Texas Supreme Court Allows Defamation Case Against Netflix to Move Ahead

Johnston Tobey's Chad Baruch represents woman claiming defamation over ‘Dirty Money’

DALLAS, February 05, 2024--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Supreme Court of Texas has denied an attempt by video streaming company Netflix to end a defamation case brought by a Texas woman who claims she was harmed by a March 2020 episode of the Netflix television show "Dirty Money."

The episode, "Guardians, Inc," by award-winning producer Alex Gibney, suggested Tonya Barina was abusing her responsibility to her great-uncle, Texas millionaire Charles Thrash, the owner of a successful auto repair business in San Antonio. Court records indicate Mr. Thrash is incapacitated by Alzheimer’s disease. Ms. Barina is legal guardian of his estate.

Ms. Barina sued Netflix in 2021 alleging that the program falsely accused her of exploiting Thrash while failing to include information about Mr. Thrash’s girlfriend, Laura Martinez – who was denied guardianship of Mr. Thrash – and her attorney Philip Ross, both of whom were sanctioned for more than $225,000 for what the guardianship court deemed their "intentional, knowing and outrageous conduct."

According to court records, the two "engaged in a scheme to cause Thrash, a totally incapacitated individual without the capacity to contract or marry, to participate in a marriage ceremony." The marriage, to Ms. Martinez, later was annulled. Ms. Martinez and Mr. Ross also tried to have Mr. Thrash adopt Ms. Martinez’s adult children.

Those records also show that Ms. Martinez and Mr. Ross engaged in "fraud upon the Court" and interfered with Barina in the performance of her duties as guardian. The Court found that Ms. Martinez "will testify to whatever facts are necessary for the moment to achieve their purposes."

Barina alleges that Netflix had the records in question, but instead relied heavily upon the statements of Mr. Ross and Ms. Martinez.

Following Ms. Barina’s lawsuit, lawyers for Netflix filed a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, a law designed to protect free speech rights. The trial court denied that motion, and with the Texas Supreme Court decision declining without comment to review the case, Ms. Barina can continue her suit against the media company.

"Tonya Barina deserves justice, and with the action of the Texas Supreme Court, now she is in a position to move forward and get it," said Chad Baruch, managing shareholder of Johnston Tobey Baruch in Dallas. "Everyone is in favor of free speech, but that's not what this case is about. It’s about Ms. Barina’s allegation that Netflix made her the bad actor here when she’s not."

To hear Mr. Baruch discussing the case, click here.

Mr. Baruch was brought in alongside Ms. Barina’s attorneys Carl J. Kolb and Glenn Deadman to assist with the Texas Supreme Court appeal.

The case is Netflix v. Barina, No. 22-0914 in the Supreme Court of Texas.

Full Article & Source:
Texas Supreme Court Allows Defamation Case Against Netflix to Move Ahead

See Also:
Episode of Netflix Show ‘Dirty Money’ Found to Be Potentially Defamatory

Netflix Must Face Defamation Suit Over ‘Dirty Money’ Episode

Texas lawyer, Netflix lose defamation appeal concerning multimillionaire's court-appointed guardianship

Defamation lawsuit against Netflix linked to “Dirty Money” episode “Guardians, Inc.” which has a Massachusetts plot

Episode of Netflix Show ‘Dirty Money’ Found to Be Potentially Defamatory

By Steve Lowe

In January 2018, Netflix began airing a show entitled “Dirty Money,” a docu-series aimed to shed light on true stories of scandal and corruption. On March 11, 2020, an episode of the series called “Guardians, Inc.” portrayed millionaire Charles Thrash as the victim of an abusive guardianship masterminded by his niece, Tonya Barina. The episode presents Barina as having taken undue advantage of her uncle by wrongfully selling his assets and using his estate for personal gain. After the episode aired, Barina received a great deal of hate mail from the episode’s audience. In March 2021, Barina filed a lawsuit against Netflix for defamation.

Soon thereafter, Netflix filed a motion to dismiss the case. In August 2021, a Judge in Bexar County, Texas granted Netflix’s motion. However, Barina appealed, and on August 31, 2022, the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded the case, stating that there was no actual evidence of Barina committing any wrongdoing; therefore, the episode could be considered “defamatory.”

The Fourth Circuit noted that the depictions of Barina inaccurately represented the court proceedings in connection with Thrash’s guardianship. The actual facts were that Barina stepped in as the guardian of her uncle’s estate in 2017 after his girlfriend at the time, Laura Martinez, and her daughter, Brittany Martinez, were accused of appropriating his assets. Apparently, Laura Martinez tricked Thrash into marrying her and adopting her children. But, the episode in question represented Laura Martinez as Thrash’s common-law wife and allowed Martinez, her daughter, and their attorney Phillip Ross to speak on behalf of Thrash without giving Barina the opportunity to tell her side of the story. 

The Fourth Circuit found that, during the creation of the offending episode, Netflix had access to the 2019 court order, which imposed monetary sanctions on Laura and Brittany Martinez. In other words, it was Laura and Brittany Martinez that had engaged in the wrongful conduct, while Netflix argued that there was evidence that Barina had allegedly offered to step down as guardian if she received a certain sum of money, plus she failed to pay Thrash’s bills, and allegedly closed down his business, without his permission. The Fourth Circuit pointed out that the episode failed to mention that Barina had a legal right to use the estate funds to pay for legal expenses and attorney fees. There was no other evidence that showed Barina doing anything wrong.

In short, the court concluded that the episode was misleading and did not convey all of the truthful backgrounds regarding Thrash’s guardianship. As a result, the Fourth Circuit Justices reversed the ruling in Netflix’s favor and remanded the case to the District Court in Bexar County, Texas. 

Justices Patricia O. Alvarez, Irene Rios, and Beth Watkins sat on the panel for the Fourth Court of Appeals.

The appellees are represented by Laura Lee Prather and Catherine Lewis Robb of Haynes and Boone LLP and Rachel F. Strom and Katherine M. Bolger of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

Barina is represented by Carl J. Kolb of Carl J. Kolb PC and Glenn Deadman of Glenn Deadman PC.

The case is Netflix Inc. et al. v. Tonya Barina, case number 04-21-00327, in the Texas Court of Appeals for the Fourth District. 

Full Article & Source:
Episode of Netflix Show ‘Dirty Money’ Found to Be Potentially Defamatory

Defamation lawsuit against Netflix linked to “Dirty Money” episode “Guardians, Inc.” which has a Massachusetts plot

By Trevor Ballantyne

A lawyer who represented a Needham man featured in an episode of the Netflix investigative series “Dirty Money” is suing the online streaming service and nine other defendants in a defamation lawsuit filed in Middlesex District Court last month.

Released in late March, the episode features interviews with John Savanovich, an elderly former Needham resident who alleges the local attorneys he hired in 2015 used the conservatorship system in Massachusetts to steward the sale of six run-down properties he owned near the town’s border with Newton. Episode 9 of the second season is titled “Guardians, Inc.” and the description on Netflix says, “The rampant abuse of laws meant to protect the elderly has left many seniors penniless, powerless and isolated from their families.”

On Aug. 18, lawyers representing Nicholas Louisa, one of the attorneys Savanovich hired, filed a 38-page complaint claiming the episode defamed Louisa’s reputation by presenting a false narrative that left out key circumstances related to the real estate transactions and legal proceedings highlighted in the Netflix documentary.

Along with the charge of defamation, Louisa’s complaint says the release of the Netflix episode in March constituted intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

New development on land once owned by John Savonovich

The suit claims that, as a result of the episode, Louisa has been targeted with threats and harassment.

Louisa lawsuit presents different narrative

The narrative presented by Netflix features a seemingly mentally fit 74-year-old Savonovich who provides detail on how he came to hire Louisa. According to Savonovich, Louisa eventually used money from a property sale to have Savonovich declared mentally unfit and moved to an assisted living facility in Dedham.

In the lawsuit, Louisa denies those allegations, claiming the Netflix documentary misrepresented the case.

According to a copy of the complaint, “the [Dirty Money] episode reports, falsely, that Attorney Louisa committed crimes and ethical violations in fleecing a ‘bewildered’ Savonovich out of millions of dollars by causing the police to remove him from ‘his childhood home’ and transferring him ‘against his wishes ... to an assisted living facility’ so that [Louisa] and his colleagues could sell Mr. Savanovich’s real estate and leave him ‘totally penniless and a ‘ward of the state.’”

According to Louisa’s complaint, Savanovich sought the legal assistance as the town prepared to enter into receivership proceeding that took place in Dedham District Court in 2016. According to filings from those proceedings, the condition of Savanovich’s property at 26 Highland Terrace was, “unfit for human habitation and endanger[ed] or materially impair[ed] the health, safety and well-being of occupants, neighbors, and/or the public.”

After helping Savanovich sell the property on Highland Terrace, Louisa used money from the sale to address, in part, real estate taxes Savonovich owed. Louisa’s lawsuit says he became increasingly concerned over his elderly client’s health and well-being after a December 2017 wellness check by Needham police found him living in allegedly squalid conditions and suffering from frostbite.

In November 2019, Louisa’s representation of Savanovich ended after Probate Court proceedings that he initiated found Savanovich mentally incapacitated and appointed Attorney Alexandra Golden as his legal guardian and conservator, the lawsuit notes. According to the lawsuit, the approximately $3 million collected from the sale of his remaining properties is used to pay nursing home bills for Savanovich along with a monthly stipend.

Louisa v. Netflix, Et Al. - Complaint Aug. 18, 2020

Defamation lawsuit targets media defendants

Co-defendants in the lawsuit filed by Louisa include Jigsaw Productions and its subsidiary Muddy Waters Productions, the companies hired by Netflix to produce the “Dirty Money” episode, and an Essex County attorney.

The lawsuit claims the attorney, who attempted to intercede in Savanovich’s case and whose interviews appear in the Netflix documentary, provided information, including impounded court documents, to the “Dirty Money” episode’s producers and another co-defendant, the owner of the Peabody-based print and web publication Boston Broadside.

The case may be headed to federal court after attorneys representing Boston Broadside filed a request Sept. 14 to move the trial from to the First U.S. District Court in Boston because it deals with First Amendment issues, Universal Hub reported Wednesday.

Defamation claims against a media defendant constitute a federally based claim independent of the Massachusetts defamation common law claim and First Amendment implications in the case mean Louisa and his attorneys have a constitutional burden to show the falsity of each statement cited in Louisa’s claim, according to a copy of the venue change request filing.

Scroll down to read the entire document >>

Louisa v. Netflix, Boston Broadside, Et Al. - Venue Change Sept. 14, 2020

Full Article & Source:

Defamation lawsuit against Netflix linked to “Dirty Money” episode “Guardians, Inc.” which has a Massachusetts plot

Attention Advocates: Here is a Chance to Help!

Longtime NASGA member and lawyer Lisa Belanger’s near nine year battle to protect her Father, Marvin Siegel, from guardianship abuse took an extreme twisted turn.

At first, Lisa followed the normal channels, filing complaints (including racketeering) against attorney Marsha Kazarosin (from the law firm of Burns & Lewinson) through the MA Board of Bar Overseers (BBO).

But when those complaints fell on deaf ears, Lisa was forced to go public in a series of articles published by Boston Broadside. and several guest appearances on Marti Oakley's TS Radio Network.  Recently, Lisa appeared in the “Dirty Money” episode on NetFlix - which is seen all over the world. Dirty Money referenced Lisa’s Father’s case as she narrated the tragic and outrageous case of victim John Savanovitch.

Atty Kazarosin

Instead of investigating Lisa’s complaints against Atty. Kazarosin, the BB0 is coming for Lisa – to take her law license. (Note: Atty Kazarosin is on the Board of the BBO.)

With the coronavirus affecting courts, it’s possible the hearing to determine Lisa’s future might be held by phone rather than give her the opportunity to look her accusers in the eyes and deny the allegations made against her.

Lisa’s Father is now deceased, so you can’t help him. But you can help her by making a couple of calls to express your support of Lisa and your outrage about what is happening to her. Please also share this post.

*Call the BBO:
(617) 728-8700
Jeffrey R. Martin, Chair

*Call Governor Charlie Baker
(617) 725-4005

*Call the Supreme Justice Court
Justice Gazinao
(617) 557-1000

READ Marvin Siegel's case profile