HARDER

ABRAMS

132s RODEO DRlv[.SUll[3m
90717
021120311700 

June 9. 2016
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION

VIA E-MAIL CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL
Heather Dietrick, Esq.

General Counsel and Presidenl

GAWKER MEDIA, LLC

114 5th Ave. Second Floor

New York. NY 1001 15611

Emu:--

Re: Ivari international Edward Ivari 7 Demand for Retractiou Apology

Dear Ms. Dietrick:

This law firm is litigation counsel for Ivari International and Edward Ivari (collectively.
"lvari"), who have been libeled by your May 24, 2016 story, "15 Donald Trump's Hair a $60,000
Weave" A Gawker Investlgation" (the "Story") The Story makes numerous false and
defamatory statements about my clients.

The following statements in the Story are false and defamatory. and we demand that you
publish a full. fair and conspicuous retraction. correction and apology as to each such statement:

1. "What's more, Ivari's New York location is inside Trump Tower7 on the private
floor reserved for Donald Trump's own office 

2. The following false statements taken from a lawsuit filed against Mr. Ivari by Alicia
Roach in 2001 a case won by Ivari 7 presented to be a true "breakdown of what a
microeylinder treatment actually entails"

a. "The intervention involves the use of skeins of natllral donor hair. Each skein
consists ofa line of hairs attached to a thread about one inch in length. The
threads are then attached endrtorend concentric circles over the client's
head. The circles of thread are then anchored to each other by separate
threads. which radiate from the center so that the underside of the resulting
hairpiece resembles a splder's web The client's natural hair is attached to the
hairpiece by forty to sixty separate threads. Each of those threads is attached
the other end to a tiny metal clamp around a few
strands of natural hair at the scalp. Every few weeks. as the natural hair grows
out from the scalp. the hairpiece loosens on the head. This places increased

ll

Ivari International & Edward Ivari – Demand for Retraction
June 9, 2016
Page 2
tension on the natural hair to which the microcylinders are attached and can
cause hair breakage. A maintenance procedure (maintenance) is necessary
wherein the clamps must be removed and replaced closer to the scalp. A
maintenance tightens the hairpiece on the client’s head.”
b. The following statement taken out of context from the same lawsuit: “The
judge’s decision states, ‘Ivari, Inc. is in the business of installing exorbitantlypriced hairpieces on the heads of people with thinning hair. These hairpieces
are the functional equivalent of wigs and might be expected to look and feel
like wigs after attachment.’”
3. “[T]his nonsurgical ‘micro link’ method from a hair restoration clinic in Canada
appears to be fairly similar” to Ivari’s mycrocylinder process.
4. Ivari’s business brochure refers to microcylinders as “microextensions.”
5. Mr. Ivari “often depicts himself as a doctor.”
6. Ivari’s company has existed as “Ivari, Ivari International Capillaire” and “the Ivari
Treatment Center.”
7. “This was the fourth time that Ivari has had its license suspended in California for
tax-related reasons.”
8. “Ivari doesn’t just dole out loans, he apparently solicits them, too—or at least,
Edward Ivari allegedly did so while treating Dennis Graff.”
9. The following false statements taken from a lawsuit filed by Dennis Graff, are
presented by Gawker as an accurate portrayal of my clients and their business
practices, when if fact the statements are false and defamatory:
a. “Edward Ivari might have good reason for wanting to stay out of sight. The
lawsuit claims that ‘upon information and belief, Mohammad Ivari is one of
several aliases used by Edward Ivari in the furtherance of various highly
suspicious and illegal operations in the United States, the Middle East, and
elsewhere.’”
b. The statements that “in the middle of the 10-to-12 hour process of installing
the hair replacement system, Ivari asked Graff ‘if he would loan him $250,000
at 6% interest for his various “interests.”’ Graff declined to loan the man he
barely knew a quarter of a million dollars, so Ivari then ‘advised Graff he
“would be unable to complete his work” and would complete only the top
part.’ This left Graff with a ‘grossly uneven product covering the top of his
head only.’”

{00067774;1}

 Ivari International & Edward Ivari – Demand for Retraction
June 9, 2016
Page 3
c. “Furthermore, Graff claims that Ivari was suddenly and mysteriously booked
solid, meaning that he was stuck with the mess on his head for the two months
Ivari claimed it would take to squeeze him in. When the appointment to finish
Graff’s treatment finally did roll around, Ivari allegedly hit him up for money
again—this time for $500,000 at an 18 percent interest rate.”
d. “When Graff declined to loan Ivari the money yet again, Ivari supposedly said
he was suddenly unable to finish the treatment that day. He would, however,
be happy to see Graff at his next available appointment date—one whole
month from then. That’s when things really started to get fun.”
e. “In July of 2007, Graff appeared for his appointment at Ivari, Inc. to have the
hair replacement done. Edward Ivari advised Graff he lost millions of dollars
in a Saudi Arabia deal, had actually been held in prison there for a year, and
desperately needed to borrow $1,000,000 at 18% to be repaid in 6 months.
When Graff declined to loan the money to him, Edward Ivari advised him he
could not complete the work until September 2007.”
f. “A few weeks later, an employee at Ivari called Graff, according to court
documents, and told him he needed to pay $12,000 immediately or else Ivari
would be unable to ever complete the treatment at all (Graff had already paid
the previously agreed upon $60,000 in full). Then, in August, Graff had
several hair replacement specialists check out Ivari’s partially finished work.
The experts described Ivari’s product as ‘substandard, a dead giveaway it was
a hairpiece, not finished, and lacking in good quality.’ By October, ‘the hair
replacement system completely fell apart and needed to be removed as it hung
loosely on Graff’s head.’”
g. “According to the complaint, from the date of his initial appointment to
October when he finally had it removed, Graff’s friends described the
hairpiece as a ‘ground hog,’ a ‘cheap piece of carpet,’ and ‘an unmade bed.’”
h. “Finally, on October 8, 2007, Graff allegedly went back to Ivari and met with
Edward Ivari’s wife, Amy, who ‘was shocked at [the hair replacement
system’s] quality.’ She redid the treatment herself in the hope of avoiding any
subsequent lawsuit.”
i. “… Ivari continued to refuse to fix the hairpiece properly until finally, in May
of 2009, Ivari allegedly told Graff that Graff would have to sue them to get
what he wanted. In July, Graff did just that. In April of 2010, Graff and Ivari
settled the case out of court.”
10. That “Ivari’s Paris office—its sole remaining public location—was, until March of
this year, in the building pictured below at 26 Place Vendome. It has since moved to a
new spot that appears to be Ivari’s home address.”

{00067774;1}

 Ivari International & Edward Ivari – Demand for Retraction
June 9, 2016
Page 4
Your publication of the Story is false and disparaging to my clients. Your actions
constitute, among other claims, libel, false light invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of
emotional distress and intentional interference with actual and prospective business relations.
Demand is hereby made that you immediately and permanently remove the Story, and
that you publish an immediate apology and retraction of the Story.
Defamation by Libel
New York law defines libel as a written statement of fact regarding the plaintiff published
by the defendant that is false and causes injury to the plaintiff. Meloffv. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 240
F.3d 138, 145 (2d Cir. 2001). See also Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 111
L.Ed.2d 1, 110 S.Ct. 2695 (1990) (U.S. Supreme Court holding that a statement or publication
containing provably false factual assertions constitutes defamation); Restatement (Second) of
Torts, § 559 ("A communication is defamatory if it tends to harm the reputation of another as to
lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or
dealing with him"); Dillon v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 34, 37-38 (1999).
The statements further qualify under libel per se, which involves a false allegation that a
person is engaged in a crime, or that otherwise tends to injure a person in his or her trade,
business, or profession. Geraci v. Probst, 61 A.D.3d 717, 718, 877 NY.S.2d 386, 388 (2009).
Libel per se is defamatory "on its face" and does not require explanatory matter to be proven;
general damages are assumed.
Here, the Story states false facts about my clients from lawsuits filed against them –
lawsuits which Ivari won – alleging that Mr. Ivari “often depicts himself as a doctor” and that he
lacks professionalism in his business ventures. Because you have published numerous false
statements of fact that have the obvious tendency to subject my clients to ridicule and to injure
them economically, all elements of a cause of action for libel and libel per se are easily met.
Your actions expose you to substantial monetary damages and punitive damages. Strader
v. Ashley, 61 A.D.3d 1244, 1248, 877, NY.S.2d 747, 751 (2009) (affirming jury's award of
punitive damages in connection with a defamation claim).
False Light Invasion of Privacy
The Story also is actionable under the related legal doctrine of false light invasion of
privacy, which constitutes a public statement about a person that either is false or places the
person in a false light, is highly offensive to a reasonable person, and is made in reckless
disregard of whether the information is false or would place the person in a false light. See
Restatement (Second) of Torts §652E (1977); Machleder v. Diaz, 801 F.2d 46 (2d. Cir. 1986).
The statement need not be defamatory. Id. False light invasion of privacy includes
embellishment (adding false material to a true story which places the subject in a false light) and
distortion (arranging otherwise true information in a way to give a false impression). Your
actions easily constitute false light invasion of privacy and the remedies for such cause of action
include monetary damages, punitive damages, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

{00067774;1}

 Ivari International & Edward Ivari – Demand for Retraction
June 9, 2016
Page 5
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Your actions also constitute actionable intentional and/or negligent infliction of
emotional distress. Your actions easily qualify under the law to establish liability against you.
Remedies for such conduct include monetary damages, punitive damages, and preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief.
Tortious Interference
Your actions also constitute actionable intentional interference with actual and
prospective business relations. Your actions easily qualify under the law to establish liability
against you. Remedies for such conduct include monetary damages, punitive damages, and
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.
In light of the foregoing, we specifically demand that Gawker Media LLC and its
affiliated companies, and all of their employees:
1.

Immediately and permanently remove the Story and cease and desist from
publishing or republishing the Story, and/or the specific defamatory statements
listed above, and cease and desist from publishing any future defamatory stories
about my clients;

2.

Immediately publish a public apology and full retraction of the Story with equal
or greater size and prominence as the Story itself;

3.

Immediately provide us with the name and all contact information for the
unnamed “tipster” of the Story, so that we can serve that person with an
immediate cease and desist letter to stop the spread of the false Story; and

4.

Immediately preserve all physical and electronic documents, materials and data in
your possession, custody and/or control (including, without limitation, emails,
text messages and voice mail recordings) that are or might be relevant or related
to the foregoing matters.

Please confirm in writing within forty-eight (48) hours of your receipt of this letter that
the foregoing requests will be, and are being, complied with.
This letter is not intended, and should not be construed, as a complete expression of my
client’s factual or legal positions with respect to this matter. Nothing contained in or omitted
from this letter is intended, and should not be construed, as a waiver, relinquishment, release or
other limitation upon any legal or equitable claims, causes of action, rights and/or remedies
available to my client, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
This letter is confidential and protected by applicable Copyright law, and therefore may
not be copied, published, disseminated or used by any person or for any purpose, other than

{00067774;1}

 Ivari International & Edward Ivari – Demand for Retraction
June 9, 2016
Page 6
internally at your company and its outside legal representatives for purposes of evaluating the
claims herein and complying with the foregoing demands.
We look forward to your immediate response to this letter.
Very truly yours,

CHARLES J. HARDER Of
HARDER MIRELL & ABRAMS LLP
cc: Mr. Edward Ivari (via email)
Douglas E. Mirell, Esq.
Seema Ghatnekar, Esq.

{00067774;1}