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

1

COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 1901384

ANDREW BAUM - State Bar No. 190397 abaum@glaserweil.com JESSE B. LEVIN - State Bar No. 268047 jlevin@glaserweil.com GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP 10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-3000 Facsimile: (310) 556-2920 Attorneys for Plaintiff Bryan Callen

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

BRYAN CALLEN, an Individual, Plaintiff, v. GABRIEL TIGERMAN, an Individual, and DOES 1-10, Defendants.

Case No. Unlimited Jurisdiction COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Bryan Callen alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This lawsuit arises from Defendant Gabriel Tigerman’s ongoing campaign to destroy

the livelihood of actor and stand-up comic Bryan Callen through threats, harassment, and

intimidation of third parties that dare contract with him. Driven by the false allegation that

Mr. Callen assaulted his wife over 20 years ago, Mr. Tigerman has sent and continues to send

Mr. Callen’s representatives and others direct demands that they cease doing business with him, or

else be falsely branded as supporters of sexual assault.

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/23/2020 10:50 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by N. Alvarez,Deputy Clerk

Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Monica Bachner

20STCV36391

Deadline

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

2

COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 1901384

2. As a direct result of Mr. Tigerman’s vengeful interference, Mr. Callen’s agents

dropped him and comedy clubs have cancelled contracts to perform. This is illegal, wrong, and

without regard for due process.

3. By this Complaint, Mr. Callen simply seeks to preserve his ability to work and earn a

living.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Bryan Callen is an entertainer who makes his living as a film and television

actor, writer, podcaster, and a stand-up comic. He resides in the County of Los Angeles.

5. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Gabriel Tigerman is an

individual residing in the County of Los Angeles.

6. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that each of the fictitiously named Doe

Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Callen’s

damages as herein alleged were actually and proximately caused by their conduct.

7. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that at all material times, each

Defendant was the agent, servant, authorized representative, predecessor, successor, co-conspirator,

employer and/or employee of each other, and in doing the things and acts alleged in this Complaint,

was acting within the course and scope of said relationship(s); and further, that each Defendant has

authorized, approved, ratified and/or endorsed the acts of each remaining Defendant. Further, each

of the Defendants was a partner, or was engaged in a joint venture with one or more of the remaining

Defendants, and was acting within the scope and purpose of said partnership or joint venture. Each

Defendant has ratified each and every act of each other Cross-Defendant pertinent to said partnership

or joint venture.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. The events or occurrences giving rise to the claims alleged in the Complaint took

place in the County of Los Angeles.

9. Pursuant to Article VI, Section 10 of the California Constitution and § 410.10 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, subject matter jurisdiction is proper in the Superior Court of California for

the County of Los Angeles.

Deadline

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

3

COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 1901384

10. Pursuant to § 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure, venue is proper in the Superior

Court for the County of Los Angeles.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

11. Plaintiff Bryan Callen is a well-known actor and comedian, who got his first break as

part of original cast of the hit late-night show, MADtv in 1995. In the years since, he has regularly

appeared in film and television and toured as a stand-up comic.

12. To perform as a stand-up comic, Plaintiff Bryan Callen contracts with various comedy

club venues and live theater chains across the country. The identity of these venues is public

knowledge because Mr. Callen publishes his tour schedule on his website, BryanCallen.com.

13. To procure work as a stand-up comic, Mr. Callen contracted with Creative Artists

Agency (“CAA”).

14. To procure acting roles, Mr. Callen contracted with Innovative Artists Talent and

Literary Agency, Inc. (“Innovative Artists”).

15. At all relevant times, Mr. Callen’s representation was public knowledge. Anyone,

including Defendant, could find his agents’ contact information at CAA and Innovative Artists on

numerous websites via a simple Google search.

16. On July 31, 2020, the Los Angeles Times published an article wherein Katherine Fiore

Tigerman accused Mr. Callen of raping her 21 years ago. Defendant Gabriel Tigerman is married to

Katherine Fiore Tigerman.

17. Mr. Callen never assaulted Mrs. Tigerman. All of the allegations of Mr. Callen’s

misconduct published in the LA Times are false. And Mr. Callen has publicly denied them.

18. Moreover, Mr. Callen has never been charged with nor convicted of sexual assault.

19. Twenty days after the publication of LA Times article, Defendant Gabriel Tigerman

sent Mr. Callen’s representatives a demand that they drop Mr. Callen as a client. In particular, on

August 20, 2020, Mr. Tigerman sent an email to CAA stating:

“My name is Gabriel Tigerman. I am sure you are aware of the heavily vetted rape and sexual assault allegations against your client, Bryan Callen, detailed on the front page of the LA Times a few weeks ago. Four women came forward for this article. My wife, Katherine Fiore Tigerman, is one of them. Bryan Callen raped her twenty years ago. I know CAA dropped Bryan’s close friend and partner, Chris D’Elia, when

Deadline

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

4

COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 1901384

the LA Times reported of his sexual predation. I can only assume his representatives knew that, by continuing to represent D’Elia, they would be standing with abusers and would be sending the message to victims that this behavior is okay. I am writing to find out what the status is with Callen at CAA. Do you and CAA still represent this serial sexual predator? I hope the answer is no.

(Emphasis added).

20. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Gabriel Tigerman sent this email

or one like it to Innovative Artists on or around the same day.

21. As a result, one day after receiving Mr. Tigerman’s email, both CAA and Innovative

Artists quit representing Mr. Callen, and refused to continue to procure him acting and comedy work

pursuant to contract.

22. The loss of Mr. Callen’s representation contracts forecloses the possibility of future

acting and performance jobs that only a licensed talent agency can procure on his behalf. The

resulting loss of future earnings to Mr. Callen is immense.

23. Gabriel Tigerman continues to communicate similar harassing and threatening

messages to other parties with whom Mr. Callen has contracted or has a business relationship.

24. For instance, in September 2020, Mr. Tigerman called and wrote various comedy

venues with whom Mr. Callen was contracted to perform in October and November, including

Bricktown Comedy Club in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Skyline Comedy Club in Appleton,

Wisconsin. Mr. Tigerman told these venues that by not cancelling their contracts with Mr. Callen,

they were sending the message that they support sexual abusers and do not believe victims of sexual

assault.

25. Following Mr. Tigerman’s communications, the Bricktown Comedy Club and

Skyline Comedy Club cancelled Mr. Callen’s contracts to perform at their venues.

26. In sum, Mr. Tigerman has engaged in a relentless campaign of economic interference

against Mr. Callen as revenge for something Mr. Callen did not do. Mr. Tigerman’s apparent

objective is to have Mr. Callen blacklisted, destitute, never to work again.

27. The direct impact has been nothing short of devastating to Mr. Callen personally and

financially.

28. Mr. Callen’s growing damages are well in excess of the jurisdictional requirement of

Deadline

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

5

COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 1901384

this Court.

29. By this Complaint, Mr. Callen seeks to halt Mr. Tigerman’s misconduct and be made

whole for the undue harm it has inflicted on his entertainment career.

CAUSE OF ACTION

(Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations)

(Against All Defendants)

30. Plaintiff Bryan Callen refers to and incorporates by reference all of the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 29, as if fully restated herein.

31. There were contracts between Mr. Callen and the following entities:

a. Creative Arts Agency;

b. Innovative Artists Talent and Literary Agency, Inc.;

c. Bricktown Comedy Club; and

d. Skyline Comedy Club.

32. Defendants knew of these contracts.

33. Defendants’ conduct prevented performance or made performance more difficult for

each of these contracts.

34. By, among other things, communicating demands that the third parties stop

contracting with Mr. Callen, sending harassing and intimidating messages, and threatening to

publicly brand the third parties as supporting perpetrators of sexual assault, Defendants intended to

disrupt the performance of these contracts or knew that disruption of performance was certain or

substantially certain to occur.

35. Plaintiff Bryan Callen was harmed.

36. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Callen’s harm.

37. Mr. Callen has suffered, and will suffer in the future, damages in an amount to be

proven at trial.

38. Defendants’ conduct, as set forth above, was and is willful, malicious, fraudulent,

oppressive, outrageous, and committed with the conscious and reckless disregard to the

consequences, thus justifying punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants in an amount

Deadline

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

6

COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 1901384

sufficient to punish Defendants for the severity of their conduct.

PRAYER

1. For actual damages according to proof at trial;

2. For pre-judgment interest on all such damages at the legal rate;

3. For punitive damages according to proof at trial in an amount sufficient to punish

and make an example of Defendants for their wrongful conduct;

4. For attorneys’ fees as permitted by law;

5. For costs of suit; and

6. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: September 23, 2020 GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP By:

ANDREW BAUM JESSE B. LEVIN Attorneys for Plaintiff Bryan Callen

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Bryan Callen hereby demands a jury trial on all issues.

DATED: September 23, 2020 GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP By:

ANDREW BAUM JESSE B. LEVIN Attorneys for Plaintiff Bryan Callen

Deadline

LACIV 190 (Rev 6/18) NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT – UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE LASC Approved 05/06

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Reserved for Clerk’s File Stamp

COURTHOUSE ADDRESS:

NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT

UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE

Your case is assigned for all purposes to the judicial officer indicated below. CASE NUMBER:

THIS FORM IS TO BE SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

ASSIGNED JUDGE DEPT ROOM ASSIGNED JUDGE DEPT ROOM

Given to the Plaintiff/Cross-Complainant/Attorney of Record

on _____________________________ By __________________________________, Deputy Clerk (Date)

Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer / Clerk of Court

09/24/2020 N. Alvarez

Stanley Mosk Courthouse111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012

20STCV36391

✔ Monica Bachner 71

Deadline

LACIV 190 (Rev 6/18) NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT – UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE LASC Approved 05/06

INSTRUCTIONS FOR HANDLING UNLIMITED CIVIL CASES

The following critical provisions of the California Rules of Court, Title 3, Division 7, as applicable in the Superior Court, are summarized for your assistance.

APPLICATIONThe Division 7 Rules were effective January 1, 2007. They apply to all general civil cases.

PRIORITY OVER OTHER RULES The Division 7 Rules shall have priority over all other Local Rules to the extent the others are inconsistent.

CHALLENGE TO ASSIGNED JUDGE A challenge under Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6 must be made within 15 days after notice of assignment for all purposes to a judge, or if a party has not yet appeared, within 15 days of the first appearance.

TIME STANDARDS Cases assigned to the Independent Calendaring Courts will be subject to processing under the following time standards:

COMPLAINTSAll complaints shall be served within 60 days of filing and proof of service shall be filed within 90 days.

CROSS-COMPLAINTSWithout leave of court first being obtained, no cross-complaint may be filed by any party after their answer is filed. Cross-complaints shall be served within 30 days of the filing date and a proof of service filed within 60 days of the filing date.

STATUS CONFERENCE A status conference will be scheduled by the assigned Independent Calendar Judge no later than 270 days after the filing of the complaint. Counsel must be fully prepared to discuss the following issues: alternative dispute resolution, bifurcation, settlement, trial date, and expert witnesses.

FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE The Court will require the parties to attend a final status conference not more than 10 days before the scheduled trial date. All parties shall have motions in limine, bifurcation motions, statements of major evidentiary issues, dispositive motions, requested form jury instructions, special jury instructions, and special jury verdicts timely filed and served prior to the conference. These matters may be heard and resolved at this conference. At least five days before this conference, counsel must also have exchanged lists of exhibits and witnesses, and have submitted to the court a brief statement of the case to be read to the jury panel as required by Chapter Three of the Los Angeles Superior Court Rules.

SANCTIONS The court will impose appropriate sanctions for the failure or refusal to comply with Chapter Three Rules, orders made by the Court, and time standards or deadlines established by the Court or by the Chapter Three Rules. Such sanctions may be on a party, or if appropriate, on counsel for a party.

This is not a complete delineation of the Division 7 or Chapter Three Rules, and adherence only to the above provisions is therefore not a guarantee against the imposition of sanctions under Trial Court Delay Reduction. Careful reading and compliance with the actual Chapter Rules is imperative.

Class Actions Pursuant to Local Rule 2.3, all class actions shall be filed at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse and are randomly assigned to a complex judge at the designated complex courthouse. If the case is found not to be a class action it will be returned to an Independent Calendar Courtroom for all purposes.

*Provisionally Complex CasesCases filed as provisionally complex are initially assigned to the Supervising Judge of complex litigation for determination of complex status. If the case is deemed to be complex within the meaning of California Rules of Court 3.400 et seq., it will be randomly assigned to a complex judge at the designated complex courthouse. If the case is found not to be complex, it will be returned to an Independent Calendar Courtroom for all purposes.

Deadline

CAUSE OF ACTIONPRAYERPlaintiff Bryan Callen hereby demands a jury trial on all issues.