[Hunter] Complaint FINAL · - 1 - COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTRODUCTION Gloria Allred is a famous, celebrity lawyer, prominent

- 1 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

INTRODUCTION

Gloria Allred is a famous, celebrity lawyer, prominent for using that celebrity to serve her

personal pocketbook and political agenda. Allred has spent her career more focused on winning press

conferences than winning cases. In this case, Allred sandbagged her client to serve her personal

pecuniary interests, her penchant for public fame, and to protect the malfeasance of her media allies.

Allred needs to spend less time in front of a TV camera, and more time in an ethics library.

Kyle Hunter, an award-winning journalist, broadcaster, and certified meteorologist, sought

Allred’s help in a serious discrimination suit against broadcast television behemoth CBS because

Allred held herself out as a defender of the little guy, an advocate for the disadvantaged, and Hunter

thought she was the perfect person to hold CBS accountable. Instead, Hunter got a press conference –

dragged onto the national stage, and then abandoned there, after Allred leverages her control of

Hunter’s case to secure a sweet deal for herself with CBS in her own TV show, and facilitated the

cover-up of CBS’s discriminatory employment practices, which furthered Allred’s agenda of preferring

only women-victim discrimination claims. Kyle would not see Allred again until she had botched his

suit and was in the process of trying to cover her tracks. As Allred negotiated in secret a TV deal for

herself with CBS during the Hunter lawsuit, the malpractice in her handling of the case led to a near-

seven-figure legal bill for Hunter, a sunk suit against CBS, and an impaired reputation for Hunter. After

being caught in this malfeasance by publicly reported news of pending state bar investigations, Allred

breached her duty of loyalty once again, by misleading the press about the reasons for her problematic

and ethically troubled conduct, and making false accusations against her former client, Hunter.

Independent of any state bar action, this suit seeks the only remedy a court alone can compel: recovery

of the more than $1,000,000 in damages already accrued.

Toward the tail end of the mangled debacle of Allred’s handling of Hunter’s suit, the news

disclosed the real reason for Allred’s peculiar mishandling and mangling of Hunter’s claim: headlines

proclaimed “GLORIA ALLRED PRODUCING CBS LEGAL DRAMA INSPIRED BY HER LIFE.” If

that legal drama was honest, it should be a House of Cards style production in the vein of Better Call

Saul about the slow, steady corruption of a lawyer for her self-serving political and pecuniary agenda at

- 2 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the expense of the client she promised to protect. Justice awaits.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Kyle C. Hunter (“Hunter”) is, and at all times relevant to this action was, an

individual residing in Los Angeles County, California.

2. Defendant Gloria Allred (“Allred”) is, and at all times relevant to this action was, an

individual residing in Los Angeles County, California, and a licensed California attorney.

3. Defendant Mike Maroko (“Maroko”) is, and at all times relevant to this action, was, an


4. Defendant John West (“West”) is, and at all times relevant to this action, was, an


5. Defendant Allred, Maroko & Goldberg, A Professional Law Corporation (“AM&G”) is,

and at all times relevant to this action was, a California corporation conducting business in California,

with its corporate headquarters and principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California.

6. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as

Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will

amend his complaint to allege the true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and

believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of the fictitiously named Defendants are responsible in

some manner for the occurrences as herein alleged, that Plaintiff’s losses as herein alleged were

proximately caused by such conduct, and that at least one of Does 1-10 is a licensed California

attorney.

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that each of the foregoing

defendants, including Doe defendants, was and is the agent, employee, employer, affiliate,

representative, alter ego, subsidiary, officer, director, manager, incorporator, member, shareholder,

and/or partners of one or more of the other defendants, and was, in performing the acts complained of

herein, acting within the scope of such agency or employment, or in the capacity of such other

relationship, or is in some other way responsible for the acts of one or more of the other defendants.

- 3 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this judicial district. Venue is proper pursuant to

California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) Sections 395, subdivision (a), and 395.5. Defendants are

all residents of and/or undertook the actions herein complained of within the County of Los Angeles,

State of California, and are within the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of service of process.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

9. In or around 2010, Plaintiff Hunter contacted Defendants with details of his

discrimination claims against the Los Angeles CBS stations, KCBS/KCAL. At this time, Hunter had

already lined up multiple key witnesses who were willing to testify on his behalf, but Defendants

expressed no interest in these witnesses.

10. In or around November of 2010, Hunter sent an email to Allred identifying multiple

witnesses, including those previously lined up, who could corroborate his claims against CBS.

11. On or around December 3, 2010, Hunter met with Defendant Maroko and offered him a

list identifying at least three witnesses who had already agreed to testify on Hunter’s behalf and

expressed his concern that their testimony be recorded as soon as possible.

12. On or around December 8, 2010, Plaintiff Hunter retained Defendants for the purpose of

drafting and sending a demand letter to CBS regarding his discrimination claims. Hunter again

expressed his belief that his three witnesses should be consulted as soon as possible and while they

were still available.

13. In or around February 2012, Plaintiff Hunter retained Defendants, including employee

Does 1-10, in writing to represent him in a lawsuit to be filed against CBS. Again, Hunter expressed his

concern that declarations should be obtained from his three witnesses while they still available and

offering.

14. On or around January 11, 2011, Hunter again met with Maroko and again urged him to

obtain the declarations of his three witnesses to possibly be included in the demand letter to be sent to

CBS. Maroko did not contact Hunter’s three witnesses.

- 4 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15. On or around January 19, 2011, Defendants sent their demand letter to CBS.

16. On or around January 19, 2012, Hunter spoke to Maroko and provided him with a list of

potential witnesses that Hunter believed should be contacted before the complaint against CBS was

filed. At no time relevant, did Maroko contact any witnesses.

17. On or around March 14, 2012, over one full year after Hunter had first asked Allred and

Maroko to contact his potential witnesses, and only one day before the deadline to file suit against

CBS, Defendant West asked Hunter to put him in contact with potential witness, Henry DiCarlo. Later

that same day, Hunter reached out to DiCarlo asking DiCarlo for his declaration. By that time, DiCarlo

was in the midst of negotiating a new contract with his employer and did not feel comfortable offering

his testimony without speaking to his employer’s legal department. DiCarlo was informed by his

employer’s legal department that he could give his testimony, but should only do so under a properly

subpoenaed deposition. As a result of Defendants’ yearlong delay in obtaining DiCarlo’s testimony,

they missed their opportunity to take DiCarlo’s voluntary declaration. Had they done so, DiCarlo would

have testified regarding how he was passed over for two top positions at CBS, how CBS was only

hiring pretty women for those positions, and how in his seven years of experience it was his opinion

that this discrimination was systemic –a necessary element in Hunter’s discrimination claim.

18. On or around March 15, 2012, the complaint against CBS was filed without any witness

testimony and generally lacking in substantiating the claims based on personal evidence Hunter

repetitively offered.

19. In or around March 2012, Defendant Allred went public with Hunter’s claims of

discrimination against CBS. She appeared in multiple television and radio interviews, and even

prepared her own press release materials. Unfortunately, following her press release, she would not

speak to Hunter directly for the next four years, until August 12, 2016.

20. On or around May 12, 2012, CBS filed a special motion to strike Hunter’s complaint

pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (the “anti-SLAPP motion”), which was submitted

with a declaration from Scott Diener, the vice president and news director of KCBS2 and KCAL9, and

someone whom Hunter had recommended Defendants contact on multiple prior occasions. Defendants

- 5 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

made no attempt to cross-examine Diener, something opposing counsel would point out at oral

argument. It was around this time that Defendants first informed Hunter that the anti-SLAPP motion

froze all discovery in his case.

21. On or around July 30, 2012, Hunter sent an email sent to Maroko and West wherein he

had prepared a lengthy response to Diener’s declaration in support of CBS’ anti-SLAPP motion, along

with testimony and witness statements that would disprove statements made in Diener’s declaration.

Throughout the month of July, Hunter would recommend his attorneys take the testimony of multiple

witnesses, including Henry DiCarlo, Jim Castillo, and Johnny Mountain, all key witnesses to Hunter’s

claims and all friends of Hunter who were willing to offer their testimony.

22. On or around August 8, 2012, Hunter sent an email to Maroko and West with transcripts

of interviews with DiCarlo and Castilo conducted by Hunter, who by this point was regularly compiling

evidence on his own initiative after his repeated attempts to have Defendants do so had failed.

23. On or around October 3, 2012, Maroko sent Hunter a letter informing him that the

Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Complaint was denied, and if an appeal was filed, the case would be

stayed until the appeal was heard. Around this time, Maroko and West continued to tell Hunter that no

discovery could be conducted including depositions because the anti-SLAPP statute froze all discovery.

24. On or around November 18, 2013, the Court of Appeal held that CBS’s selection of a

weather anchor qualified as a protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute and remanded the case to

the trial court to determine whether Hunter could demonstrate a reasonable probability of prevailing on

the merits of his claims.

25. On or around August 24, 2014, Hunter sent a letter to Allred, Maroko and West with a

request to challenge CBS’s license with the FCC. Allred, Maroko and West did not respond to that

letter, nor did they file anything with the FCC.

26. In or around August 2014, the trial court determined that Hunter’s claims demonstrated

a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits and again denied CBS’ anti-SLAPP motion. Shortly

thereafter, CBS again appealed the court’s order.

27. On or around August 31, 2015, after nearly two years of no contact, Maroko called

- 6 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Hunter to inform him that Allred and her associate were pitching a TV show “to all the TV networks,”

and that is was “not likely” to end up at CBS. Shockingly, in fact, the deal with CBS had been

completed before Maroko even called.

28. On or around September 1, 2015, the day after Maroko called Hunter and told him that

Allred’s TV show was being pitched to all the networks, headline pages of Variety, The Hollywood

Reporter, Deadline, and other media outlets proclaimed: “GLORIA ALLRED PRODUCING CBS

LEGAL DRAMA INSPIRED BY HER LIFE.”

29. On or around October 29, 2015, nearly two months after the breaking headlines

regarding Allred’s CBS deal, Maroko called Hunter and informed him that Allred had reached a deal

with CBS and that Hunter would need to sign off on it. Hunter believed he was given an offer he could

not refuse. Three years of litigation against one of the most prominent employers in Hunter’s profession

had left him jobless and broke. He reasonably believed, if he refused Maroko’s offer, Allred’s firm

would drop him as a client and he would not be able to afford a new attorney. Hunter reluctantly

acquiesced, and a few days later, Maroko sent him a letter memorializing their phone conversation

wherein he erroneously stated that he first informed Hunter of the TV show on August 27, as opposed

to the actual date of August 31, 2015. Hunter believes this mistake was a deliberate attempt on

Maroko’s part to make it appear as if Maroko had told Hunter of the TV show a few days before the

headlines broke, as opposed to the day before, as it actually occurred.

30. On or around January 19, 2016, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s conclusion

that Hunter demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits of his claims. The Court of Appeals

found that Hunter failed to present evidence that would permit a reasonable trier of fact to infer that

CBS’s stated reason for its hiring decision was a pretext for illegal discrimination. The court

specifically stated that Hunter did not provide affidavits or declarations from any of the candidates that

were also not chosen for primetime anchor positions –an option that was always available under the

anti-SLAPP law, despite Defendants’ insistence that it was not. This was the exact result Hunter

repeatedly tried to avoid by pleading with his attorneys to take depositions and obtain declarations in

the first place—something they refused to do at every turn.

- 7 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

31. On or around July 11, 2016, the trial court issued an order granting CBS’s Motion to

Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to CCP §425.15 and entered judgment in favor of CBS, including

recovery of costs and attorney’s fees. Around this time, Defendants informed Hunter that CBS would

likely seek recovery of around $800,000, and Hunter informed them that he would not be able to pay

and would likely seek bankruptcy.

32. In or around the summer of 2016, Hunter contacted a lawyer regarding personal

bankruptcy due to the CBS judgment. After reviewing his case, the bankruptcy attorney informed

Hunter that Defendants had botched his case and that he should not be held responsible for their

malpractice. The attorney revealed that California’s Anti-SLAPP law, CCP 425.16(g), actually allowed

for discovery to be made upon motion, and that these motions were rarely ever denied. Hunter

contacted more attorneys, and every single one collaborated the bankruptcy attorney’s claims that

Hunter had been the victim of malpractice. Upon being told of Allred’s deal with CBS, every attorney

Hunter consulted recommend he immediately report her to the State Bar.

33. On or around July 25, 2016, after having been informed of the extent to which

Defendants had botched his case, Hunter drafted and sent a letter of complaint, with supporting

exhibits, to the Defendants. Defendants still represented Hunter at this time.

34. On or around August 4, 2016, Maroko called Hunter and was incredibly friendly and

complimentary. When Hunter informed Maroko that the Defendants had botched his case, Maroko’s

tone became very serious. Maroko then set a meeting time of August 12, 2016. When Hunter asked if

he should bring an attorney, Maroko responded “…there’s no need to involve anyone else in this.”

35. On August 12, 2016, Hunter met with Maroko and Allred to discuss his claims against

them and the next steps of his case. Allred explained to Hunter that he should feel like a “winner”

because the trial court ruled in his favor. When Hunter responded that losing his case, career, income,

healthcare, reputation, and having case law in his name that was adverse to every journalist and

broadcaster in California did not make him feel like a “winner”, Allred offered no response. Hunter

also asked why none of his witnesses were deposed, or even asked for declarations. Maroko and Allred

responded that none of the witnesses answered their emails or phone calls, but Hunter knew that was a

- 8 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

lie. These witnesses were Hunter’s friends, people he had worked with for years, and they told him they

were not contacted. When asked to provide any evidence that they had reached out to witnesses, any

telephone numbers or emails, Allred and Maroko became silent. Eventually the conversation shifted to

Hunter’s claims against the Defendants. Allred and Maroko proposed that they would negotiate a token

settlement with CBS based on Hunter’s inability to pay the judgment, and then after that matter was

settled, they promised to negotiate a settlement with Hunter. Hunter, despite not wanting to settle with

CBS out of principle, agreed to this arrangement so long as he had the final say on any agreement with

CBS, which he demanded out of fear that the Defendants, upon settling with CBS, would renege on

their promise to settle with him.

36. On or around August 18, 2016, Maroko called Hunter to inform him of negotiation talks

with CBS and requested that Hunter send him an email with the following specific language: “based on

what you’ve told me today, accept this as my permission to settle CBS’ judgment against me in the

range discussed for both fees and costs.” Hunter suspected this was a trick to get his authority without

showing him the agreement, but he agreed only after reiterating that his written authorization was

required.

37. On or around September 21, 2016, Hunter’s fears were confirmed when Maroko emailed

Hunter to inform him that he had settled with CBS using Hunter’s email sent on August 18, 2016, as

authority to do so. Hunter had not been shown the agreement, any negotiations, or given any

information about the deal whatsoever. Hunter immediately responded to Maroko via email to reiterate

that he had only gave Maroko permission to negotiate within a possible range, but had not given

Maroko the right to settle on his behalf.

38. On or around September 23, 2016, Maroko responded via email to Hunter’s assertion

that he had not given him full authority to settle by citing the email Maroko had Hunter write on

August 18, 2016. It was at this time that Hunter realized Maroko never intended to honor their verbal

agreement that Hunter would retain final settlement authority. Likewise, Hunter’s suspicion that

Defendants would not honor their promise to settle his claims with them once CBS was out of the

picture was proven true. Suddenly Defendants went from promising to settle Hunter’s claims against

- 9 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

them in good faith to informing him unsympathetically that their carrier would “communicate with you

if it decides to do so” (emphasis added).

39. Hunter reasonably relied on Allred, Maroko, West, AM&G and Does 1-10’s legal

advice and counsel at all times leading up to his suspicions that arose in early 2016. Such reliance was a

substantial factor in preventing and delaying Hunter’s discovery of the bad acts as well as both causing

and compounding their harm.

40. On or around March 31, 2017, LawNewz.com published a report claiming that Allred

was under investigation by the State Bar of California for possible misconduct. In response, Allred

issued a statement to The Hollywood Reporter that read “Someone has attempted to shake me down by

threatening to report me to the State Bar unless I paid him a large sum of money. I have refused to pay

this individual any amount of money. I will not be threatened or bullied by false accusations.” The

Hollywood Reporter article immediately follows Allred’s statement with one by Hunter and goes on to

describe the details of Hunter’s suit against CBS. By the time Allred issued her statement, numerous

reports had already surfaced which had named Hunter as the source of the bar complaint –there was no

confusion as to who Allred was speaking about. Further, Ashley Cullins, a journalist for The

Hollywood Reporter, immediately called Hunter after speaking with Allred. This leads Hunter to

believe that Allred mentioned him by name to The Hollywood Reporter. Hunter further believes Allred

spoke to The Hollywood Reporter specifically because it is a popular publication amongst those in the

entertainment industry in Los Angeles.

41. Defendants’ conduct as described herein has caused Hunter to suffer ongoing anxiety,

stress, anger, weight loss, and depression.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

LEGAL MALPRACTICE

42. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in the

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

43. At all times relevant herein, Hunter had an executed retainer agreement with Defendants

Allred, Maroko, West, and AM&G, and all Defendants thereby formed an attorney-client relationship

- 10 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

with Hunter and at all relevant times alleged herein were providing legal advice to Hunter.

44. Defendants Allred, Maroko, West, AM&G, and Does 1-10, and each of them, had a duty

to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as members of the legal profession commonly possess and

exercise, in providing legal services to Hunter herein, as required by law, including but not limited to

the standards set forth by the California Rules of Professional Conduct (“CRPC”).

45. During the course of Allred, Maroko, West, AM&G, and Does 1-10’s representation of

Hunter, there were several instances during which said defendants breached the requisite standard of

care, constituting malpractice:

a. Failure to conduct sufficient discovery – For over a year, Hunter repeatedly requested

that his attorneys contact potential witnesses to strengthen his case against CBS. Rather

than contact them promptly, West waited until the day before the deadline to file the

lawsuit, and the potential witness was unavailable. Further, the attorneys continued to

ignore Hunter’s repeated requests that they contact witnesses throughout the time the

anti-SLAPP motion was pending, lied to Hunter when they said discovery was frozen

while the anti-SLAPP was pending, then lied to Hunter claiming the witnesses would

not respond to requests for communication. These potential witnesses would have

testified directly in support of Hunter’s discrimination claims against CBS and their

testimony would have changed the outcome of CBS’ anti-SLAPP motion, as the Court

of Appeals judge who heard the motion plainly stated;

b. Conflicts of interest and adverse representation in violation of CRPC Rules 3-300 and/or

3-310—While representing Hunter in his case against CBS, Allred was negotiating with

CBS to develop a television show based on her life. Rather than fully disclosing this to

Hunter, Maroko informed Hunter on August 31, 2015 that Allred was presenting the

proposed television series to many networks, including CBS, but that it was unlikely to

end up at CBS. On the next day, September 1, 2015, it was announced in the news that

Allred’s television show was going to be produced by CBS. Further, Maroko’s letter

memorializing their conversation regarding the possibility of Allred’s relationship with

- 11 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CBS intentionally misrepresented the date Maroko first informed Hunter of the

relationship as being August 27, 2015, so as to create the false impression that more

days had passed between the time Hunter was informed and the time the deal was

revealed in the press;

c. Lack of communication in violation of CRPC Rules 3-300 and 3-500—Allred, Maroko

and West did not disclose or seek informed consent from Hunter in a timely matter when

they were aware of Allred’s negotiations with CBS, and any resulting financial and

personal benefits that would result from that potential relationship. Maroko waited until

the production deal between Allred and CBS was complete, then mentioned to Hunter

that there was a chance a relationship could be formed between Allred and CBS.

Maroko also told Hunter that if Hunter did not waive the potential conflict of interest,

AM&G would no longer represent Hunter in his lawsuit against CBS. Further, Maroko

engaged in settlement discussion with CBS with Hunter’s permission and although he

knew that Hunter wanted final authority to sign-off on any deal with CBS, Maroko

mislead Hunter to state in writing that Maroko had authority to settle so that Maroko

could finish negotiations with CBS without disclosing the full agreement to Hunter.

46. Hunter suffered financial and reputational harm, and emotional distress by the actions

and/or omissions in violation of the CRPC and breach of requisite standards of care of Allred, Maroko,

West, AM&G, and Does 1-10, and each of them, as set forth herein.

47. AM&G is vicariously liable for the harm caused to Hunter as alleged herein by the

actions of Allred, Maroko, West and Does 1-10 because AM&G benefitted from those actions, which

were committed with the course and scope of Allred, Maroko, West and Does 1-10’s employment with

AM&G.

48. Allred, Maroko, West, AM&G, and Does 1-10’s actions and/or omissions were a

substantial factor in causing Hunter’s harm.

49. Hunter has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial as a result of the actions

and/or omissions of Allred, Maroko, West AM&G, and Does 1-10.

- 12 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

50. Furthermore, Allred, Maroko, West AM&G, and Does 1-10’s actions and omissions

constituting malpractice were committed with malice, fraud and oppression, thereby entitling Plaintiff

to an award of punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES

51. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each allegation contained in the



Allred, Maroko, West and Allred, Maroko & Goldberg, and all Defendants thereby formed an attorney-

client relationship with Hunter and at all relevant times alleged herein were providing legal advice to

Hunter.

53. By virtue of the attorney-client relationship between Defendants and Hunter,

Defendants, and all of them, owed Hunter a fiduciary duty of the highest order as a matter of law,

including but not limited to the duties: of undivided loyalty, diligence, good faith and confidentiality; to

act in compliance with the CRPCs and other rules of the California State Bar; and to act in compliance

with the standards set forth by statute and the common law principles relating to fiduciary relationships,

among other fiduciary duties.

54. Under California’s Rules of Professional Conduct, Allred, Maroko, West and Does 1-10,

individually and as agents of AM&G, owed Hunter the following duties:

a. Loyalty, under CRPC, 3-300, and/or 3-310—Avoiding conflicts of interest and

obtaining Hunter’s informed written consent of any conflicts, placing Hunter’s interests

ahead of their own and acting in Hunter’s best interests, and refraining from acts of self-

dealing and obtaining Hunter’s informed written consent for transactions that confer a

self-benefit;

b. Competency, under CRPC 3-110 –Duty to not intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly

fail to perform their legal services with competence.

- 13 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c. Communication, under CRPC 3-500—Informing Hunter of all important facts relevant

herein while ensuring Hunter understood those facts and the consequences, and keeping

Hunter informed.

55. Allred, Maroko, West, AM&G and Does 1-10 each breached their fiduciary duties by: Failure to follow client instructions – For over a year, Hunter repeatedly requested that

his attorneys contact potential witnesses to strengthen his case against CBS. Rather than

contact them promptly, West waited until the day before the deadline to file the lawsuit,

and the potential witness was unavailable. Further, the attorneys failed to contact the

other witnesses, then lied to Hunter claiming the witnesses would not respond to

requests for communication;

Conflicts of interest and adverse representation in violation of CRPC Rules 3-300 and/or

3-310—While representing Hunter in his case against CBS, Allred was negotiating with

CBS to develop a television show based on her life. Rather than fully disclosing this to

Hunter, Maroko informed Hunter on August 31, 2015 that Allred was presenting the

proposed television series to many networks, including CBS. On September 21, 2015, it

was announced in the news that Allred’s television show was going to be produced by

CBS. Further, Maroko’s letter memorializing their conversation regarding the

possibility of Allred’s relationship with CBS contained misstatements including an

earlier date (August 27, 2015) and false informed consent to Allred’s production deal

with CBS, for the clear purpose of attempting to mislead Hunter;

Lack of communication in violation of CRPC Rule 3-500—Allred, Maroko and West

did not disclose or seek informed consent from Hunter in a timely matter when they

were aware of Allred’s negotiations with CBS, and any resulting financial and personal

benefits that would result from that potential relationship. Maroko waited until the

- 14 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

production deal between Allred and CBS was complete, then mentioned to Hunter that

there was a chance a relationship could be formed between Allred and CBS. Maroko

also told Hunter that if Hunter did not waive the potential conflict of interest, AM&G

would no longer represent Hunter in his lawsuit against CBS. Further, Maroko engaged

in settlement discussion with CBS with Hunter’s permission and although he knew that

Hunter wanted final authority to sign-off on any deal with CBS, Maroko mislead Hunter

to state in writing that Maroko had authority to settle so that Maroko could finish

negotiations with CBS without disclosing the full agreement to Hunter.


actions of Allred, Maroko, West and Does 1-10 because AM&G benefitted from those actions, which

were committed with the course and scope of Allred, Maroko, West and Does 1-10’s employment with

AM&G.

57. Allred, Maroko, West and AM&G’s actions and/or omissions were a substantial factor

in causing Hunter’s harm.

58. Hunter has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial as a result of the actions

and/or omissions of Allred, Maroko, West, AM&G, and Does 1-10.

59. Furthermore, Allred, Maroko, West, AM&G and Does 1-10’s actions and omissions

constituting breach of fiduciary duties were committed with malice, fraud and oppression, thereby

entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

FRAUD BY INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION




Allred, Maroko, West and Allred, Maroko & Goldberg, and all Defendants were providing legal advice

- 15 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to Hunter. Accordingly, Allred, Maroko and West owed a duty to Hunter to provide him with accurate

information about his legal representation and potential conflicts of interest under the CRPC, Rules 3-

110, 3-300, 3-310, and/or 3-500.

62. Allred, Maroko and West made materially false representations intended to induce

reliance thereupon by Hunter, including, but not limited to, misstating that Allred potentially would

have a financial interest in CBS rather than disclosing that Allred had already completed that process of

negotiating a production deal for herself.

63. Maroko made these representations to Hunter, his client, knowing them to be false, and

intending to induce Hunter’s reliance upon them. That Maroko intended that Hunter rely on the

representations is evidenced by the fact that Maroko backdated a letter and falsified the information

within it to actively conceal information that would lead Hunter to discover the misrepresentations,

such as, inter alia, concealing that Allred was working against her client’s interest with CBS by


64. As a result of her negotiations with CBS, Allred, Maroko and West did not act in the

best interest of their client, and were negligent in his representation, leading to the defeat of his legal

claims. Allred, Maroko and West were negligent in their handling of Hunter’s affairs, resulting in loss

of a meritorious claim.

65. Hunter was harmed as a result of Allred, Maroko and West’s actions as described herein,

and Hunter’s reliance on Allred, Maroko and West’s representations was a substantial factor in causing

his harm because he continued to believe they were acting in his best interest while they were engaging

in their own self-interests, and because Allred, Maroko and West were licensed attorneys in the State of

California with duties to their clients under the CRPC.

66. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Hunter suffered real and calculable

damages from this fraud, including, but not limited to loss of employment and compensatory damages,

in an amount to be proven at trial.


actions of Allred, Maroko and West because AM&G benefitted from those actions, which were

- 16 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

committed with the course and scope of Allred, Maroko, and West’s employment with AM&G.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 68. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in the



Allred, Maroko, West and Allred, Maroko & Goldberg, and all Defendants were providing legal advice

to Hunter. Accordingly, Allred, Maroko and West owed a duty to Hunter to provide him with accurate

information about his legal representation and potential conflicts of interest under the CRPC, Rules 3-

110, 3-300, 3-310, and/or 3-500.

70. Allred, Maroko and West made materially false representations intended to induce

reliance thereupon by Hunter, including, but not limited to, misstating that Allred potentially would

have a financial interest in CBS rather than disclosing that Allred had already completed that process of


71. Although Maroko may have honestly believed that the representations were true, he had

no reason to believe the representations were true when he made them because he and his partner were

actively involved and had financial interests in CBS and were aware that Hunter was in the midst of a

legal battle with CBS.

72. Maroko made these representations to Hunter, his client, knowing them to be false, and

intending to induce Hunter’s reliance upon them. Maroko intended that Hunter rely on the

representations is evidenced by the fact that Maroko backdated a letter and falsified the information

within it to actively conceal information that would lead Hunter to discover the misrepresentations,

such as, inter alia, concealing that Allred was working against her client’s interest with CBS by


73. As a result of her negotiations with CBS, Allred, Maroko and West did not act in the

best interest of their client, and were negligent in his representation, leading to the defeat of his legal

- 17 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

claims. Allred, Maroko and West were negligent in their investigation and conduct of Hunter’s affairs,

resulting in loss of a meritorious claim. Allred, Maroko and West did not interview potential witnesses,

nor did they provide affidavits or declarations in support of their client’s claims.

74. Hunter was harmed as a result of Allred, Maroko and West’s actions as described herein,

and Hunter’s reliance on Allred, Maroko and West’s representations was a substantial factor in causing

his harm because he continued to believe they were acting in his best interest while they were engaging

in their own self-interests, and because Allred, Maroko and West were licensed attorneys in the State of

California with duties to their clients under the CRPC.

75. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Hunter suffered real and calculable

damages from this fraud, including, but not limited to loss of employment and compensatory damages,

in an amount to be proven at trial.




FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS



78. Allred, Maroko and West committed outrageous conduct in negotiating a production

deal with CBS in their self-interest while representing Hunter in his lawsuit against CBS. This conduct

was especially outrageous as Allred created publicity surrounding the claims against CBS, then

disappeared at Hunter’s attorney while Maroko and West were negligent in their handling of Hunter’s

case.

79. Allred, Maroko and West intended to cause Hunter emotional distress, as shown by their

repeated mishandling of his case and lack of ongoing communication during a difficult and stressful

time. The fact that Hunter’s name is now tied to case law that will chill claims of discrimination has

- 18 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

caused him great anguish. Similarly, as a result of his lost case, it is impossible for him to find work in

the area for which he is trained.

80. The emotional distress has physically manifested in the form of otherwise unexplainable

weight loss and stress.

81. Allred, Maroko and West, and Hunter were engaged in a fiduciary relationship, and as a

result, Allred, Maroko and West knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, prudence and diligence,

should have known, that his conduct, as alleged herein, would cause Hunter to suffer humiliation,

mental anguish, and emotional distress.

82. Hunter suffered, and continues to suffer, serious emotional distress, including ongoing

anxiety, stress, anger, health issues and depression, as a result of Allred, Maroko and West’s wrongful

conduct.

83. Allred, Maroko and West’s malfeasance and nonfeasance were substantial factors in

causing Hunter to suffer serious emotional distress and mental suffering in that without Allred, Maroko,

and West’s actions, Hunter would not be suffering the distress, and Hunter will continue to suffer great

emotional and mental pain and suffering as a result of such conduct.

84. As a proximate result of Allred, Maroko, and West’s negligence, malfeasance,

nonfeasance, negligent performance of duties, and failure to perform in a skillful, diligent, responsible

manner, in concert with the breach of fiduciary duties associated with the legal representation of

Hunter, including the intentional infliction of emotional distress, Hunter has suffered damages in an

amount to be proven at trial.


actions of Allred, Maroko and West, because AM&G benefitted from those actions, which were


SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS


- 19 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


87. Allred, Maroko and West committed outrageous conduct in negotiating a production

deal with CBS in their self-interest while representing Hunter in his lawsuit against CBS. This conduct

was especially outrageous as Allred created publicity surrounding the claims against CBS, then

disappeared at Hunter’s attorney while Maroko and West were negligent in their handling of Hunter’s

case.

88. Allred, Maroko and West were negligent in their representation of Hunter as shown by

their failure to properly investigate Hunter’s claims, failure to supply evidentiary support for his claims

during trial, and their lack of ongoing communication during a difficult and stressful time. The fact

that Hunter’s name is now tied to case law that will chill claims of discrimination has caused him great

anguish. Similarly, as a result of his lost case, it is impossible for him to find work in the area for

which he is trained.

89. The emotional distress has physically manifested in the form of otherwise unexplainable

weight loss and stress.

90. Allred, Maroko and West, and Hunter were engaged in a fiduciary relationship, and as a

result, Allred, Maroko and West knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, prudence and diligence,

should have known, that his conduct, as alleged herein, would cause Hunter to suffer humiliation,

mental anguish, and emotional distress.

91. Hunter suffered, and continues to suffer, serious emotional distress, including ongoing

anxiety, stress, anger, health issues and depression, as a result of Allred, Maroko and West’s wrongful

conduct.

92. Allred, Maroko and West’s malfeasance and nonfeasance were substantial factors in

causing Hunter to suffer serious emotional distress and mental suffering in that without Allred, Maroko

and West’s actions, Hunter would not be suffering the distress, and Hunter will continue to suffer great

emotional and mental pain and suffering as a result of such conduct.

93. As a proximate result of Allred, Maroko, and West’s negligence, malfeasance,

nonfeasance, negligent performance of duties, and failure to perform in a skillful, diligent, responsible

- 20 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

manner, in concert with the breach of fiduciary duties associated with the legal representation of

Hunter, including the intentional infliction of emotional distress, Hunter has suffered damages in an

amount to be proven at trial.




PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff Kyle C. Hunter respectfully pray for judgment as follows:

A. For general and special damages plus interest, including prejudgment interest, in an

amount to be determined by proof at trial;

B. For other economic and compensatory damages, in an amount to be determined by proof

at trial;

C. For punitive and exemplary damages as permitted;

D. For injunctive relief to the extent permitted by law;

E. For interest as allowed by law;

F. For costs of suit incurred herein;

G. For reasonable attorney’s fees; and

H. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

DATED: June 6, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

BARNES LAW

_________________________ Robert E. Barnes, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff Kyle C. Hunter

Documents

[Hunter] Complaint FINAL · - 1 - COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTRODUCTION Gloria Allred is a famous, celebrity lawyer, prominent