A reporter sued by Katie Hill after co-authoring a story featuring nude photos of the former congresswoman is entitled to more than $80,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, a judge said in a tentative ruling issued Wednesday.
On April 8, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yolanda Orozco found that reporter Jennifer Van Laar, in writing for the Daily Mail, had shown the photos were matters of legitimate interest involving a public official because they addressed Hill’s character and qualifications for her position.
The judge dismissed Van Laar as a defendant in Hill’s revenge porn case on First Amendment grounds, opening the door for Van Laar to seek attorneys’ fees and costs. Van Laar asked for about $120,340 to compensate her lawyers for their work in preparing the dismissal motion, a related discovery motion and the motion for attorneys’ fees itself.
In her tentative ruling, Orozco said the number requested by Van Laar’s lawyers was “excessive and therefore unreasonable” and that a fair amount would be just under $84,000. But Orozco also rejected arguments by Hill’s attorneys that leniency be showed to their client because she was a well-meaning plaintiff seeking to determine the scope of a new statute, the revenge porn law.
“Contrary to (Hill’s) arguments otherwise, case law clearly holds that an award of such reasonable attorney fees is mandatory,” Orozco wrote. “While the court has the discretion to reduce the fees based on whether or not the court deems the fees reasonable, the court is obligated to award reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
Orozco is scheduled to hear arguments on the fees Thursday before issuing a final decision.
Orozco previously said she was sympathetic to the impact of the publications of photos on Hill, who suffered other setbacks when other media defendants, including the Daily Mail, also were dismissed as defendants on free-speech grounds.
“This is an unfortunate situation for Ms. Hill, no question about it,” Orozco said. She called the decision by Hill’s ex-husband, Kenneth Heslep, to make the images available to the media, “tragic and unnecessary.” Heslep remains a defendant in the suit.
According to media reports, Van Laar was a campaign adviser to former Rep. Steve Knight, R-Palmdale, who was unseated by Hill in 2018. A story co-written by Van Laar that appeared in the Daily Mail in October 2019 featuring nude photos of Hill with a female campaign staffer followed a series of reports published on RedState.com, a conservative political site that lists Van Laar as its deputy managing editor.
The 33-year-old Hill submitted a lengthy sworn declaration in opposition to Van Laar’s dismissal motion.
“Van Laar knew, or should have known, that I had a reasonable expectation that the images would remain private,” Hill said. “Van Laar refers to herself as a journalist in her declaration.
“I believe that California’s law against the nonconsensual distribution of intimate images is widely known and believe that someone that describes themselves as a journalist would be aware of it too.”
Hill’s lawsuit was filed Dec. 22. She alleges in her court papers that she lived in fear that if she ever tried to leave, Heslep would kill them both and their animals. Hill and Heslep officially divorced in October.
Hill, a Democrat, resigned in 2019 after the nude photos were published and news emerged that she had a three-way relationship with her husband and a campaign staffer. She was also accused of having an affair with a member of her congressional staff. Hill publicly blamed her then-husband for the release of the photos. Speaking in Congress in 2019, she decried a “misogynistic culture that gleefully consumed my naked pictures, capitalized on my sexuality and enabled my abusive ex to continue that abuse, this time with the entire country watching.”
The 25th Congressional District includes portions of the Antelope Valley. The seat had long been held by Republicans until Hill’s 2018 victory over Knight. After Hill’s resignation, Republican Mike Garcia defeated Democratic Assemblywoman Christy Smith in a special election to fill the final 7 1/2 months of the term. Garcia then beat Smith again by 333 votes in November’s election for a full two-year term.
Previous related stories:
Judge grants nearly $30K in attorneys’ fees to radio host in Katie Hill case
Judge dismisses claims against Daily Mail in Katie Hill case
Former Congresswoman Katie Hill takes legal action over nude photo release
–
vocabulary class says
Tim Scott: “but the lawsuit was hardly frivolous”
Here’s the definition of a frivolous lawsuit:
“Frivolous lawsuits are those filed by a party or attorney who is aware they are without merit, because of a lack of supporting legal argument or factual basis for the claims. Frivolous lawsuits waste time, money, and judicial resources”
Here’s the judges decision in this case from the article:
“Contrary to (Hill’s) arguments otherwise, case law clearly holds that an award of such reasonable attorney fees is mandatory,” Orozco wrote. “While the court has the discretion to reduce the fees based on whether or not the court deems the fees reasonable, the court is obligated to award reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
Katie had zero chance of winning this case against Van Laar making her filing “frivolous”, wasting court time, money and judicial resources. The punishment thereof is minimally paying the defendant’s costs to defend.
Tom says
If Katie is hurting for money. Why doesn’t she do one porn video. It worked for Octo Mom, John Bobbitt, and Kim Kardashian.
Marilyn Chambers says
Oh, look. Tom can type with 1 hand.
Joe Biden’s ice cream says
Rid us of this sad hussy already….
Sheesh
Demcrat Dave says
At least she didn’t vote to overturn an election or oppose the 1/6 investigation like that useless capon Mike Garcia.
He has got to go.
Dan says
Reduce those fees for Katie Hill, please. This whole thing seems like a scam from her ex-husband and associates and I’d like to see Katie win at something here. She may be a bit promiscuous but who isn’t these days? Unfortunately, there were those that felt they needed to pull her covers. May their covers be pulled as well.
Opinion and feelings says
Yes, facts and the law mean nothing, so you must be correct.
Tim Scott says
You mean that pesky law against “revenge porn” that her husband broke at the urging of a bunch of GOP scumbags? Is that the law you are saying should mean nothing?
Guess what, the reporter here dodged the lawsuit…that’s probably unfortunate because she’s really no reporter to begin with and if she was she was not acting in her capacity as a reporter. But c’est la vie. The husband is headed for a deep financial hole, and he seems the type to not be trusted when it comes to ratting out the GOP attorneys that told him this would be no problem.
Katie must pay says
Katie chose to ignore case law that derives from US Constitutional rights that clearly overwhelm any state law to the contrary. This was unwise and her attorney should have counseled her to that end. However, having chosen to bring suit against this defendant, Katie is obligated under the law to make that defendant whole. Nothing should compel that defendant to bear the costs of Katie’s decision.
Tim Scott says
The attorney gets more billable hours pushing the suit the wider the shotgun blast. The people who are found liable will end up paying everything anyway, and the ‘reporter’ who got the suit against her deserved every bit of heartache she got from it because she isn’t really a reporter and wasn’t really acting in the capacity of a reporter…she was, and is, a political operative.
the law says
The law considers her to be a reporter. Your opinion of the quality of her work, non-withstanding. Katie’s attorney should have told her what her legal exposure was. If she ignored her risks- – that’s her problem. SLAP and frivolous lawsuits – including those such as these, need to be discouraged because they plug the court dockets.
Tim Scott says
It has nothing to do with “the quality of her work.” It has to do with the fact that her “reporting” is done for free on a blog while her income is made as a GOP political operative. If someone actually working in journalism is ALSO working for one of the principle characters in the story it’s pretty obvious that they aren’t providing an unbiased account and no editor would allow it into print. But bloggers aren’t journalists and don’t have to answer to an editor.
The judge ruled, and I don’t have a problem with that, but the lawsuit was hardly frivolous and one ancillary being let off the hook isn’t likely to change the final outcome. Hobby is cooked for the revenge porn, and the people who paid him undoubtedly “provided legal counsel” (ie told him it was not illegal) and since there was almost certainly an actual lawyer involved that lie is gonna be expensive.
OKFine says
Feelings, nothing more than feelings,
Trying to forget my feelings of love
Teardrops rolling down on my face,
Trying to forget my feelings of love
Or something like that.
Katie Hill just another Democratic getting down and dirty on taxpayer money.