Halle Berry and Gabriel Aubry have recently split, and the topic of custody for their daughter, Nahla, is becoming a heated issue. Since the split, Halle has kept Aubry to limited visits with his daughter, which has pushed him to recently begin exploring his legal options in the Los Angeles area.

This summer, Halle begins filming a movie in Africa which will keep her there permanently for three months, and she wants to take Nahla with her. This would mean Aubry being unable to see his young daughter for an extended period of time, which he refuses to let happen. Things got very heated, but no progress was made for either party as they hit a tumultuous stalemate, during which both began to contemplate a legal battle.

Gabriel Aubry was looking into his options of obtaining full custody of Nahla, a move which Halle recently countered by offering a kind of solution. Halle offered Aubry to stay in her rental home with her and Nahla for their three months in Africa as Nahla’s primary nanny. Halle will even pay Aubry as though he were a hired caregiver. If the two cannot get along for the sake of their daughter, then Halle also agreed to rent Aubry a house nearby, so that he can stay in the area to remain Nahla’s nanny.

This is a very unusual solution, but one that is certainly in the best interest of their daughter. If things do not workout well for the ex-couple in Africa, they might soon be seeking the aid of divorce lawyers. For more information concerning separations and divorce proceedings, refer to experienced Newport Beach divorce lawyers. Hopefully, Halle and Aubry’s solution will work, and the two will not be reaching out for legal aid any time soon.

Lorrie Morgan filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in federal court in Nashville, TN,  in October of 2008. At the time, Morgan released a statement calling the bankruptcy “an unfortunate yet necessary part of the restructuring of my business.” She must have had excellent Nashville bankruptcy attorneys, because she was right. Since filing for bankruptcy, Morgan has released a new album with a hit on the top 100 country charts, has a DVD of her recording sessions to be released for fans, is with the growing independent record label Country Crossing Records,  and is a member of the Broadway production of Pure Country. Lorrie Morgan shows how sometimes filing for bankruptcy can be a good thing.

“The Biggest Loser” star and renown personal trainer, Jillian Michaels is facing a class action lawsuit in Los Angeles. According to documents filed in L.A. County Superior Court, her new dietary supplement, “Jillian Michaels Maximum Strength Calorie Control” is “worthless” and “a terrible ‘deception’ to the general public.” In her own defense, Jillian Michaels has released the following statement: “Unfortunately, anyone can file a lawsuit in California. All it takes is a $355 filing fee. That research was reviewed by some of the leading weight-loss experts in the world before Jillian would put her name on the product. The lawsuit is asking for “an injunction to prohibit the sale of the product, plus damages.”

Author John Grisham remains an Innocent Man -  Oklahoma Insurance Lawyer, Jody Nathan

The 10th Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against John Grisham and others for the book, The Innocent Man. The book details the wrongful conviction of Williamson and Fritz for the rape and murder of Debra Sue Carter. Both men were later exonerated after spending over a decade in jail.

(OK, “this isn’t an insurance case, but I found it interesting”)

The plaintiffs were Oklahoma District Attorney William Peterson; former Shawnee police officer Gary Rogers; and former Oklahoma state criminologist Melvin Hett each of whom played a role in the investigation or prosecution and conviction of Williamson and Fritz. The book did not portray these folks in a positive light, so they sued Grisham and others, claiming defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and false light invasion of privacy. The district court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim and the Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding that since the plaintiffs were public officials, any statements critical of them were privileged, so long as there was no accusation of criminal activity.

Because no special damages were claimed, the plaintiffs had to allege libel per se; but 12 OS § 1443.1 applied because the plaintiffs were public officers and states that “[a]ny and all criticisms upon the official acts of any and all public officers” are privileged and cannot be considered libelous, unless a defendant makes a false allegation that the official engaged in criminal behavior. To fall into this category, “the words alleged to have been spoken of the plaintiff, when taken in their plainest and most natural sense, and as they would be ordinarily understood, [must] obviously import the commission of crime punishable by indictment.”

The court states:

Plaintiffs point to no statement in which defendants directly accuse any plaintiff of a crime.

Plaintiffs expect us to scale a mountain of inferences in order to reach the conclusion that defendants’ statements impute criminal acts to plaintiffs and render the statutory privilege of § 1443.1 inapplicable. We decline to engage in such inferential analysis, or to take a myriad of other analytical leaps plaintiffs ask us to make. Any connection between defendants’ statements and an accusation of criminal activity is far too tenuous for us to declare them as unprivileged for purposes of § 1443.1.

Since the statements were privileged for defamation purposes, the court found them privileged for claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and for false light invasion of privacy.

See, Peterson v. Grisham

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Tulsa insurance lawyer, Jody R. Nathan received a Juris Doctor degree with honors from the University of Oklahoma College of Law, where she was also a member of the Oklahoma Law Review. During law school, she clerked for the Oklahoma Supreme Court.   Jody has extensive experience in both federal and state appeals, has an active motion practice and is AV rated. Attorney Nathan is admitted to practice in all federal and state courts in Oklahoma, as well as the Eighth and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeal and the United States Supreme Court. She has served as a judge on the Oklahoma Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals.