Page 1
C.A. Dumps Appeal by Attorney in Pro Per, Says Justices Won’t Act As His Counsel
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district has, in an opinion of few words, disparaged an appeal by a self-represented attorney citing no legal authority, saying that he apparently wants the members of the panel to act as his appellate counsel by providing support for his cause, declining to do so.
Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr. of Div. Eight authored the opinion, filed Monday. Though establishing no new law, it was certified for publication, apparently for its instructive value.
The appeals court affirmed an order by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elaine W. Mandel granting an anti-SLAPP motion by defendant IMDB.com, Inc. which operates the Internet Movie Database, provider of massive information (some of it only on a subscription basis) relating to movies, TV shows, and other media. IMDB’s motion to strike sole practitioner Bruce H. Singman’s opening brief was denied as moot.
Content of Opinion
Wiley’s opinion says, in its entirety except for omission of citations and the disposition:
“Attorney Bruce H. Singman sued and lost in the trial court. Serving as his own attorney, he appeals his defeat. His brief on appeal—there is only one, for he filed no reply—contains a table of authorities. That table has one entry. That entry is section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which authorizes appeals from judgments. This section does not impeach the trial court result. “No other legal citations appear in this brief. “We presume the trial court result is correct….The one contesting that result thus bears the burden of showing legal error. That requires legal authority. Here we have none.
“This appellant’s brief effectively asks the appellate court to become the appellant’s lawyer. A court cannot fairly embrace this partisan role. An absence of legal authority forfeits an appellant’s cause….”
The case is Singman v. IMDB.com, Inc., 2021 S.O.S. 6711. IMDB was represented on appeal by Joseph A. Reiter and Eunice Leong of Hueston Hennigan.
Suit Against IMDB.com
Singman sets forth in his complaint, filed May 29, 2020, that he produced “an action adventure science fiction feature film entitled ‘Warrior’ ”; it was completed in 2002; he loaned a copy to Tanya York of York Entertainment who, without authorization, posted copies for sale on Amazon.com under the name, “Mexican Blow”; that IMBD.com lists the film as having been released in 2002 when there was no public release of it then; this interfered with a deal for marketing the film in 2018; IMDB.com won’t change the listing despite demands.
Singman’s complaint states a single cause of action for declaratory relief. He seeks a declaration, among other things, that “[a]s a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s refusal to make the changes and deletions sought by Plaintiff as herein alleged, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial of no less than Five Hundred Million Dollars ($500,000,000).” In the prayer, he seeks unspecified damages, as well as attorney fees and an order to IMDB.COM to change the listing of “Warrior” from “Warrior (2002)” to “Warrior (2020),” to delete the words, “aka Mexican Blow,” and to remove reviews of the movie.
Anti-SLAPP Motion
In a Sept. 16, 2020 order, granting IMDB’s anti-SLAPP motion, Mandel found that the first prong of Code of Civil Procedure §425.16—protected speech—was met, but held that Singman failed to show a probability of prevailing on the merits under the second prong, saying:
“Plaintiff seeks an order requiring defendant to change information on its website but does not set forth a cause of action that would allow issuance of such an order. Plaintiff does not provide evidence to show the elements of defamation could be met….Even if plaintiff successfully alleged defamation, defendant provides unrefuted evidence the information posted is accurate.”
She added:
“At the hearing, plaintiff raised the possibility of an intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. However, he pled neither in his complaint, nor did he submit any evidence regarding either potential claim.”
It was from that order that Singman appealed.
Postjudgment Order
Mandel said in an April 8 postjudgment order:
“As IMDB prevailed on its anti-SLAPP motion, reasonable attorney’s fees must be awarded. Defendant submits bills for work performed by three attorneys. The amount of time billed was reasonable, as were billing rates—$1,025/hr, $920/hr and $815/hr. Though high, these hourly rates are not excessive in light of counsels’ skill and experience….The motion is GRANTED, with no opposition. Plaintiff to pay attorney’s fees of $15,204.50 within 30 days.”
It was Moez M. Kaba of Hueston Hennigan who commanded $1,025 per hour, Joseph A. Reiter whose hourly rate was $920, and Eunice Leong who pulled $815 an hour.
A “mini bio” of Singman, authored by Singman and posted on IMDB.com, says:
“…IMDB.com, which is a subsidiary of Amazon.com, wrongfully posted the date 2002 alongside of the title of Bruce’s movie Warrior without his knowledge or authority and refuses to delete the 2002 or even change 2002 to 2019 despite Bruce’s many requests of IMDB.com to make such change.”
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company