MTV Networks’ on-air personality Tom Green and C.K. Gillen, the producer of the “Tom Green Show,” are being sued for invasion of privacy over a show segment. Jeffrey Spector claims in his suit in Los Angeles Superior Court that one afternoon last year, he was proceeding toward the entrance of the Metro Red Line-Pershing Square station in downtown L.A. when he was confronted by Green in a wheelchair. According to the complaint, Green was “proceeding at an unsafe speed and crashed down steps of the Metro Red Line station,” causing Spector to be “momentarily stunned but [he] quickly realized the incident was some type of stunt or hoax.” The suit further states that Spector was asked to sign a release, but he declined, and that, since Feb. 15, 2000, the defendants have broadcast Spector’s likeness without permission at least eight times in a sketch called “Lucille, Loose Wheel.” Spector is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Mario R. Rivera of Encino, Calif.’s Shelden and Kulchin is representing Spector. Spector v. MTV Networks, BC230574.

Kent E. Seton of Los Angeles is representing actress Sheryl Lee Ralph-Maurice in her $1 million libel suit in Los Angeles Superior Court against National Enquirer Inc. over an article that reported the plaintiff was divorcing her husband because she was obsessed with being young and wanted to see younger men. The March 28 National Enquirer article, headlined “‘Moesha’ TV Mom Splits with Hubby,” claimed that Ralph-Maurice, who is 43 and appears as the stepmother on the UPN series, developed her youth obsession after a breast cancer scare. Other allegedly false and defamatory statements in the article were that Ralph-Maurice had copied the hairstyle of her young co-star, Brandy, and that she “is well-known for her rubber dresses in a variety of loud colors. She looks like she’s literally been poured into them.” The article also allegedly stated that the actress’ greatest fear was getting old “and that she complained to the producers of her television show that she did not want to look like ‘an old hag’ or a ‘fuddy duddy.’” Ralph-Maurice’s actions include invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and libel per se. Ralph-Maurice v. National Enquirer Inc., BC231158.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]