. I wonder how would this played out if a camera man was severely attacked by Kingsley?!

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Absolutely. You could argue Kim handled anything and everything related to Kingsley in the wrong way. In the instance of her niece, she was defensive that Kyle even brought it up on the reunion show. Then, according to Kay, she asked Kim to pay her medical bills (unclear if all or some portion of her medical expenses were requested before Kay filed suit) and Kim clearly has not done so, even though Kay was her longtime friend.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            As to your query regarding landlord liability, the laws differ in each state. In a residential landlord case with a tenant owned dog that bites another causing bodily injury, the California courts have noted that a landlord could be liable for the tenant owned dog. However, a duty of care may not be imposed on a landlord without proof that he knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities.

            If the landlord fails to control their property they can also be held liable for California dog bites committed by the dog off their property. See, Donchin v. Guerrero (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1832.

          • Addie2U

            Thanks again Stacy! You’re always so informative. I actually looked up “Landlord Liability for Tenants’ Dogs” & found the same info.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            You are very welcome. These legal themes help us all analyze the case more fully. Hope you had an excellent Monday.

          • Elizabeth Fisher

            Kim’s landlord knew Kingsley was dangerous. After Kingsley attacked the Bravo crew, Rosario and the dog trainer, Kim paid $6,000 for some sort of outside holding area for Kingsley. I don’t think she could have something like that built on the property unless she had the landlord’s permission.

          • Bad Barbie

            Wait… Kim doesn’t own her house?

          • Bad Barbie

            Kim rents?

          • Addie2U

            Yes. If you recall during an earlier season she was leaving 1 rental property in search of another & wanted to rent a 5 bedroom. She wanted a room for each of her kids (when they came to visit)! She didn’t like it 1 bit when Kyle recommended she look for something smaller. Kim’s delusion & sense of entitlement runs deep.

          • Bad Barbie

            I am baffled that the hospital didn’t report this. I thought they were required by law to report these types of injuries. Do they not report domestic violence too? What does it take to remove a predator?

          • Stacy Slotnick

            That is a very good question. While hospitals must report dog bites to animal control, doing so will not always trigger the necessary investigation by animal control.

          • Bad Barbie

            Wouldn’t it take one call to animal control and not the police?

      • Addie2U

        LOL, I did read it on “that site” but also read it elsewhere in a comment section that a neighbor saw the dog being removed.

        • Elizabeth Fisher

          That “neighbor” who saw the dog being removed is the source for the less than reputable site. I still can’t find anything anywhere that Kingsley has been taken by Animal Control.

          • RonnieIsBack

            WEll I wonder who else would watch him while his mom is drying out…

      • Addie2U

        In the past I’ve seen 2 different PitBull owners ask trusted friends or family members to feed & let their dog out while they went away on vacation. In both instances they were unable to care for the dog as the dogs attempted to attack them (even when trying feed them). I’m curious if this isn’t what happened in this case. With Kim being gone she’s unable to diffuse the situation or lock Kingsley in her room!

      • Bad Barbie

        The fact that this dog is still walking around if beyond me. We really put the life of a vicious beast before human life in this country, yet we are still fighting for civil rights.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Thanks for the update, Addie2U. The answer to why Kingsley might not have been removed earlier is because there is a process for removal in L.A. county (and most jurisdictions). The local district attorney or city attorney may take action (file paperwork, offer evidence) if a dog has bitten someone and the county seeks destruction. A vicious dog can be destroyed by the local animal control department. If it is not destroyed, the Court must impose conditions upon the ownership of the dog to protect the public. Kim may simply have been fighting removal and/or destruction of the dog these past few months.

      • misstc

        Here in FL, a dog that bites another gets put down almost immediately. A neighbor boy of twelve was chewed half to death by a pit bull owned by neighbors across street, but when police came, a different dog was blamed & put down. This woman also lied to police before all this mess. She is still in possession of this dog, who last year malled my little dog; who both escaped their yard premises & had battle in middle of street.
        This mess with Kim is this Kingsley should have been removed from beginning and my best wishes to the poor woman who suffered such severe bites & has no RECOURSE??? Maybe Bravo/Evolution not be sued, but damages should be made whole by Kim!

        • Stacy Slotnick

          I agree and thank you for offering up the tea on Florida law! It appears Florida is a statutory strict liability state just like California.Under Florida dog bite law, if one’s dog bites or attacks someone, the dog owner may face civil liability and the dog may be designated as a “dangerous dog” for which the dog owner must make special arrangements. In addition, the dangerous dog shall be immediately confiscated by an animal control authority, placed in quarantine, if necessary, for the proper length of time, or impounded and held for a specified number of days after the owner is given written notification, and thereafter destroyed in an expeditious and humane (the statute’s language) manner. Thus, there is a range of criminal liability the dog owner may face under certain circumstances if the dog injures someone.

          Stay tuned to AATT this week regarding your second point about Kay’s options now that Evolution has been dismissed. You are 100% correct that Kay SHOULD have an alternative Defendant to hold liable.

          • DoneWithBravo

            I live in FL (unfortunately, for the past few years), and I am aghast at the lack of animal rights and rights for people too! However, some breeds of dogs are prohibited from apartments and rental houses here. People here generally have no regard for animals. When they’re bored of their pet, they open the door and let them go. Most animal shelters are kill shelters. People aren’t treated much better. Anyone could be fired from a job for NO REASON. This State is messed up.
            misstc: I wish you luck with your little dog. It’s rare to see people here that actually care about their pets!! Don’t you have the right to “stand your ground” if that attack dog comes near your property? I’d think you’d have more rights to have that attack dog put down or moved away. Good luck and continue to protect your little pup!!

          • Stacy Slotnick

            You have definitely provided us all with important food for thought, DoneWithBravo. If dogs are brought up in a loving and responsible household, they can flourish just like any other dog, usually.

        • Bad Barbie

          You’re good. I would have poisoned that beast already. Video her dog and call the cops next time.

      • Bad Barbie

        This is ridiculous. A dog should be removed and put to sleep the minute it injures someone.

        • Stacy Slotnick

          I completely understand your frustrations, and it may seem counterintuitive that a dog could continue to exist even after it injured someone (or two or three or more as in Kingsley’s case). Please see my comments to your remarks above as I explain the procedures in place in California and specifically, Los Angeles to have a dog destroyed. Do you think a judge determining first whether the dog is dangerous and then analyzing whether the owner can keep him/her constrained is imprudent?

          • Bad Barbie

            After a dog puts someone’s life is danger there shouldn’t be any question about it being dangerous. This is absurd but hey! it is the “law”. Animal rights playing our in court while the same law kills innocent citizens. I can’t even talk about this right now. Emotions are high.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Indeed they are. Thanks as always, Bad Barbie, for commenting and adding your insight!

    • Bad Barbie

      That dog should have been put to sleep a while ago. I am sorry.

  • cait

    I don’t think Kay has done herself any favours with the suit against Evolution. I think most of us were in agreement, last time, that this seemed frivolous !

    • Stacy Slotnick

      The Court called Kay’s conspiracy to commit intentional misrepresentation claim “inconceivable conjecture.” It didn’t mince words. In no uncertain terms, the California District Court did not buy what Kay was selling, much like AATT posters! Thanks for the comments.

    • cait

      1. Daughter had seen the show, yet felt comfortable to stay in the house with cuddles !
      2. Kay was a close friend of Dimbo ! Drinks buddies, or what ?
      3. Despite the nasty bite, there’s something wrong here !

    • Stacy Slotnick

      And the chief problem the Court had with Kay’s daughter saying she watched the show was that any depiction she thought Evolution had portrayed of Kingsley was NEVER communicated to her mother, Kay. Therefore, Kay did not justifiably rely on any intentional misrepresentation between Evolution and Kim.

  • Great blog, Stacy. Thank you for the update. I read that Kim is broke, if Rozario wins her judgement against Kim …can she attach a lien to Kim’s Bravo paycheck?

    • cait

      The laundry guy did that to the Guidices, and was getting payments, but Stacy, does the lien apply to all income, or just a named income ?

      • Stacy Slotnick

        Procedures vary by state but usually you give the sheriff information about where the judgment debtor works. The levying officer serves the garnishment order on the employer and the employer is required to withhold the proper amount of money which then goes to you. It is a slightly easier process than a lien on one’s property because the property has to be sold before the creditor can collect. In many cases, a creditor simply goes to the local courthouse and fills out an application to garnish wages. The sheriff or levying officer will initiate the lawsuit.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Thank you Seusseroo! 🙂 Please do stay tuned to AATT later in the week for an extensive exploration of the case against Kim Richards. We will fully explore where the case stands now and what are Kay’s legal options. But in general, when an employed person — such as Kim who makes a paycheck from Bravo — refuses to pay a money judgment, a court may order that her wages be “garnished.” Garnishment allows money to be deducted from an employee’s paycheck and paid directly to a creditor — such as Kay. Garnishments are typically imposed to repay delinquent court fines or judgments.

  • RonnieIsBack

    Great blog Stacey. This defendant Evolve could have used the affirmative defense of Assumption of the risk. If they were previous friends of Kim, and they have a bit of knowledge about pit bulls…any reasonble person could deduce they may be dangerous, then there you go…
    I think like most Kay saw deep pockets…we all know Kim’s broke azz cannot pay medical bills, ..oh well glad Evolve was dismissed.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Thanks RonnieIsBack! Glad you had an opportunity to read the legal blog above and provide awesome comments in response.

      That is an interesting theory you describe. I think the Court got it right when it said there could be no liability under an agency theory of the case since as you note, Kay and her daughter had a pre-existing, previous friendship with Kim Richards. Therefore, since there was no filming going on during the time of the dog bite, Evolution wasn’t an employer of Kim’s at that moment and therefore liability did not attach. It’s a good rule of thumb for employers and employees to be aware of: If you are acting outside the scope of your employment — as Kim was — your employer will not be held liable for injuries that occur to others.

      • RonnieIsBack

        Absolutely!

  • RonnieIsBack

    If we believed everything we see on Reality TV (the irony of it all – the most non real chit…) then I would believe Lisa V (whom I adore) is not a snob, Yolanda has an open door policy and I could just stop by off the street, Kyle is really really sweet (sideeye), Lisa Rhinna will probably phuck you up if you mess with Harry, and Andy Cohen is just the nices boss evah (pllleze).

    • Stacy Slotnick

      AATT posters have a whimsical way with words! I love your opinion above. Non-fiction programming is here to stay but now that Evolution has been removed from the lawsuit, we won’t know precisely what was in that agreement (contract) between Evolution/Bravo and Kim Richards. Specifically, we won’t know how much of the reality was concocted or manipulated.

      • DoneWithBravo

        Evolution/Bravo is some classy corporation. They don’t even pay to have their “stars” receive medical benefits??? Just horrible.

  • cait

    I know I’m not supposed to go off topic with Stacy, but a bit of a scaredy cat at mo. An X-Ray has turned up, last week, from last Sept, when I was fatally ill. and everyone has leapt into action. So starting today, I’m attending the Hospital all week, to get major tests ! How lucky am I to get these people looking out for me. Wish someone had looked last Sept !

    • Stacy Slotnick

      We all wish you good health and make sure you ask all the questions you want. You have to be your own advocate when it comes to testing and diagnoses.

    • Bad Barbie

      (((HUGS))))

  • Goo Goo G’Joob

    I knew Kay’s attorneys were hoping to play poker and do some major bluffing but I thought for sure they had managed to dig up two or three aces for up their sleeves to secure an out-of-court settlement. It looks like they needed a redeal to even get a pair of two’s. Evolution should never have been added to the case with that evidence.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Thanks for your thoughts! You are entirely correct that in many instances, there will be aspects of a case that make defendants queasy and those types of facts and legal claims plaintiff’s attorney will hammer home and pounce on in an effort to settle a case out of court. Here there were no such facts or legal details/features for Kay to hit Evolution with. As the Court noted, this wasn’t even a close question as to whether Evolution should be held liable for damages Kay sustained as a result of Kingsley’s dog bite attack.

  • Bad Barbie

    Look… sue me for what I am going to say, PUT THIS DOG TO SLEEP ALREADY!!!! What is is going to take??? I get that there are avid animal lovers out here that put pets before human safety but this dog will kill someone eventually. There is no training that is going to help, just like there is no rehab that is going to fix the owner. ENOUGH!

    • Stacy Slotnick

      If a dog is found to be dangerous, the judge may order the owner to take certain measures to prevent the dog from injuring anyone. At the least, the owner will have to keep the dog securely confined. If the judge determines that the owner cannot keep the dog confined, the owner may be ordered to have the dog destroyed or remove it from the city. An owner who violates the court’s order will probably be fined and possibly be jailed and at that point, it appears that in Los Angeles, the dog will be impounded and probably killed.

      • Bad Barbie

        This is when animals have more ‘civil rights’ than humans. This country runs on ish not on dunkin. #somebodylied

        • Stacy Slotnick

          I can absolutely appreciate your position. The way our legal system is organized demonstrates the lopsided nature of some U.S. laws. The U.S. Constitution, for example, gives greater rights to criminal defendants than victims. While our Bill of Rights enumerates extensive rights for criminal defendants, it contains not a single word on behalf of crime victims. Victims have no right to information about the progress of their case, no right to notice of when critical proceedings would be held, no right to be present and heard at those proceedings, and no right to a speedy trial.

          • Bad Barbie

            This is a very light version of the many issues in our “system”. Sad day.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Yes but you get the idea that there are many examples of the ways in which our justice system doesn’t function entirely effectively or reasonably. You offered one piercing example and there are indeed others.

          • bingo32

            Of course the criminal defendants have more Constitutional rights as they are the ones on trial. Many if not all states have enacted victims rights acts/statutes that give victims many of the rights u note above.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Thanks for the comments, bingo32. In actuality, the victim “rights” listed above have not translated into uniform laws to help protect victims of crimes. Those “rights” are voluntarily and not mandatory. Victims and their families have few if any rights as opposed to the criminal defendant. But prosecutors and lobbyists continue to tirelessly work to change all that.

      • bingo32

        I *think* the dog has already been rehomed after the incident with Alexia. This lawsuit is a joke. The woman has known Kim her whole life & is 81yo. She isn’t worth $1m and sued b/c she thought she could go after deep pockets, ie, prod cos. $1m judgement against Kim isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. People like this woman annoy me.

    • bellaboo

      This dog can most definately be re homed. Cesar milian is a protecter of pits, & works with others to educate the type of owner for a pit, & kim IS SOOOOOOOO WRONG FOR KINGSLY. I dont know why in the hell SOMEBODY hasnt gotten in touch with him, hes in la, & works with celebrities all the time. Im begging anyone who is close to the family to pleeeeeeeassssse contact him, he will make sure the right thing gets done to save this wondrrful dog, WHO HAS BEEN LIVING WITH A LUNATIC, FOR AS LONG AS HES BEEN WITH KIM. So many people who owns pits have to be trained in order for the,pit to have a good healthy w/ rules on both the owner, & the pits behavior. THERE IS HOPE, & HE CANNOT HELP THE WAY HE IS, BUT HE CAN BE TRAINED TO WORK WITH A PERSON WHO HAS ALSO BEEN TRAINED. IF THAT DOESNT WORK, THERE IS ALWAYS THE “PITTBULLS, & PAROLEES”

      • Bad Barbie

        If that had been a human chewing off someone’s hand, guess where that person would be? Why is a vicious dog allowed to attack a few people before the authorities step in is beyond me. The hospital should have reported the owner by now.

        • bingo32

          Alexia’s hand surgeries no doubt included kyle’s plastic surgeon. But the hand or finger called for surgery b/c the initial ER doctor didn’t treat it properly. That part is not Kim’s fault. Kim also claims she told Alexia to stay out of bedroom as Kinglsey was very protective of her lately. Per Kim, Alexia disregarded the instructions. I think Kim’s explaination is the most plausible, otherwise kyle would have made a bigger deal out of Kingsley. Her revenge was the instagram slumber party. (which was utterly ridiculous on kyle’s part).

          • Bad Barbie

            Excuses. I don’t believe a drunk junkie for a second. She will sell her first born to look good. All this time she’s been “sober”. #lies

  • stella love

    my phone rang, and so shockingly, it was my boyfriend who has not called me for past 4 years now, and made an apology for the heart break, and told me that he is ready to be my back bone till the rest of his life with me. DR HENRY released him up to know how much i loved and wanted him. And opened his eyes to picture how love much we have share together. As I`m writing this testimony right now I`m the most happiest girl on earth and me and my boyfriend is living a happy life and our love is now stronger than how it were even before our break up. So that`s why I promised to share my testimony all over the universe. All thanks goes to DR HENRY for the excessive work that he has done for me. Below is the AGAGULOVESPELL@GMAIL.COM Are you undergoing a heart break, and I assure you that as he has done mine for me, he will definitely help you too. that is his email address AGAGULOVESPELL@GMAIL.COM

  • stella love

    my phone rang, and so shockingly, it was my boyfriend who has not called me for past 4 years now, and made an apology for the heart break, and told me that he is ready to be my back bone till the rest of his life with me. DR HENRY released him up to know how much i loved and wanted him. And opened his eyes to picture how love much we have share together. As I`m writing this testimony right now I`m the most happiest girl on earth and me and my boyfriend is living a happy life and our love is now stronger than how it were even before our break up. So that`s why I promised to share my testimony all over the universe. All thanks goes to DR HENRY for the excessive work that he has done for me. Below is the AGAGULOVESPELL@GMAIL.COM Are you undergoing a heart break, and I assure you that as he has done mine for me, he will definitely help you too. that is his email address AGAGULOVESPELL@GMAIL.COM