[Steven T. Lowe, Esq. (SBN 122208) |seven@lowelaw.com Jared T. Densen, Esq. (SBN 325164) i mw.com |LOWE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 18383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1038 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 477-5811 Attorneys for Plaintiff, MICHAEL POSTLE Michael Postle, an individual; Plaintiff, v. Veronica Brill, an individual; ESPN, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Joey Ingram, an individual; Haralabos Voulgaris, an individual; Dantel Negreanu, an individual; Upswing Poker, Inc., a Nevada Corporation; |iBus Media Limited d/b/a “PokerNews”, an Isle of Man, United Kingdom Private Limited [Company Parent; Seat Open LLC, d/b/a Crush Live Poker”, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; Jonathan Little Holdings LLC, d/b/a “Poker Coaching”, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; Solve For Why Academy LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; Todd Witteles, an individual; Run [It Once, Inc., a Nevada Corporation; and | DOES 1 through 1,000, Inclusive; Defendants COPY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CASE NO. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR: 1, Defamation - Libel Per Se 2. Defamation — Slander Per Se (Cal. Civ. Code § 46(3) 3. Trade Libel 4. False Light 5, Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 6. Unfair Competition under CA B & P Code § 17200 et seq 7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Xv4 Ad ‘ComplaintCowan een 10 12 B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 23 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF Michael Postle (“Postle”) hereby brings the following Complaint \(“Complaint”) against DEFENDANT Veronica Brill (“Brill”), DEFENDANT ESPN, Inc. (“ESPN”), DEFENDANT Jocy Ingram (“Ingram”), DEFENDANT Haralabos Voulgaris |(“Voulgaris”), DEFENDANT Daniel Negreanu (“Negreanu”), DEFENDANT Upswing Poker, Inc. (“Upswing"), DEFENDANT iBus Media Limited d/b/a “Poker News” (“Poker News”), |DEFENDANT Seat Open LLC, d/b/a “Crush Live Poker” (“Crush Live Poker”), DEFENDANT} Jonathan Little Holdings LLC, d/b/a “Poker Coaching” (“Poker Coaching”), DEFENDANT Solv [For Why Academy LLC (“SFY”), DEFENDANT Todd Witteles (“Witteles”), DEFENDANT Run} It Once, Inc. (“RIO”), and DOES 1 through 1,000 (collectively, “Defendants”), as follows: PARTIES 1. Atall times mentioned herein, Plaintiff MICHAEL POSTLE is an individual and is now, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a resident of Sacramento, California. Up} to the events giving rise to this action, Plaintiff has enjoyed a positive reputation, both] generally and in Plaintiff's occupation, 2. Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant VERONICA| BRILL (“Brill”) was and is an individual residing in Sonta Clara, California 3. Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant ESPN, INC} (“ESPN”), was and is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in| Bristol, Connecticut. 4. Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant JOEY INGRAM} (“Ingram”) was and is an individual residing in Las Vegas, Nevada. 5. Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant HARALABOS| VOULGARIS (“VOULGARIS”) was and is an individual residing in Dallas, Texas. T ‘Complaintwor da HRN 10 12 13 14 1S 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 5 26 27 28 6. Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant IBUS MEDIA| LIMITED d/b/a “POKERNEWS” (“POKER NEWS”), was and is a Private Limited| Company Parent, with its principal place of business in Isle of Man, United Kingdom. 7. Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant SEAT OPEN LLC, d/b/a “CRUSH LIVE POKER” (“CRUSH LIVE POKER’), was and is a Nevada Limited! Liability Company with its principal place of business in Reno, Nevada. 8, Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant JONATHAN| LITTLE HOLDINGS LLC, d/b/a “POKER COACHING” (“POKER COACHING”), ‘was and is a Nevada Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada, 9. Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant UPSWING| POKER, INC. (“UPSWING"), was and is a Nevada Corporation with its principal place, of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. 10, Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant SOLVE FOR] WHY ACADEMY LLC (“SFY”), was and is a Nevada Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. 11. Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant DANIEL, NEGRANEAU (“NEGRANEAU”) was and is an individual residing in Las Vegas, Nevada. 12, Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant TODD! WITTELES (“WITTELES”), was and is an individual residing in Las Vegas, Nevada. 13. Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant RUN IT ONCE, INC. (“RIO”), was and is a Nevada Corporation with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. ‘Complaint14. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as DOES | through 1,000, inclusive, and for that reason, sues such Defendants under such] fictitious names pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code (“CCP”) § 474. Plaintiff is informed and| believes, and based on that information and belief alleges, that such fictitiously named! Defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff's damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by the conduct of saial Defendants. Plaintiff will seek to amend the complaint when the names and capacities o such fictitiously named Defendants are ascertained. As alleged herein, “Defendants” shall mean all named Defendants and all fictitiously named Defendants. 15, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information and belief alleges, that a all times mentioned in this Complaint, some Defendants were the agents and employees o' some of their Codefendants and in doing the things alleged in this Complaint were acting] within the course and scope of such agency and employment. Alternatively, at all time ‘mentioned herein, each of the Defendants conspired with each other to commit the wrongful acts complained of herein. Although not all of the Defendants committed all o the acts of the conspiracy or were members of the conspiracy at all times during it existence, each Defendant knowingly performed one or more acts in direct furtherance o the objectives of the conspiracy. Therefore, each Defendant is liable for the acts of all o the other conspirators JURISDICTION AND VENUE 16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, and each of them, because they arc] residents of and/or doing business in the State of California. In addition, the wrongful} conduct alleged against Defendants, and each of them, occurred in the County of ‘Complaintwe U AH RUKH ul 12 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Sacramento, State of California. This Court is the proper court because the injury and/o wrongful acts that are the subject of this action occurred in its jurisdictional area and/or at} least one Defendant now resides in its jurisdictional area. 17. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400 in that Defendants conducts, transacts, and/or solicits business in this county of Sacramento, State of California, such that its contacts with this district subject it to personal jurisdiction with respect to this action, and upon information and belief, a substantial part of the events ot omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims, has occurred, and continues to occur in thit judicial district, causing damage to Plaintiff in this judicial district, and others, 18. Inaddition, the amount in controversy exceeds the minimum for unlimited civil jurisdiction] of this Court. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 19. Plaintiff Mike Postle is a professional poker player who has made a full-time career out of playing poker. Poker has been Postle's primary source of income since April 2003. 20.1n or around 2015, Stones Gambling Hall (“Stones Hall"), located in Sacramento, California, began to host live streamed poker games and tournaments at Stones Hall while} broadcasting them over the intemet on YouTube and Twitch ("Stones Live”). Plaintiff] frequented the Stones Live games throughout the years up until September 21, 2019, when] he played his last live stream game due to the false cheating allegations that were brough to Stones Hall’s attention on or about March 21, 2019 without Plaintiff's knowledge. A: more fully set forth hereinbelow, Plaintiff first became aware of the defamation by) ‘Defendant Brill, on or about September 28, 2019. ‘Complainter anurune MW 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 21. Each Stones Live game is hosted onsite at Stones Hall and is occasionally organized, led and hosted by individual poker players. Both Plaintiff and Defendant Brill have hosted| ‘many of these Stones Live games throughout the years. In general, the Stones Live players buy-in with their own money, can get up and leave when they want to, or add onto thei existing chip stack at any time out of their own pockets, not to exceed the amount of the| player with the highest chip count at the time. Stones Live is broadcast online with a 30+ ‘minute delay in order to prevent those watching from communicating with the players. The| Stones Live table is equipped with radio frequency identification (“RFID”) reader scanners, which are devices used to gather information from unique RFID chips attached] to each of the individual cards. Each card’s RFID chip is registered by the table’s RFID| scanner and sent to the corresponding software application that will then read, interpret| and display the unique card(s) on the live stream telecast. The RFID system allows the] viewers the ability to see what cards each player is holding, regardless of how the player plays that particular hand, The dissemination and display of the cards is uploaded with an| approximate thirty (30) minute delay between the real action and what is being broadcast in order to prevent cheating. The Stones Live stream also includes commentators who} provide “live” (ic. 30 minutes delayed) commentary for the viewers’ entertainment. 22. In terms of play style, Plaintiff is considered to be a “loose player” in games on and off the| live-streamed table; One who drinks and socializes at times, while remaining quiet and| focused at others. Plaintiff is known to take marginal hands all the way to the “river card” (Ge, the last card dealt by the dealer). 23. In accordance with the rules of Stones Hall and many other gambling institutions, Plaintifi was allowed to, and did, look at his phone occasionally while playing at the table. Plaintif}] would watch multiple sporting events that were not on the Stones Hall televisions nearby. ‘Complaintwe mraneune 10 12 13 14 15 16 7 18, 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24, 25. 26. 21. Plaintiff began placing his phone between his legs when he started receiving inappropria. ‘messages or pictures from women he was frequenting with at the time. On September 28, 2019, Defendant Brill publicly accused Plaintiff of gaining access to the| “hole cards” (i.e., any face down cards that must be kept secret) in real-time, gaining an| unfair advantage or as she called it “cheating.” As more fully set forth hereinbelow.| Defendant Brill published that “someone is displaying a probability of cheating” during| the Stones Live games. This was reasonably understood by all readers to be referring Plaintiff, and to attribute to Plaintiff a “probebility of cheating,” ‘As more fully set forth herein, Defendants have created a false narrative that from July 18, 2018 to September 21, 2019, Plaintiff was cheating and had profited anywhere from| $250,000 to $400,000. During this time period, Plaintiff played approximately four hundred (400) hours, consisting of approximately eight thousand (8,000) hands of poker between July 18, 2018 and September 21, 2019. Yet, as early as October 2, 2019, just four days after the initial allegations from Defendant Brill were published, Defendants were already defaming] Plaintiff by stating, definitively, that he 100% cheated as fact, On September 29, 2019, Stones Hall made a statement via their @StonesLivePoker Twitter account tweeting, “We conducted a full investigation & found no evidence that any| cheating had occurred[.] ... The recent allegations are completely fabricated[.]” Attached] hereto as Postle Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the September 29, 2019} @StonesLivePoker tweet. Unfortunately for Plaintiff, this did nothing to prevent the perpetuation of the spread of Defendants’ venomous, baseless, and defamatory statements made to seem as though they were based on facts, ComplaintCer an eene 10 12 13 14 15, 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 27 28 28. Upon information and belief, Stones Hall conducted a second independent investigation into the allegations against Plaintiff and again concluded no wrongdoing had occurred, 29. Moreover, upon information and belief, in or around October 2019 investigations werel done by the Department of Justice (“DOI”), the California Gaming Control Commission] and Stroz Friedberg, an information security and digital forensics company. The| investigations concluded with Stones Hall releasing a statement via the Sacramento Bee on] March 5, 2020 that they found “no evidence of cheating.” Attached hereto as Postlel Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the March 5, 2020 Sacramento Bee article. ‘Notwithstanding the foregoing, some Defendants continue to defame the Plaintiff. 30. Plaintiff had never previously been accused of cheating in his seventeen (17) year career. 31. Furthermore, as recently as September 15, 2020, The Sacramento Bee published an article] discussing the cheating allegations against Plaintiff and the settlement that had been| reached by and between Stones Hall and their accusers. This publication included quotes from Mr. Maurice VerStandig, opposing counsel against Stones Hall and Plaintiff, where} he stated “After reviewing evidence with the cooperation of Stones [Hall], my co-counsel| and I have found no evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ claims against Stones [Hall] Stones Live Poker, or Justin Kuraitis,” and more importantly, “My co-counsel and I have] found no forensic evidence that there was cheating gf Stones or that Stones, Mr. Kurai the Stones Live team, or any dealers were involved in any cheating scheme.” (emphasis added). Attached hereto as Postle Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Septembei 15, 2020 Sacramento Bee article. ‘Complaintion: fendant Veronica Brill 32, Beginning on or about September 28, 2019 and continuing through todays date, Defendant Brill has made and published false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff. ‘The following paragraphs provide context, are exemplary, and do not constitute all of the false} and defamatory statements made by this Defendant. 33. On or about March 21, 2019, Defendant Brill raised (unsupported) suspicions to Justin] Kuraitis (“Kuraitis”), who is the person in charge of the live-stream production of Stones Live at Stones Hall, that she “suspected” Plaintiff of cheating. Kuraitis told Defendant Brill that if she suspected Plaintiff of cheating, she should not invite Plaintiff to play in any game| that she hosted. Instead, Defendant Brill invited Plaintiff to play in the very next game that she hosted and continued to do so until she went public with her false allegations on} September 28, 2019. Moreover, in or about August 17, 2019, Defendant Brill invited Plaintiff to host her game in her absence. 34, Plaintiff first learned of these statements by Defendant Brill on or about September 28, 2019. 38. After receiving Defendant Brill’s complaint, Stones Hall began an investigation into he concerns. 36. On September 28, 2019, based off of Defendant Brill, Defendant Ingram, and possibly] other Defendants’ discussion(s), Defendant Brill, from her Twitter account @Angry_Polak, tweeted “[i}f someone is displaying a probability of cheating on a live| stream you don’t make the entire room not be able to use their cellphones in an attempt to] reduce everyone’s anxiety and then still promote the player as one of the best.” Although] the content of the tweet was completely concocted out of thin air, this was the publicly false statement that sent the internet and poker world into a frenzy. Complaintwearaneeun 10 u 12 1B 14 15 16 v 18 19 20 2 22 23 25 26 27 28 37. This tweet was reasonably understood by all readers to be referring to Plaintiff, and t attribute to Plaintiff a “probability of cheating,” Readers reasonably understood this tweet to be referencing Plaintiff in part due to Defendant Brill’s immediate subsequent tweets| that included videos of Plaintiff playing on the Stones Live streams. 38. On information and belief, Defendant Brill has a history of wild accusations agains! multiple people over the years, none of which have ever been substantiated, 39. Since initially going public with the false and defamatory allegation on September 28} 2019, Defendant Brill has consistently made false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff over the course of the past year such as: “He’s cheating” and “Mike Postle is al ccheat{.]” Defendant Brill’s YouTube channel has essentially become a place exclusivel for content regarding Plaintiff cheating, 40, Beginning on or about October 3, 2019 and continuing through todays date, Defendant ESPN has made and published false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff. Thel following paragraphs provide context, ate exemplary, and do not constitute an exhaustive recitation of the false and defamatory statements made by this Defendant. 41. On October 3, 2019, during an episode of ESPN’s “SportsCenter with Scott Van Pelt”, the host, Scott Van Pelt (“SVP”) introduced Defendant Brill and Defendant Ingram’s story about Plaintiff to an even larger audience during the “One Big Thing” segment. SVP stated, “[iJ£a guy were able to cheat his way to six-figure gains playing cards and it got solved by] a bunch of poker sleuths on the internet, is that a story that interests you? Because it did} me.” Despite the initial allegation by Defendant Brill being made public just five (5) days earlier, SVP claims the case has been “solved” when that was clearly not true. In fact, as} Complaint |"of today, no one has “solved” the case, provided legitimate evidence of cheating, or proved! that Plaintiff acted in any unfair manner. 42. SVP goes on to further state the general facts of the allegations, including Plaintiff's name] and offers his own analogy of the situation constructed out of the other Defendants’ false narratives, such as “If you're the equivalent of a guy who shows up to play pick-up] basketball and you never, ever missed a shot for a couple of years...wouldn’t you go play| the NBA? If you're some sort of poker god who almost never lost, who made the right call or fold virtually every single time — if you were this good ~ why would you be playing| in games only with a video feed and a 1/3 table at Stones Poker Room? Why wouldn't you be in Vegas winning all the money in the world?” Brief Summary of Actions by Defendant Joey Ingram 43, Beginning on or about October 1, 2019, and continuing through todays date, Defendant Ingram has made and published false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff. The| following paragraph provides context, is exemplary, and does not constitute an exhaustive recitation of the false and defamatory statements made by this Defendant. 44, Defendant Joey Ingram is a notorious poker podcaster, YouTuber, and professional poke player. 45. Defendant Ingram stated that he allegedly studied, in a span of four (4) days, “every single hand” Plaintiff played on Stones Live’s live stream between July 18, 2018 and September 21, 2019, which consists of approximately four hundred (400) hours of play. However, Defendant Ingram has also contradicted this statement on multiple occasions by stating that he’s actually only watched sixty (60) hours of footage. Defendant Ingram’s “investigation” concluded with the false and defamatory declaration that Plaintiff “could see the cards”| 10 ‘Complainteww nuanunea 10 12 1B 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s 26 27 28 and was “cheating on a live stream” because it was statistically impossible for someone to be winning as much as Plaintiff. Defendant Ingram failed to point to or produce any definitive proof that his statements were correct. These defamatory statements were] republished by Defendant PokerNews on December 25, 2019, 46. A majority of the other defendants, including ESPN, as well as the general public, used| Defendant Ingram’s conclusion as a basis for their own false and defamatory statements, Brief Summary of Actions by Defendant Haralabos Voulgaris 47. Beginning on or around October 1, 2019, and continuing through on or about September| 20, 2020, Defendant Voulgaris has made and published false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff. The following paragraphs provides context and does not constitute an| exhaustive recitation of the false and defamatory statements made by this Defendant since he has deleted all of the evidence. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement his facts with proper documentary evidence once discovery has been completed. 48, Defendant Voulgaris is a heralded statistician and former gambler who is employed as the| Director of Quantitative Research and Development for the NBA franchise Dallas Mavericks, owned by billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Therefore, Defendant] Voulgaris has a profound influence on the public, especially in the poker and gambling communities, where everything is based on statistics and where Defendant first gained! notoriety. Due to Defendant Voulgaris’s notoriety and expertise in statistics and analytics, ‘he was a guest speaker at the 14" Annual MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference in March] 2020. 49. On or around October 1, 2019, Defendant Voulgaris began a tirade on Twitter via his @baralabob account, about Plaintiff saying that Plaintiff was definitively a cheater, a] WT ‘ComplaintCaer aneen 10 12 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 conclusion he came to based upon false statistics. Defendant Voulgaris even made the wild} statement that Plaintiff cheated a “dying man,” when in fact, Plaintiff lost to the man h was presumably referring to. This false and defamatory statement was instrumental in] building an angry mob against Plaintiff. 0. On information and belief, in or about October of 2019, Defendant Voulgaris tweeted th Plaintiff switched from cheating via his cellphone and was now cheating by using “a Bone| induction Speaker device in his hat.” Attached hereto as Postle Exhibit D is a true andl correct copy of Defendant Voulgaris’ October 2019 tweet. 51. As another example, on or about October 9, 2019, Defendant Voulgaris tweeted that “This| ‘was how I understood he was cheating, simply accessing the streaming server directly.” 52. In or about October 25, 2019, on information and belief, Defendant Voulgaris deleted all) of the data up to that point from his entire twitter account, presumably after realizing that} he had made false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff by making false statements o fact. Brief Summary of Actions by Defendant Daniel Negreanu 53, Beginning on or around October 3, 2019, and continuing through at least September 17, 2020, Defendant Negreanu has made and published false and defamatory statements about} Plaintiff. The following paragraphs provide context and do not constitute an exhaustive] recitation of the false and defamatory statements made by this Defendant since it appears that he has deleted all of the evidence. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement his facts with proper documentary evidence once discovery has been completed. 54, Defendant Negreanu is an internationally well-known poker player who has won six World| Series of Poker (“WSOP”) tournaments, was recognized as the best poker player of the) 2 ‘Complaint |weer aneone 10 12 3 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 23 24 25 26 27 28 decade in 2014 by Global Poker Index, has been inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame, andl is regarded as the most well-known poker player in the world. 58. Defendant Negreanu also hosts a poker podcast known as “Poker Stories with Daniel Negreanu” (“Poker Stories”), co-hosts another poker podcast named “DAT Pokes Podcast,” and manages his “Daniel Negreanu” YouTube channel, all of which offer him] large platforms to reach his fans and poker fans generally. 56. In of about October 2019, Defendant Negreanu used his multiple platforms and influence to make false and defamatory statements to the public, such as “Postle was cheating,” “there is 0% chance he is innocent{,]” “the guy who had access to hole cards was relaying] the hands to him in real time[,]” and “HE WAS CHEATING” while reiterating the same| on his @RealKidPoker Twitter account and during interviews. Brief Summary of Actions by Defendant Upswing 57. Beginning on or around October 2019 and continuing through todays date, Defendant Upswing has made and published false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff. nd following paragraph provides context, is exemplary, and does not constitute an exhaustive] recitation of the false and defamatory statements made by this Defendant. Plaintiff reserve: the right to supplement his facts with proper documentary evidence once discovery has been completed. 58. Doug Polk (“Polk”) sa co-owner of Defendant Upswing, which is a popular poker training! ‘company. Polk has used Defendant Upswing’s website and various corresponding social] platforms to disseminate false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff, 59, For example, on or about October 2, 2019, Polk had Defendant Ingram appear as a guest on Defendant Upswing’s YouTube channel to discuss the allegations against Plaintiff. On} B ‘ComplaintwCaraunenwn 10 12 13 14 15 16 7 18, 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 several occasions throughout the discussion, Polk makes the definitive statement that Plaintiff absolutely cheated. 60. Again, on or about October 11, 2019, Polk had Defendant Brill appear as a guest on] Defendant Upswing’s YouTube channel where the title of the video is “Catching Mike| Postle.”” 61. Additionally, on May 24, 2020, Polk via his Twitter account @DougPolkVids tweeted out that “Postle spent a year ata table next to people he was cheating using a streaming| service to cheat them while pretending to be their friends...” (emphasis added). Attached hereto as Postle Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the May 24, 2020 Polk tweet. 62, Moreover, Ryan Fee (“Fee”) is also a co-owner of Defendant Upswing. Fee has made| several false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff on his own @RyanFeePokey ‘Twitter account. ‘Brief Summary of Actions by Defendant PokerNews 63. Beginning on or around October 1, 2019, and continuing through todays date, Defendant PokerNews has made and published false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff. The} following paragraph provides context, is exemplary, and does not constitute an exhaustive| recitation of the false and defamatory statements made by this Defendant. Plaintiff reserves| the right to supplement his facts with proper documentary evidence once discovery has| been completed. 64. On information and belief, Defendant PokerNews, via their website and social medial accounts, is the number one authority in the world for poker news. 65, On or about October 10, 2019, Defendant PokerNews republished portions of Defendant} Brill’s interview with Defendant Ingram within a larger story posted to pokernews.com, 14 ComplaintDefendant PokerNews published statements read “[Brill] got especially angry recalling} how it was Postle that convinced her to invite Kevin “Racks” Roster on the game.” 66. However, Defendant Brill has also stated the contrary, that “Justin {Kuraitis] was the one} who'd texted me to get [Kevin Roster] into the game.” 67. Kevin Roster (“Roster”) was a poker player who suffered from a rare form of sarcoma Unfortunately, Roster elected medically assisted suicide and passed away about two weeks after having played poker with Plaintiff on Stones Live. Plaintiff had never met and did n know Roster until having competed against him on Stones Live. 68, Defendant PokerNews’s decision to publish false facts that imply Plaintiff in fact “cheat{ed] a dying man,” as referenced in Defendant Voulgaris’s now deleted tweet, ha been instrumental in causing the hate, disgust, and threats of violence aimed at Plaintiff. 69. For example, on or about December 25, 2019, Defendant PokerNews published a story on| their website and Twitter account entitled “Top 10 Stories of 2019: Mike Postle Caugh Cheating on Livestream” which contains a false and defamatory statement of fac immediately in the title. Brief Summary of Actions by Defendant Crush Live Poker 70. Beginning on or around October 3, 2019, and continuing through todays date, Defendant Crush Live Poker has made and published false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff| The following paragraph provides context, is exemplary, and does not constitute an] exhaustive recitation of the false and defamatory statements made by this Defendant| Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement his facts with proper documentary evidence once| discovery has been completed. 5 ‘Complaintwear aneen 10 12 3 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 71. On information and belief, for more than four years, and at the time of, the allegations, Defendant Crush Live Poker was in a contractual relationship with Stones Hall whereby| Bart Hanson (“Hanson”), the owner of this Defendant, would make guest appearances as a| commentator or player on the Stones Live games. In exchange, Stones Hall allowed| Hanson to use the resulting video footage as content for Defendant Crush Live Poker’s poker training videos. 72. Hanson is a well-known poker player in the community, and combined with his relationship with Stones Hall, the poker community views Hanson, and therefore| Defendant Crush Live Poker, as a reliable and trusted source of information. Due to thei view, the poker community seeks Hanson out for advice generally and see him as an| “insider” for Stones Halll incidents, such as the one involving Plaintiff. 73, Hanson used this relationship to strengthen the narrative that he was actually an “insider” with credibility as to the situation involving Plaintiff, when in fact he is not and had no| relevant or true information. 74. As an example of Defendant Crush Live Poker’s false and defamatory statements, on on] about November 23, 2019, Defendant published the following statement from Hanson on| their YouTube channel: “It's obvious [Postle] can see the cards.” 75. As another example, on or about October 7, 2019, Defendant Crush Live Poker published| to their YouTube channel Hanson’s statement that “[Postle] could basically... see the| cards...” Brief Summary of Actions by Defendant Poker Coaching 76, Beginning on or around October 3, 2019 and continuing through todays date, Defendant Poker Coaching has made and published false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff] 6 ‘Complaintweer aneune 71. 2B. 80. 1. As another example, on or about October 10, 2019, Defendant Poker Coaching published] The following paragraph provides context, is exemplary, and does not constitute an] exhaustive recitation of the false and defamatory statements made by this Defendant, Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement his facts with proper documentary evidence once| discovery has been completed. On information and belief, Defendant Poker Coaching is co-owned by Jonathan Little (“Little”). Little is a best-selling author of over twenty (20) books and audio books about} poker and poker strategy. On or about October 9, 2019, Defendant Poker Coaching published a video on their YouTube channel which included the following false and defamatory statements made by| Little: “Mike Postle has the unique ability to know his opponents hole cards.”; “[Postle] knows his opponents cards...” See, httys://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sek-P_eCCsA a video on their YouTube channel which included the following false and defamatory} statements again made by Little: “... Mike Postle, who by now everyone knows can see his opponents cards thanks to some sort of technology and or help from the outside ...” Brief Summary of Actions by Defendant SFW Beginning on or around October 2, 2019, and continuing through todays date, Defendant SFW has made and published false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff. The] following paragraph provides context, is exemplary, and does not constitute an exhaustive recitation of the false and defamatory statements made by this Defendant. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement his facts with proper documentary evidence once discovery hat been completed 17 ComplaintCowan nawn 10 12 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 81. Defendant SFW operates a website that is used for poker training and is, upon information| and belief, owned by Matt Berkey (“Berkey”). Berkey is a well-known professional poker player who, upon information and belief, has acquired a college education in computer science, and claims to possess the same software and system that Stones Hall utilizes produce Stones Live. These factors were used by Berkey to increase his credibility in} making his false and defamatory statements. 82. On or about October 4, 2019, Defendant SFW published a video on their YouTube channel] whereby one of the two hosts, Berkey, states “[Plaintiff] can see the fucking cards{,]” and] “PPostle] is cheating in plain sight” among many other false and defamatory statements. 83, Berkey has continued spewing similar false and defamatory statements that Defendant SFW continues to publish to their YouTube channel such as: “The community has done its due diligence, we've proven mathematically beyond any reasonable doubt that Postle is 100% cheating or 99% likely to be cheating, right? Like, maybe he's a time traveler ‘That's the other 1%.” (emphasis added). Brief Summary of Actions by Defendant Todd Witteles 84, Beginning on or around October 2, 2019 and continuing through todays date, Defendant Witteles has made and published false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff. The following paragraph provides context, is exemplary, and does not constitute an exhaustive| recitation of the false and defamatory statements made by this Defendant. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement his facts with proper documentary evidence once discovery has been completed. 1B ‘Complaint85, Defendant Witteles is a prominent poker player and personality who founded a poker radi station and blog website named “Poker Fraud Alert” in Las Vegas, Nevada. Witteles is also| known by the poker community as “Dan Druff.” 86.On or about October 2, 2019, Poker Fraud Alert published the following false and| defamatory statement attributed to the handle “DanDruff” (ic. Defendant Witteles) to thei website: “The FACTS are that ... Mike clearly cheated.” 87. As another example, on or about October 3, 2019, Poker Fraud Alert published the| following false and defamatory statement to their website: “Mike is cheating. 88. Additionally, on or about October 6, 2019, Poker Fraud Alert published the following false} and defamatory to their website: “[Plantf] so clearly has an accomplice communicating with him.” Brief Summary of Actions by Defendant RIO 89. Beginning on or around October 2, 2019 and continuing through todays date, Defendant RIO has made and published false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff. The following paragraph provides context, is exemplary, and does not constitute an exhaustivel recitation of the false and defamatory statements made by this Defendant. Plaintiffreserves the right to supplement his facts with proper documentary evidence once discovery has| been completed. 90. Defendant RIO is a poker training and online gambling company. On information and| belief, Defendant RIO currently employs over one hundred (100) of the top poker players} in the world as poker “coaches,” making this Defendant the biggest poker training compan in the world. 19 ‘ComplaintCaran een 10 MW 12 3B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 23 25 26 27 28 91. On or about November 4, 2019, Marle Cordeiro (“Cordeiro”) and Jamie Kerstette “Kerstetter"), hosts of Defendant RIO’s “The Rake” podcast, made the false and] defamatory statements that “...you don't usually get to see crimes being committed in real time on videotape[,]” “...this guy cheated these people(,]” and “...slam dunk this guy’s} cheating[,]” all of which were published by Defendant RIO to their corresponding} YouTube channel. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Defamation — Libel Per Se (Against All Defendants) 92. Plaintiff repeat, allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 91 as though fully set forth herein. 93. Plaintiff is informed and believes Defendants negligently, recklessly, and/or intentional caused external publications of defamation, of and concerning Plaintiff, to third persons| and to the community, as set forth hereinabove. These false and defamatory statements included express and implied, purportedly factual, statements that Plaintiff is a cheater and| cheated during all Stones Live events. 94, These publications were made by Defendants on and after October 1, 2019, Plaintiff hereby| seeks damages for these publications and all foreseeable republications discovered up 1 the time of trial. 95. On or about October 1, 2019 through todays date, Defendants published defamatory) statements on Twitter, YouTube, podcasts, during interviews, and other mediums. 120 ‘Complaint96. The publications referred to hereinabove referred to Plaintiff by name throughout, wa: made of and concerning Plaintiff, and was so understood by those who read th publications. 97. The defamatory publications consisted of oral and written statements, knowingly false and “unprivileged communications, tending directly to injure Plaintiff and Plaintiff's personal, business, and professional reputations. These false and defamatory publications were andl are in violation of California Civil Code (“Cal. Civ. Code”) §§ 44, 45 46(3) and (5). The statements and similar ones published by Defendants and each of them, expressly andl impliedly asserted that Plaintiff is a cheater and cheated at various poker games. 98. The published statements are false as they pertain to Plaintiff. 99, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and fears, that these false and defamatory per se] statements will continue to be published by Defendants and each of them and will be| foreseeably republished by their recipients, all to the ongoing harm and injury to Plaintif?’ business, professional and personal reputations. 100, The defamatory meaning of all of the above-described false and defamatory statement and their reference to Plaintiff were reasonably understood by these above-referenced thi person recipients and other members of the community who are known to Defendants, each of them. Because of the facts and circumstances known to those third-parties to whom| the false and defamatory statements were published, it tended to injure Plaintiff in his occupation, or to expose him to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or shame, or to discourage| others from associating or dealing with him, 101. None of the Defendants’ defamatory publications against Plaintiff referenced| hereinabove are true. 21 ‘ComplaintCaran ewene 10 12 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 102. The defamatory publications described hereinabove were understood as assertions of fact, and not as opinion. Plaintiff is informed and believes this defamation will continue to be] negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally published and foresceably republished by Defendants, and each of them, and foresceably republished by recipients of Defendants’ publications, thereby causing additional injury and damages for which Plaintiff secks| redress by this action. 103. All of the publications were made with hatred, ill will, and intent to vex, harass, annoy,] and injure Plaintiff. These publications were made, in part, to create drama and increase] Defendants’ profiles to directly benefit Defendants, and each of them, among other advantages. These false and defamatory publications were made to cause damage to] Plaintiff's professional and personal reputation, and to humiliate him before third-parties worldwide. 104. Each of these publications by Defendants, and each of them, were made with knowledge| that no investigation supported the unsubstantiated and obviously false statements. Not only did Defendants, and each of them, fail to use reasonable care to determine the truth o falsity of the statements, but also Defendants published there statements knowing them be false, unsubstantiated by any reasonable investigation, and that they were contrary the fact that Stones Hall conducted two investigations that found no evidence of cheating, In fact, not only did Defendants, and each of them, have no reasonable basis to believe) these statements, but also they had no belie in the truth of these statements, and in fat knew the statements to be false 105. The statements published by all Defendants are libelous on their face. They clearly expos: Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy because playing by the rules is the backbone of gambling. 22 ‘Complaint |ear aneone 10 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 2s 26 27 28 106. The Defendants’ defamatory publications were seen and read on or about September 28, 2019, through todays date by the general public and more specifically, the poker and ‘gambling communities worldwide. 107. As a proximate result of the publication and republication of these defamatory statements} by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered injury to his personal, business, and professional reputation including suffering, embarrassment, humiliation, severe] emotional distress, anxiety, shunning, anguish, fear, loss of employment, and employability, and significant economic loss in the form of lost wages and future earnings, all to Plaintiff’s economic, emotional and general damage in an amount according to proof] 108. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ publications, Plaintiff has suffered loss of reputation, severe stress, anxiety, and emotional distress, amounting to damages of three, hundred million dotlars ($300,000,000). Plaintiff's loss of reputation has caused Plaintift to lose all ability to financially provide for himself and his family because gambling] institutions will not allow an alleged cheater to play at their facilities. 109. None of the Defendants’ publications were privileged. 110. In doing the acts hereinabove, Defendants acted with malice, fraud, or oppression. Thus, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in the total amount of thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) due to Defendants’ negligence in publishing the false and defamatory statements as fact. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Defamation — Slander Per Se (Cal. Civ. Code § 46(3) and (5)) (Against Al Defendants) 111. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 though 110 above. 23 ‘Complaint |Cea aneene 10 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 24 25 26 27 28 112, Defendants intentionally published these false and defamatory statements about Plaintifi to the poker and gambling communities, as well as the general public, worldwide. 113. The general public, the poker and gambling communities understood these false and| defamatory statements to refer to Plaintiff since his name was mentioned in most every| statement, and specifically, to mean that Plaintiff has cheated and would continue to cheat at poker. 114, The statements Defendants made to the general public and the poker and gambling] ‘communities were false. Plaintiff had a uniformly positive reputation in the community, as exemplified by Defendant Brill’s willingness to both invite Plaintiff to play in her Stones Live games and to invite Plaintiff to host those games in her absence. There was no factual basis to tell the general public, poker or gambling communities that Plaintiff was a cheate and/or had cheated during Stones Live events. Notably, in fact, Stones Hall had conducted an internal investigation and found no evidence of cheating and communicated this Defendant Brill in person, and to the general public, poker and gambling communities via an official statement on Twitter. 115. The defamatory publications consisted of oral and written statements, knowingly false and unprivileged communications, tending directly to injure Plaintiff and Plaintifi's Personal, business, and professional reputations. These false and defamatory publications were and are in violation of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 44, 45 46(3) and (5). 116, Defendants made the above-described defamatory statements with actual malice (i. with knowledge of their falsity), or alternatively, with a reckless disregard for their falsity 117. Defendants made these statements without privilege ot justification. 24 ‘ComplaintCer AaHewD 10 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 2B 24 28 ” 26 27 28 118. The above-described statements concerning Plaintiff directly injured him by completely destroying his personal and professional reputation, which has a natural tendency to decrease or destroy his career eanings/career. 119. The above-described statements convey a defamatory meaning. They harm Plaintiff's reputation as to lower it, quite possibly beyond repair. 120. The publications mentioned hereinabove are libelous on their face. They clearly expose| ‘and have exposed, Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule and obloquy because fairness (.e no cheating) is the golden rule of gambling. 121. It was Defendants’ expectation and intent that the defamatory statements would injure Plaintiff economically, including lessening or thwarting his ability to eam a living wage. 122, Asa result of the publication of these false and defamatory statements with actual malice] Plaintiff has not been invited to play poker or gamble in general, at any of the gambling| locations he had previously been invited too, nor has he been invited to any other poker gambling events. Plaintiff has suffered damages including, but not limited 10, | compensation, lost profits loss to reputation, and increased costs. These damages are nod limited to the lost opportunity to play poker or gamble generally. Rather, they include all the other opportunities that Plaintiff would have had to gamble or play poker with other] Gambling institutions or persons, but for Defendants’ wrongful conduct, which had the effect of completely disrupting Plaintiff's career and ability to eam a living in his chosen field 123. Defendants also acted with oppression, fraud, or malice as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 and engaged in highly reprehensible and despicable conduct warranting exemplary damages. a5 ComplaintCaran eene 10 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 124. The aforesaid defamatory statements has harmed Plaintiff's reputation; such a statement has a tendency to injure and has injured Plaintiff in his occupation, his future business and] employment prospects have been severely harmed, Plaintiff has had to incur substantial] expense, in order to redress the harm he has suffered, all to Plaintiff's general and actual] damages, including exemplary and punitive damages, in an amount which far exceeds the} Jurisdictional minimum of this Court, and which will be proven at trial. ‘THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Trade Libel (Against All Defendants) 12. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 though 124 above. 126, Defendants have intentionally committed trade libel against Plaintiff. 127. Plaintiff alleges that several statements beginning on or about October 1, 2019, of whik all were published across the world wide web, stand as false and defamatory statements intended to disparage Plaintiff's personal and professional reputations. 128. These statements were not privileged and contained numerous defamatory statements| about Plaintiff, yet was sent to a third party; then sent to multiple persons across thel internet, 129. Every one of Defendants’ statements, and each of them, is false as Plaintiff has never cheated in poker nor did he cheat during any Stones Live event, 130. Plaintiff alleges that these statements were made with the intent to disparage Plaintif?’s| personal and professional reputation and discourage other gambling institutions andl Persons from associating with Plaintiff. 26 ‘Complaint131. Defendants statements were published initially on the internet via Twitter and YouTube. From there, Defendant Brill’s original statements were re-published to numerous third parties, including potential associates (ie., gambling institutions), via other intern: sources, such as podcasts, websites, and television, All of this then spawned other and| further publications. 132. Plaintiff alleges that these publications played a material and substantial part in deterring} gambling institutions (ic., casinos) and other prospective employers from working with] Plaintiff. 133. As such, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of lost wages. 134, As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered damages} in an amount to be proved at trial. 135. In doing the acts hereinabove, Defendants acted with malice, fraud, or oppression. Thus, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in the total amount of thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) due to Defendants’ negligence in publishing the false and defamatory statements as fact. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF False Light (Against All Defendants) 136 Plaintiff repeat, allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 135 as though fully set fort herein, 137, Before Defendants’ false and defamatory publications, Plaintiff was a respected membe of the poker and gambling communities, Plaintiff was a well-respected poker player, which] is reflected in the fact that several gambling institutions and individuals invited Plaintiff to attend various gambling events. 27 Complainteee) 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 23 25 26 27 28 138, However, on or about October 1, 2019, through the present date, Defendants engaged in] ‘a campaign to damage Plaintiff’s personal and professional reputation and interfere with] his ability to utilize his skills in poker to gamble and earn a living. Defendants shared false] stories with the general public via the intemet and other mediums with the intent of portraying Plaintiff as a bad actor in the poker and gambling communities. 139. This campaign involved publishing numerous false and defamatory statements of purported fact on Twitter, YouTube, podcast episodes, gambling websites, and television] Some of the more egregious false statements of fact that were published were (1) Plaintiff] 100% cheated. (2) there was “no way” Plaintiff did not cheat, and (3) Plaintiff “cheated al dying man.” Defendants knew or had reason to know that all of these representations are] false and published them with the intent to destroy Plaintiff’s personal and professional reputation, employability, and ability to eam a living wage. 140. All of those accusations would be highly offensive to any reasonable individual inl American society, if not a reasonable person in Plaintiff's position. No one in the poker o gambling communities want to be known as a cheater; everyone must trust that the easino| and the individual gamblers are playing by the rules. With this in mind, Defendants, published unfounded allegations as fact to publicly humiliate and disparage Plaintiff andl ruin his reputation and career, even after Stones Hall conducted an internal investigation, which found no evidence of cheating. 14 Asa result of Defendants’ publications (1) Plant was nt able to secure another poker or gambling invitation, (2) Plaintiff has been afraid to leave his home, and (3) Plaintiff's personal and professional reputation in the poker and gambling communities has been} severely adversely affected to the point that he can no longer earn a living wage. 28 Complaintear aneun 10 R 1B 14 15 16 7 18, 19 20 2 2 23 25 26 27 28 142. In doing the acts hereinabove, Defendants acted with malice, fraud, or oppression. Thus, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in the total amount of thirty million dollars ($30,000,000)} due to Defendants’ negligence in publishing the false and defamatory statements as fact. FIETH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (Against All Defendants) 143. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 142 above. 144, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew of PlaintifPs existing prospective business} relationships with Peppermill Resort Spa Casino (“Peppermill”), Atlantis Casino Resort Spa (“Atlantis”) and other casinos, containing the probability of future economic benefit| and made the false statements about Plaintiff for the purpose of interfering with those| relationships. Prior to Defendants’ defamatory statements, Peppermill, Atlantis, and othe casinos regularly inquired whether Plaintiff would come to their establishments and} gamble, Given the extreme nature of cheating at gambling, it is reasonably probably that, but for the Defendants’ statements, Plaintiff would have continued to have financiall beneficial agreements with Peppermill, Atlantis, and other casinos. In fact, Peppermill ha stated to a third-party that Plaintiff would be kicked out if he showed up to gamble at thei facilities, and Atlantis informed Plaintiff that he was no longer allowed to play poker, tablel games, or participate in any related promotional event (i.e., Atlantis revoked Plaintiff invitation to a $25,000 blackjack tournament that he qualified for.) 145. Defendants performed the above-described with the intent to interfere with said business relationships. 29 ‘ComplaintCaer ananwn 10 12 ht 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2B 24 25 * 26 27 28 146. Defendants had knowledge of the effects of their statements and therefore acted with the| intent that Plaintiff’s credibility be affected by said statements. As such, Defendants acted with the intent to disrupt any sort of business Plaintiff had with regard to his encoumters| with any casinos, gambling institutions, or gambling person(s). 147. Moreover, Defendants had knowledge that Plaintiff had a good reputation with] Peppermill, Atlantis other casinos, and gambling institutions, and therefore Plaintiff alleges| ‘that Defendant’ acted with the intent to cause those people or institutions who had invited} Plaintiff to gamble with them to rescind said invitations and not send any in the future, 148. Defendants have knowingly, willfully, and without privilege interfered with and continuel to interfere with the existing and prospective relationships between Plaintiff and gambling] institutions with whom Plaintiff is, has and was doing business with around the world by| communicating and causing false defamatory statements of face to be communicated to} Peppermill, Atlantis, other casinos, and the community worldwide. 149. Defendants’ actions were independently wrongful and were proscribed by the following] legal standards, including but not limited to: and a, Defamation under Cal. Civ. Code §§ 45 and 46; b, California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seg. 150. Defendants also acted with oppression, fraud, or malice as defined by California Civil Code § 3294 and engaged in highly reprehensible and despicable conduct warranting| exemplary damages. 151. Defendants’ interference was and is improper and without justification. Furthermore, it was deliberate, willful, malicious, wanton and intentional injury to Plaintiff's trade| business, and commercial activities entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages. 30 Complaintwear anuneen 10 12 B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 152. As a proximate result of Defendants’ intentional interference with the aforementioned] prospective economic relationships, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer actual, consequential, and/or incidental damages, in the form of los profits, in an amount to be determined at trial ‘SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Unfair Competition under CA B & P Code §17200 ef seq. (Against All Defendants) 153, Plaintiff reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 152 above. 154. Defendants’ have violated, and continue to violate CA B & P Code § 17200 et seq., by} engaging in the following unlawful and unfair business acts and practices, for example: & Maliciously defaming Plaintiff with respect to his profession, trade, and/or business| in violation of California Civ. Code § 36 and under the common law; and b. Intentionally interfering with Plaintiff's prospective economic relationship with business contacts, such as Peppermill and Atlantis. 155, Defendants, and all of them, have indisputably profited from their defamatory statements} with respect to Plaintiff, as well as gained an economic benefit from the exclusion o Plaintiff at Peppermill, Atlantis, and all other gambling institutions. 156, As a result of these acts, Plaintiff has not been, or will not be, allowed to play poker at Peppermill or Atlantis. At this time Plaintiff is unaware of his playing status at othe! gambling institutions because he has not been able to leave his home due to severe| emotional distress. Plaintiff has suffered damages including but not limited to lost profits, loss to reputation, and increased costs. 31 ‘Complaint157. As a proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to all] remedies contained in CA B & P Code § 17200 et seg., including preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Against All Defendants) 158, Plaintiff reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 157 above. 159. On or about October 1, 2019 though the present date, Defendants engaged in a campaign] of extreme and outrageous conduct to destroy Plaintiff's personal and professional reputation, make him a target, and destroy his ability to make a living as a full-time ‘gambler. Defendants shared false stories with the general public via the internet and other} mediums with the intent of portraying Plaintiff as a bad actor in the poker and gambling] communities. 160. This campaign involved publishing numerous false and defamatory statements as fact on Twitter, podcasts, websites, and television. Some of the more egregious false statements o fact that were published were (1) Plaintiff 100% cheated (2) that there was “no way” Plaintiff did not cheat, and (3) Plaintiff “cheated a dying man.” The foregoing action caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, to the point where he is scared to leave his home and has refused to leave his home unless absolutely necessary. Plaintiff has been| distressed and paralyzed by fear due to threats of violence against him and his family to} such an extent that he cannot go to any casino and make a living. 32 ‘ComplaintCar Aauaun 10 12 B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 23 25 26 27 28 161. After the publication of these false and defamatory statements, Plaintiff has suffered and| continues to suffer severe emotional distress due to fear of bodily harm (i.c., death threats} received), fear of abuse (both verbal and physical), uncertainty about his future, and| humiliation. 162. One of the more intangible problems that goes untreated is lost sleep due to the inordinate] amount of stress Plaintiff has been experiencing. Not only is the lost sleep and stress a problem, it is a problem that Plaintiff has been unable to properly address. 163. One of the most egregious results of the stress caused by the false and defamatory] statements is the fact that Plaintiff is constantly concerned about providing for his young] daughter, whom he has sole custody of, Plaintiff'is scared and anxious about his ability t provide for his daughter now that Defendants false and defamatory statements have] destroyed Plaintiff's ability to obtain a living wage through his chosen profession. 164, In addition, friends, family, other gamblers and poker players, and gambling institutions are afraid to associate with Plaintiff due to fears of public backlash, As a result, Plaintiff has been isolated in both the Sacramento community and in the poker and gambling! ‘communities worldwide, lost significant revenue, and has been unable to practice a skill h has developed for over a decade and a half. 165. But for the publication of Defendant Brill’s tweet on September 28, 2019, her subsequent] statements, as well as every republication and new publication by all other Defendants and] third-parties, Plaintiff never would have experienced this severe emotional distress o social isolation. 33 ‘ComplaintCea nnaena 10 2 3 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2B "4 25 26 27 28 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND PRAYER FOR DAMAGES WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands a trial by jury, and Plaintiff prays for judgment and ord lagainst Defendants, and each of them, as follows: ON ALL CAI FAS IN 1, For compensatory damages according to proof; 2. For statutory damages, costs, and attorney fees; 3. For punitive damages; 4, For interest as allowed by law; 5, For costs of suit; 6. For any and all such other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled; and 7. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Date: October 1, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, By: ‘Steven T. Lowe, Esq. Jared T. Densen, Esq. ‘Attomeys for Plaintiff 3a ‘Complaint