Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 1 of 42 Page ID #:1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 David W. Quinto (Bar No.106232) dquinto@onellp.com Telephone: (213) 604-1777 ONE LLP Joanna Ardalan (Bar No. 285384) jardalan@onellp.com ONE LLP 9301 Wilshire Blvd. Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 866-5157 Facsimile: (310) 943-2085 Attorneys for Plaintiff Kjersti Flaa UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 KJERSTI FLAA, an individual, Case No. Plaintiff, v. HOLLYWOOD FOREIGN PRESS ASSOCIATION, a California Mutual Benefit Corporation; AUD BERGGREN MORISSE, an individual; TINA JOHNK CHRISTENSEN, an individual; ANIKO SKORKA NAVAI, an individual; LORENZO SORIA, an individual; MEHER TATNA, an individual; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, 2:20-cv-06974 COMPLAINT FOR: (1) Violation of the Right of Fair Procedure; (2) Declaratory Relief; (3) Sherman Act § 1 Violation; (4) Sherman Act § 2 Violation; and (5) Cartwright Act Violation DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants. 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 2 of 42 Page ID #:2 1 Plaintiff Kjersti Flaa (“Flaa”), through her undersigned counsel, hereby 2 brings this Complaint against the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (“HFPA”), 3 Aud Berggren Morisse (“Morisse”), Tina Johnk Christensen (“Christensen” ), 4 Aniko Skorka Navai (“Navai”), Lorenzo Soria (“Soria”), Meher Tatna (“Tatna”), 5 and Does 1-20, inclusive (“Defendants”) for violating her California common law 6 right of fair procedure; Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 7 §§ 1, 2; California’s Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16720, et seq.; and 8 for a judicial declaration under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that various provisions of 9 defendant HFPA’s Bylaws contravene the obligations imposed on it as a mutual 10 benefit corporation exempted from any obligation to pay taxes pursuant to 26 11 U.S.C. § 501(c)(6). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 12 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a), 26 U.S.C. § 7428, 28 U.S.C. § 1507, and 13 principles of pendent jurisdiction. Flaa alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 14 15 1. Lord Acton famously observed that, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute 16 power corrupts absolutely. Defendants have proved his point. Through fortuitous 17 circumstance, the HFPA’s 87 members have been able to monopolize the foreign 18 entertainment reporting market in “the Entertainment Capital of the World”—Los 19 Angeles. Remarkably, they have accomplished that feat at the taxpayers’ 20 expense—and that (among other things) makes their activities unlawful. 21 2. The HFPA is a California as a mutual benefit corporation exempted 22 from both state and federal taxes pursuant to Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal 23 Revenue Code. As such, it is required to benefit all members of the class of 24 workers it represents—foreign entertainment reporters who reside in Southern 25 California--equally, without regard to whether they are members. But it does no 26 such thing because its members are unwilling to share the enormous economic 27 benefits membership provides. 28 2 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 3 of 42 Page ID #:3 1 3. The HFPA was founded during World War II for high-minded 2 purpose and began conferring “Golden Globe®” awards in the late 1940s. The 3 date of its annual awards ceremonies substantially preceded the date of the 4 Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Science’s Academy Awards® ceremony at 5 which ©Oscar® statuettes are conferred. As motion picture studios began 6 spending ever increasing sums of money on “Oscar campaigns,” they hit upon 7 winning Golden Globe awards as a way to build momentum for a successful Oscar 8 campaign. 9 4. As a consequence, HFPA members are now invited to attend press 10 junkets, film festivals, and set visits around the world at no expense to themselves 11 (and are freely allowed to accept the studios’ largesse); coveted interview slots 12 with news making actors, directors, producers, screenwriters, and other industry 13 professionals are reserved for them; and HFPA members are paid lavish sums of 14 money to provide nominal services to the HFPA. 15 5. The HFPA does not provide any benefit of any kind to non-member 16 foreign entertainment reporters who live in Southern California. Instead, the 17 HFPA engages in very substantial and shocking discrimination against them for 18 the benefit of its members. It allocates foreign markets among its members; 19 requires applicants to execute agreements pledging not to offer to write for any 20 publication claimed by a member and not to write for any rival publication, either; 21 refuses to admit qualified applicants who might compete in a market claimed by an 22 existing member; leverages the fact that its members vote for the Golden Globe 23 awards to monopolize the opportunities to attend industry events to the exclusion 24 of non-members; leverages its Golden Globe awards to monopolize the available 25 interview slots for “hot” directors, actors, producers, screenwriters, 26 cinematographers, etc.; pays all travel expenses for its members (but not non- 27 members) to attend film festivals and press junkets around the world at a cost in 28 excess of $1.1 million dollars annually; leverages its Golden Globe awards to 3 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 4 of 42 Page ID #:4 1 induce motion picture studios to assume the cost of five-star hotel stays and 2 gourmet meals while abroad (to the exclusion of non-members); and pays its 3 members (but not non-members) very substantial sums to work for the HFPA 4 doing little or nothing. By way of example, it pays one of its members more than 5 $20,000 annually merely to assign the seating at the Golden Globes awards 6 ceremony, two members in their mid-90s get $12,000 annually to serve on the 7 “History Committee,” and former presidents are paid $1,000 a month for life 8 without even a notional requirement that they provide a service in exchange for 9 their sinecure. 10 6. The HFPA is so focused on protecting its monopoly position and tax- 11 free benefits that it has adopted Bylaw provisions that exclude from membership 12 all objectively qualified applicants who might possibly compete with an existing 13 member. There are no standards or guidelines for satisfying the subjective portions 14 of the applications process and rejected applicants have no right to demand either 15 that the applications procedure be fair or that they be allowed to appeal an adverse 16 decision made for obviously improper and unlawful reasons. 17 7. Through this action, Plaintiff Flaa seeks to enforce the right of fair 18 procedure long applied by California to private organizations that affect a person’s 19 ability to earn a lawful living; declare unlawful the provisions of the HFPA’s 20 Bylaws used unfairly to deny admission to qualified applicants; and recover under 21 applicable anti-trust laws for the economic harm she has suffered as the result of 22 defendants’ unlawful conduct. PARTIES 23 24 25 26 8. Plaintiff Kjersti Flaa is a citizen of Norway domiciled in the County of Los Angeles in the State of California. 9. Defendant Hollywood Foreign Press Association is a California 27 Mutual Benefit Corporation having its principal place of business in the City of 28 West Hollywood, State of California. 4 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 5 of 42 Page ID #:5 10. 1 2 the City of Los Angeles, State of California. 11. 3 4 12. 13. Defendant Lorenzo Soria is a citizen of Italy domiciled in the City of Los Angeles, State of California. 14. 9 10 Defendant Aniko Skorka Navai is, upon information and belief, a citizen of Hungary domiciled in the City of Los Angeles, State of California. 7 8 Defendant Tina Johnk Christensen is a citizen of Denmark domiciled in the City of Glendale, State of California. 5 6 Defendant Aud Berggren Morisse is a citizen of Norway domiciled in Defendant Meher Tatna is a citizen of India who claims to be domiciled in the City of West Hollywood, State of California. 15. 11 Defendants Does 1-20, inclusive, are sued under fictitious names 12 because their true names and capacities are presently unknown to Plaintiff. 13 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the 14 Defendants designated herein as a DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, is legally 15 responsible in some manner for the events, happenings, and unlawful conduct 16 referred to herein, whether as an independent actor, co-conspirator, agent, or 17 principal, and caused damage to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged. Plaintiff will seek 18 leave of court to amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of 19 the Defendants designated herein as DOES when the same have been ascertained. 20 As used herein, “Defendants” shall include and be deemed to refer to each of the 21 Defendants, whether acting individually, jointly, and/or severally. 22 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 23 16. 24 This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 25 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a), 26 U.S.C. § 7428, and 28 U.S.C. § 26 1507. 27 17. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 28 5 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 6 of 42 Page ID #:6 1 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 2 Plaintiff Flaa’s Career in Entertainment Journalism. 3 18. Plaintiff Flaa was raised in Oslo, Norway. She earned a bachelor's 4 degree in Teaching, followed by Communications and Media Studies from Oslo 5 University College (HiO) in 1997. She then spent three years in London working 6 as an account manager for Kingston Technology before finding her passion: 7 writing. In 2003, she embarked on her journalism career at Egmont Publishing 8 House, working for In-Side Magazine and eventually becoming its beauty editor. 9 She was subsequently was hired to work in the feature department of Norway’s 10 second largest newspaper’s weekend supplement feature, Dagbladet Magasinet. 11 From there she moved to Aller Publishing House, becoming the text editor of 12 Norway’s biggest tabloid magazine, Se og Hør. 13 19. In 2007, Flaa moved to New York City to work as a freelance 14 journalist in the United States. She reported on entertainment, lifestyle, fashion, 15 and trends for major newspapers and magazines in Norway, including Dagens 16 Næringsliv, D2 Magazine, Verdens Gang, Dagbladet, KK, Henne, Tara, 17 Cosmopolitan and Aftenposten. She became the principal celebrity interviewer for 18 the biggest entertainment television show in Norway: "God Kveld Norge" (Good 19 Evening Norway), on TV2. She also produced entertainment news segments for 20 Norway’s NRK TV and Radio (the Norwegian equivalent to the BBC) and became 21 a frequent panel moderator and guest host. 22 20. Flaa began transitioning to living in Southern California in 2015, 23 where she founded and became the creative director of a production company, 24 Content Now TV in 2018. Her company produced 130 episodes of the short form 25 entertainment series “Hollywood Stories” for Scandinavia’s biggest streaming 26 network, VIAPLAY, in 2018. The show was sold to over 40 countries. Flaa has 27 also produced entertainment segments for Entertainment Tonight MBC Arabic, and 28 served as the Hollywood correspondent for SBS, Channel 6, Shownieuws in 6 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 7 of 42 Page ID #:7 1 Holland for five years. Flaa also serves as the moderator for NOW - Nordic Oscar 2 Weekend - an annual three-day seminar and event in Los Angeles having as its 3 principal goal to build a bridge between entertainment industry professionals in 4 Scandinavia and Hollywood. As a testament to her skill, her celebrity interviews 5 on the YouTube “Flaawsome Talk” channel have been viewed 69.7 million times. 6 21. Flaa’s professional achievements have earned her professional 7 recognition. She has appeared as a Hollywood expert in five documentaries shown 8 in Germany by Kabel Eins and has been profiled multiple times by major outlets in 9 Norway concerning her success reporting on celebrities and her involvement with 10 NOW. She also earned the second place at the SoCal Journalism Awards Contest 11 in 2018 for a profile of Jane Fonda, and her television interview of Henry Winkler 12 earned second runner-up honors at the 12th National Arts & Entertainment 13 Journalism Awards in 2019. 14 22. Flaa’s achievements as an entertainment journalist and her 15 outstanding personal qualities have been acknowledged by members of the HFPA. 16 One of the members who nominated her for admission to the HFPA in 2018, H.J. 17 Park (a South Korean journalist), wrote that Flaa “would be a great addition to the 18 HFPA” and would “be an active member of our group attending screenings, press 19 conferences and meetings.” He further noted that Flaa “is also known in the 20 industry for being easy going with a sympathetic personality.” 21 23. In co-sponsoring her the same year, Diederik van Hoogstraten of The 22 Netherlands wrote that Flaa, “is known as a serious, enterprising journalist . . . 23 well-known in her country as a leading tv reporter covering the entertainment 24 business.” He also noted that among journalists and publicists in Los Angeles, 25 “she is extremely well regarded.” He then observed that, “Ms. Flaa is a kind and 26 generous person. As her acquaintance I can say with certainty that her personality 27 would be a welcome addition to the HFPA.” Notwithstanding her qualifications 28 7 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 8 of 42 Page ID #:8 1 and endorsements, the HFPA declined to admit Flaa to membership in 2018 (but 2 did admit Henry Arnaud of France after previously rejecting him five times). 3 24. In 2019, Flaa again applied for admission. Ramzy Malouki (Tunisia) 4 initially co-sponsored Flaa, writing that he was sponsoring a candidate for 5 admission for just the second time in his then 13-year membership because 6 “Kjersti Flaa is an amazing journalist, as well as a genuinely sympathetic person 7 with integrity.” 8 25. Flaa’s second 2019 member nominator, Frank Rousseau, a French 9 journalist who reports for Guiana and Guadalupe, noted that Flaa “is a highly 10 respected and talented journalist with a great reputation,” and had “received a 11 talent-visa by the US government for extraordinary abilities in her field of 12 journalism (01).” 13 26. 14 15 In 2019, the HFPA rejected all five objectively qualified applicants. The HFPA Carefully Cultivates a Public Perception of High-Minded Purpose. 27. The HFPA’s self-description posted on its website at 16 www.goldenglobes.com is, like so much else in Hollywood, a fictionalized account 17 of its activities and true nature. It states, in part, that: 18 [T]he Hollywood Foreign Press Association had humble origins that 19 stemmed solely from a group of journalists' desire to efficiently and 20 accurately cover all aspects of the world of entertainment. 21 Today's organization has its roots in the early 1940s when Pearl 22 Harbor had drawn America into World War II. Audiences, hungry for 23 diversion, were seeking out films offering escape, inspiration, and 24 entertainment; and filmmakers such as Orson Welles, Preston Sturges, 25 Darryl Zanuck and Michael Curtiz were working hard to fulfill the 26 need. Amid the turmoil of war and the difficulties with 27 communications, a handful of Los Angeles-based overseas journalists 28 banded together to share contacts, information, and material. . . . 8 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 9 of 42 Page ID #:9 1 In 1943 the journalists, led by the correspondent for Britain's Daily 2 Mail, formed the Hollywood Foreign Correspondents Association and 3 conceived the motto “Unity Without Discrimination of Religion or 4 Race.” 5 ... 6 In 1950 differing philosophies among members created a schism 7 within the organization . . .. 8 The separation ended in 1955 when the journalists reunited under the 9 collective title “The Hollywood Foreign Press Association” with 10 firm guidelines and requirements for membership. (Emphasis 11 supplied). 12 28. The HFPA’s March 31, 1967 Articles of Incorporation as a California 13 Mutual Benefit Corporation expressly acknowledged its objective to become 14 “qualified for exemption from Federal income tax under the Internal Revenue 15 Code,” and therefore asserts that the HFPA will make donations and dispense 16 charitable contributions “exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary 17 and/or educational purposes, and/or for the prevention of cruelty to children or 18 animals.” 19 29. The HFPA’s more narrowly focused stated purposes included (i) 20 promoting interest in the study of the arts, including specifically promoting the 21 development of the motion picture art form; (ii) advancing appreciation of drama 22 and religious, classical, artistic, musical, literary, and social tradition by the 23 exhibition of motion picture performances; (iii) providing facilities for education 24 and instruction in the arts of motion picture production; (iv) establishing favorable 25 relations and cultural ties between foreign countries and the USA through the 26 exhibition of motion picture photoplays; (v) promoting interest in the motion 27 picture art form; (vi) to educate the American public in the motion picture art form 28 and in motion picture players throughout the world; (vii) broadening the national 9 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 10 of 42 Page ID #:10 1 culture by exposing the American public to the cultures of foreign countries 2 through the exhibition of motion picture photoplays; (viii) recognizing outstanding 3 achievements by conferring annual Awards of Merit within the motion picture and 4 television industry, both domestic and foreign; and (ix) assisting needy and 5 destitute individuals and families in or connected with the entertainment industry. 6 7 8 9 30. In November 1967, the HFPA was granted its coveted tax-exempt 31. Consistent with the HFPA’s high-minded statements of purpose and status. eleemosynary intent, its website now touts its “multi-million-dollar donations to 10 charity.” Taken at face value, that claim might seem credible. Per a September 14, 11 2018 report by Daniel Holloway in Variety, NBC pays “roughly $60 million per 12 year” for the right to broadcast the Golden Globes ceremony. However, as of May 13 31, 2020, the HFPA was holding just a piggy bank less than $60,000,000 in cash 14 and its records reflected that over the past 30 years, its total annual charitable 15 donations have averaged less than $1,000,000. 16 17 Membership in the HFPA Brings Enormous Economic Benefits. 32. Qualified applicants for admission to the HFPA are virtually always 18 rejected because the majority of its 87 members are unwilling to share or dilute the 19 enormous economic benefits they receive as members. Because the HFPA’s 20 members will not admit anyone who might possibly compete with an existing 21 member, either by selling to the same publications or to competing publications, 22 the average age of HFPA members has steadily increased. Only half the HFPA’s 23 members are considered truly “active”; the remaining half either do the bare 24 minimum required to maintain their “active” status or are relieved from having to 25 meet minimum requirements by virtue of their longevity with the organization. 26 The HFPA’s 87 members—all of whom are eligible to vote for the Golden Globe 27 Award winners—include 5 persons in their 90s, an approximately equal number in 28 their 80s, and numerous members in their 70s. 10 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 11 of 42 Page ID #:11 1 33. One benefit members receive flows from the importance that motion 2 picture studios assign to winning Academy Awards of Merit®, popularly known as 3 “©Oscars®.” Motion picture studios annually spend millions of dollars on “Oscar 4 campaigns.” The HFPA confers its Golden Globe awards while members of the 5 Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences are in the process of deciding which 6 persons and achievements will be nominated to contend for an Oscar. Winning 7 Golden Globe awards is therefore viewed both as a means to create “buzz” for a 8 successful Oscar campaign, and as a predictor (or self-fulfilling prophesy) of 9 success on Oscar night. 10 34. As a consequence, studios go far out of their way to accommodate 11 HFPA members by inviting them to attend every industry function, event, and 12 screening, and, most importantly, making their top producers, directors, actors, and 13 other talent available for exclusive interviews with HFPA members. When foreign 14 entertainment reporters make their seasonal migration to Los Angeles for “Awards 15 Season,” they, like their Los Angeles-based brethren excluded from membership in 16 the HFPA, find themselves competing for any invitations and interview slots that 17 remain after the HFPA’s members have gotten their fill. 18 35. The opportunities for HFPA members to ply their trade to the 19 exclusion of non-members are not limited to “awards season” but are continual and 20 ongoing. All year long, HFPA members enjoy all-expenses-paid trips to film 21 festivals around the world where the studios treat them lavishly and accommodate 22 their every desire. They do so because such concepts as “conflict of interest,” 23 “impropriety,” “impartiality,” and “appearance of objectivity” are unknown to the 24 HFPA. 25 36. Further, there is no special requirement for voting such as, for 26 example, watching the nominated motion pictures and television shows. One 27 member now in is upper 90s is, sadly, deaf and legally blind. He does, however, 28 cast 1 of the 87 votes that determine who will win a Golden Globe and therefore 11 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 12 of 42 Page ID #:12 1 enjoys the same perquisites befitting of royalty as the other voters. The studios, of 2 course, resent having to lavish enormous sums of money on, and being required to 3 cater to, the desires of a few dozen aging journalists who are regularly heard 4 snoring through screenings, but given the importance of the Golden Globes, they 5 see no way to end the farce. 6 37. Unsurprisingly, foreign entertainment reporters in Los Angeles 7 excluded from membership in the HFPA are greatly impaired in their ability to 8 report stories that can generate meaningful income for them. 9 38. A second economic benefit HFPA membership confers lies in the 10 worldwide press junkets available to members. The HFPA’s annual “Return of 11 Organization Exempt From Income Tax” provided to the I.R.S. reflects that the 12 HFPA spends in excess of $1.1 million annually solely to purchase airplane tickets 13 for its members to attend film festivals, press junkets, and set visits. HFPA 14 members are typically not even expected to do anything except earn frequent flier 15 miles while abroad on press junkets. They are not required to write any article at 16 all based on their first 5 junkets. By the time they have gone on 10 junkets, they 17 are required to have written just 1 article, and just 2 articles after going on 15 18 junkets. While abroad on junkets, the studios typically pick up the tab for 5-star 19 accommodations and haute cuisine wine and meals. 20 39. Most reporters have never been well paid. That is especially true of 21 reporters for news outlets in less populous countries, such as the foreign 22 entertainment reporters who live in Southern California. Their ability to earn a 23 living is becoming ever harder as technological advances allow reporters abroad to 24 conduct interviews in Los Angeles without ever needing a passport. When foreign 25 reporters in Southern California do sell articles and interviews, they frequently 26 receive just a few hundred dollars for their work. As a consequence, most support 27 themselves by moonlighting at another job. 28 12 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 13 of 42 Page ID #:13 1 40. Foreign entertainment reporters in Los Angeles excluded from 2 membership in the HFPA are thus economically disadvantaged because they 3 cannot afford to compete with reporters able to tap into the HFPA’s largesse. 4 41. A third economic benefit conferred by membership in the HFPA lies 5 in the economic benefits the HFPA directly provides to its members. Upon 6 information and belief, every HFPA member save one is on its payroll. Twenty of 7 the 87 members of the HFPA chair committees. For that, each is paid a four-figure 8 monthly salary. During May 2020, when entertainment reporting and travel were at 9 a standstill, one HFPA member was paid a substantial sum for his services on the 10 Travel Committee. At least two 95-year-old members are paid $1,000 per month 11 to serve on the History Committee. Even the member who serves as a 12 parliamentarian at the HFPA’s meetings is handsomely compensated. Members 13 also earn tens of thousands of dollars a month by writing articles in their native 14 tongue for posting on the HFPA’s website—something they are free to do 15 whenever they want to enlarge their bank accounts. 16 42. Members who are also officers or board members are paid especially 17 well. During the 2017 tax year, Defendant Lorenzo Soria was paid $93,637, 18 Defendant Meher Tatna was paid $87,341, Vice President Anke Hormann was paid 19 $44,376, Treasurer Ali Sar was paid $43,804, and directors were paid from $9,395 20 to $57,043. All former presidents are paid $1,000 per month for life. 21 43. During the months immediately preceding the Golden Globes telecast, 22 payments by the HFPA to its members skyrocket. For example, merely deciding 23 who will get seated for the Golden Globes presentation in the International 24 Ballroom at the Beverly Hills Hotel pays more than $20,000. 25 44. A recent Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax filed by 26 the HFPA reflected that it although it had just 6 employees, it that year paid 27 “salaries, other compensation, [and] employee benefits” of $2,910,914, “other 28 13 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 14 of 42 Page ID #:14 1 salaries and wages” of $2,539,179, and “other employee benefits” of $120,176-- 2 $5,561,269 in total. 3 45. Even HFPA members who no longer qualify for active membership 4 status enjoy advantages unavailable to non-members. Members who lose their 5 “active” status by failing to sell 6 articles and attend 45 press conferences per year 6 remain entitled to attend all press conferences, screenings, and events, and 7 otherwise enjoy the privileges of active membership, including getting tickets to 8 the Golden Globes. They lose only their ability to earn money from the HFPA, 9 travel at its expense, and cast votes for the Golden Globe awards. 10 11 12 13 46. These benefits are, of course, also denied to the foreign entertainment reporters in Los Angeles who are not permitted to join the HFPA. The HFPA’s Members Act in Concert to Protect One Another From Competition. 47. On the rare occasions when a new member is allowed to join the 14 HFPA, membership is conferred only subject to an understanding concerning how 15 and where the new member will sell his or her reporting. 16 48. Those understandings are memorialized by the HFPA, itself. Its 17 membership directory includes such categories as “Name,” “Address,” “City and 18 State,” “Telephone,” “Cell,” “Fax,” “Email,” and “Country.” One might think that 19 “Country” refers to the nation where the reporter was born or resides, or whose 20 passport the reporter carries, but one would be wrong. It refers to the geographic 21 market or markets allocated to that reporter. For example, Ramzi Malouki of 22 France is identified with the “Country” of “Africa”; Defendant Tatna of India is 23 identified with Singapore and has staked a claim to Malaysia; Defendant Navai of 24 Hungary is identified with “Hungary, Singapore”; Theo Kingma of The 25 Netherlands is identified with “Australia, The Netherlands” and used to claim 26 Cuba, as well; Frank Rousseau of France is identified with “Guiana, Guadalupe”; 27 Yenny Nun-Katz of Chile is identified with “Chile, Peru”; Jenny Cooney of 28 14 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 15 of 42 Page ID #:15 1 Australia is identified with “Australia, New Zealand”; Dierk Sindermann of 2 Germany is identified with “Austria, Germany, Switzerland,” etc. 3 49. The HFPA members’ assigned territories are flexible. Karen Martin 4 was once responsible for Japan but is now responsible for Germany. Ramzi 5 Malouki was identified with “Algeria, Belgium, France, Morocco, Tunisia” before 6 those countries were exchanged for “Africa.” Jack Tewksbury once had France 7 and Russia but now has only Argentina. A description of the HFPA’s members 8 identifying the countries they were identified with five years ago may be found at 9 https://www.vulture.com/2015/01/who-exactly-picks-the-golden-globes- 10 11 winners.html. 50. All told, the 87 HFPA members report for 49 “countries.” It does not 12 follow, though, that because there are more members than “countries,” there is 13 competition. Other factors explain why some countries have more than one 14 designated reporter. Several pairs of members are married; some are journalists 15 while others are photographers; some journalists report in print while others report 16 for electronic media; some report for outlets in the same country but in different 17 languages; and some have been allowed to join because the reporters assigned to 18 those countries have become largely inactive with advancing age and no longer 19 object to the admission of a compatriot. 20 51. In “Meet the Total Randos Who Decide the Golden Globes” published 21 by Vocativ on January 9, 2015, Molly Fitzpatrick provided a description of the 22 HFPA’s members that few people in the motion picture or television industries 23 would dispute: 24 Two or three dozen HFPA members—we’re erring on the generous 25 side—are legitimate, respected media figures, like Silvia Bizio, a 26 frequent contributor to Italy’s La Repubblica, and Rocio Ayuso, Los 27 Angeles correspondent for Spain’s El Pais. But most of the 28 association’s so-called journalists are intermittent freelancers at best. 15 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 16 of 42 Page ID #:16 1 Their bylines, usually in obscure publications, tend to be impossible to 2 find. (Unsurprisingly, the HFPA didn’t respond to a request for 3 member biographies or records of their work.) Many might as well be 4 ghosts online, an effect compounded by the fact that the group’s 5 membership skews geriatric. 6 52. The HFPA’s Bylaws enshrine the members’ purported right to 7 protection from competition. Section 4.12 provides that if “a member is accused of 8 offering to write for a publication that is already represented by another member . . 9 . the aggrieved member may lodge a Grievance.” Further, “members should not 10 solicit publications represented by other members.” It is also impermissible to 11 offer to write for a publication without remuneration. 12 53. The sense that they are entitled to protection from competition has 13 become so ingrained that HFPA members even demand that others respect that 14 purported right—so much so that Frederik Malling Juul, the Head of Theatrical 15 Distribution for SF Studios in Denmark, wrote to the HFPA in 2019 concerning 16 defendant Tina Johnk Christensen. Juul said that, “for a long time, [he had] not 17 been able to understand, how the HFPA gains anything from being associated with 18 Tina Johnk [Christensen] as the Danish representative.” Addressing his studio’s 19 views, Juul averred: 20 [W]e are appalled by the behavior of one of your members using her 21 membership [in] the organization as a power-tool fighting others. 22 And getting ahead, just because she is part of your organization, and 23 not because of her journalistic skills…. From where we are sitting, 24 Tina works out of the interest of ONE person and one person only. . . . 25 Tina herself. I can honestly tell you, that we are not just one sole 26 distributor with these claims. When I talk to my colleagues and their 27 heads of publicity, it is a unanimous vote. 28 16 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 17 of 42 Page ID #:17 1 Defendant Christensen was also the subject of a complaint made by 2 Danish journalist Sara Madsen to the HFPA’s General Counsel, Gregory 3 Goeckner, and Defendants Tatna and Soria, among others, in 2019. Under a 4 caption headed, “work ethics and potential violation of The Cartwright Act,” 5 the journalist said, in part: You now being a member of the HFPA, obviously gives you 6 7 access to incredible talent, yet you seem to be using your HFPA 8 position to push the big studios and the local distributors to make sure 9 journalists like me don’t have access to junkets. 10 Due to this purposeful sabotage, I’ve just lost four big feature 11 interviews on one of the biggest releases of the year with four of the 12 most extraordinary names in the industry. Interviews that I had sold 13 as they were already confirmed by the distributor and the studio . . .. 14 It has been brought to my attention that you were using your 15 HFPA position to put pressure on the studio forcing them to cancel 16 my slots. In a junket that has nothing to do with the HFPA, but was 17 arranged for International journalists. I have emails confirming this, and I am at the moment in 18 19 contact with a lawyer who is looking into this matter based on The 20 Cartwright Act, as your actions affect my livelihood, keep me from 21 doing my work and cause me to lose income. 22 54. Swedish member Magnus Sundholm was blocked and rejected for 23 membership for eight years at the insistence of Defendant Morisse, a Norwegian 24 journalist who feared that Sundholm might compete with her. Morisse was very 25 vocal in objecting to having another Scandinavian as a member. 26 55. Defendant Tatna misrepresented facts to her fellow members to 27 prevent a Singaporean journalist from gaining admission in 2015. Although Tatna 28 usually writes for publications in India, she had begun working for a Singaporean 17 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 18 of 42 Page ID #:18 1 magazine and did not want competition. She therefore spread the word that the 2 editor of the Singaporean publication had told her that if the Singaporean applicant 3 were admitted, the publication would stop accepting articles written by Tatna. The 4 applicant was denied admission before the editor confirmed that he had never said 5 any such thing 6 56. In 2015, HFPA member Nellee Holmes, whose territory is the Russian 7 Federation, wanted to protect herself from possible competition by Ukrainian 8 applicant Lena Basse. Holmes not only required that Basse agree not to write for 9 various Russian outlets but demanded a bribe in the form of Basse’s Golden Globe 10 ticket allocation. Although HFPA members’ ticket allocations then had a 11 combined face value of $3,000, they were worth considerably more on the black 12 market. Defendant Soria, who was then as now the HFPA’s president attempted to 13 sweep the incident under the rug while the membership voted to give Holmes a 14 slap on the wrist for demanding the bribe. 15 57. That a member might demand a bribe could not have come as a 16 surprise. After all, the HFPA’s publicist had earlier sued the HFPA and its former 17 president (and current member) Philip Berk for fraud and engaging in “unethical 18 and potentially unlawful deals and arrangements which amount to a ‘payola’ 19 scheme.” 20 58. 21 Outside journalists familiar with the HFPA privately refer to it as “the cartel” with good reason. 22 The HFPA’s Practices Have Institutionalized a Culture of Corruption. 23 59. The HFPA sees no ethical conflict in allowing the very people who 24 vote on awards to accept thousands of dollars in emoluments from the very entities 25 competing for those awards. Section 4.4 of the HFPA’s Bylaws express the only 26 limitation on voting rights: “members who work for motion picture, radio, and 27 television companies or their agents, in publicity or promotion, shall not vote for 28 the Golden Globe Awards. Any member who actively participates . . . in a motion 18 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 19 of 42 Page ID #:19 1 picture or a television program during the preceding year . . . shall not be eligible 2 to nominate or vote for such motion picture or television program.” Otherwise, the 3 sky’s the limit concerning what the HFPA’s members may accept from the studios. 4 Indeed, when Disney PR agent Jerry Rojas offered in 2019 to treat six members 5 who were then in Bali to a two-night stay in a five-star hotel in Singapore without 6 any pretense of a work-related purpose, the members were happy to accept and the 7 HFPA paid for their airfare. 8 9 60. Members of the HFPA feel so entitled that when the COVID-19 outbreak shut down virtually all motion picture and television production, they 10 wanted to disburse HFPA funds directly to HFPA members. Told that it would be 11 unlawful to do so, they grudgingly agreed to contribute $400,000 to the Los 12 Angeles Press Club to offer grants to out-of-work correspondents. 13 61. The Bylaws include an in terrorem provision intended to protect the 14 HFPA’s code of silence while denying members equal protection of law. Section 15 4.6(A) provides that any member may be expelled “for cause,” but the Bylaws 16 nowhere define “cause.” Moreover, if a grievance procedure is invoked, the HFPA 17 may be represented by its general counsel but members are prohibited from having 18 an attorney present. 19 The HFPA Has Erected Numerous, Arbitrary Hurdles to Membership. 20 62. 21 22 The HFPA’s requirements for admission to membership have both objective and subjective requirements. Both are skewed to keep new members out. 63. The objective requirements for becoming a member are significantly 23 more demanding than the requirements for remaining an active member. And, 24 owing to a May 2020 Bylaw amendment that upon information and belief was 25 made for the purpose of preventing Plaintiff Flaa from gaining admission, 26 applicants can no longer satisfy the application requirements by reporting for 27 television, although persons who are already members may rely on television 28 reporting to prove they satisfy the requirements for active membership. 19 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 20 of 42 Page ID #:20 1 64. Otherwise, the objective requirements include providing (i) 2 credentials from publications appointing the applicant as their correspondent; (ii) 3 24 clippings of the applicant’s articles from the past 3 years (vs. 18 clippings for 4 members); (iii) proof the applicant was paid for those articles; (iv) proof the 5 applicant has belonged to the Motion Picture Association of America (“MPAA”) 6 for 2 years; and (v) two letters of sponsorship from active members. 7 65. Although the requirement that an applicant must find two sponsors 8 might seem unremarkable, it is an important part of the process by which the 9 HFPA prevents qualified applicants from obtaining membership. Members apply 10 enormous pressure on other members not to sponsor reporters they do not care for 11 or, more importantly, who might possibly compete with them. One of Plaintiff 12 Flaa’s 2019 sponsors was pressured into withdrawing his sponsorship of her the 13 day before nominations were due. A Japanese entertainment reporter has been 14 blocked from even applying for membership for 18 years because the senior 15 Japanese members of the HFPA will not support her, and, without their support, no 16 one will sponsor her. 17 66. HFPA insiders acknowledge that the sponsorship requirement is 18 unjustifiable and routinely bars qualified foreign entertainment journalists from 19 membership in the HFPA. One member recently said of the membership 20 admissions process, “this is making even more clear [] that we really need to get 21 rid of sponsors. I have not put myself out there very often, but every time I do I 22 get attacked.” Another has acknowledged that he, “fought hard to get rid of 23 sponsors this past year . . . It’s tough when these battles are lost again and again 24 because of an antiquated minority standing in the way of change.” Upon 25 information and belief, even the HFPA’s in-house general counsel, Gregory 26 Goeckner, favors removal of the sponsorship system. 27 28 67. And, lest any member become open minded about allowing qualified applicants to join, HFPA, members are strictly limited to sponsoring no more than 20 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 21 of 42 Page ID #:21 1 one applicant per year. And, as a further check on the theoretical possibility that 2 too many qualified applicants might join, Section 4.1(E)(3) of the HFPA’s Bylaws 3 prohibits the admission of more than 5 members in any year. 4 68. The subjective requirements pose an even greater hurdle to 5 membership. After an applicant has managed to find two members willing to risk 6 the wrath of their fellow members by acting as a sponsor and has been certified as 7 satisfying all objective requirements for membership, the applicant must next be 8 approved by a majority vote of the members. 9 69. Significantly, the HFPA has no guidelines whatever for approving or 10 disapproving an applicant. Only one thing is certain—that the quality of an 11 applicant’s work is irrelevant. For many years, applicants’ press clippings were 12 made available for inspection by members who visited the HFPA’s offices in West 13 Hollywood but were not otherwise made available to members. Any who did not 14 visit thus voted without ever seeing an applicant’s work. 15 70. In 2018, Plaintiff Flaa’s qualifying reporting articles were made 16 accessible to all HFPA members via a link. Not one member accessed her 17 reporting. In 2020, the HFPA announced that it would not automatically make 18 applicants’ qualifying works available to members but would instead provide a link 19 to any member who requested it. Although it subsequently backed down, the point 20 has repeatedly been made that an applicant’s professional oeuvre is unimportant to 21 the admissions decision. 22 71. Because the HFPA has no guidelines for members to follow in 23 deciding whether to anoint applicants as “New” or “provisional,” non-voting 24 members—the precursor stage to becoming a voting member—character 25 assassination of applicants and sponsors alike has become the rule, not the 26 exception. Within the past few years, one newly-wed female applicant was 27 accused by the rumor mill of sleeping with male members in exchange for their 28 votes; another applicant was accused of money laundering; yet another applicant 21 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 22 of 42 Page ID #:22 1 was smeared with the accusation that she wanted to become a member only 2 because she was a psychologist who wanted to find celebrity clients; still another 3 applicant was accused of seeking membership only to help her father make more 4 connections in the industry. Defendant Navai did not mince words in telling one 5 applicant’s husband, “I’d rather vote for a dog than your wife.” 6 72. Surviving such hazing is viewed by members as just another hurdle all 7 applicants must clear. In 2018, Defendant Christensen warned Flaa that, “no one 8 gets in the first year so don’t expect that to happen to you. We all have to go 9 through it.” 10 73. Following a smear campaign ending in the rejection of a Belgian 11 applicant she had sponsored, Italian member Alessandra Venezia declared at a 12 membership meeting that she was “deeply ashamed to be part of a company that 13 allowed such a nasty campaign against a totally talented journalist.” A Latin 14 American member wrote in 2019 that, “it’s not hard to become a target for gossip 15 and bullying among our group. . .There is jealousy, envy, resentment, bitterness…. 16 and that’s in their good days.” An Asian member said this year: “It’s so ridiculous 17 that some members try to block the bonafide journalist for their personal selfish 18 satisfaction and I find it’s as ridiculous for the association to let them get away 19 with it.” 20 74. A letter Flaa received anonymously in July 2020 said the following 21 about Sundholm, one of Flaa’s sponsors (with whom she has been in an exclusive 22 relationship with for five years): 23 Dear Kjesti [sic] 24 Hoping all is well in your fabulous existence. 25 It’s well known that you usually explain not getting your way 26 as people being somehow ‘jealous’ of you. Let me assure you, no one 27 is jealous of you and in particular, your relationship with Magnus 28 22 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 23 of 42 Page ID #:23 1 Sundholm, who for years has famously been considered the equivalent 2 of the town bicycle. Before you, he slept with each and any female entertainment 3 4 journalist in the industry in LA, New York, London etc, with 5 publicists and HFPA colleagues, and the occasional actress, usually 6 openly cheating on whichever unfortunate ‘girlfriend’ he was 7 involved with at the time. So now, it’s you and you may rest assured 8 that not a single individual feels envy of any kind towards you, more 9 like contempt for your staggering arrogance and delusion. What a 10 pair! 11 75. During recent years, reporters objectively qualified for admission to 12 the HFPA but who were prevented by the sponsorship requirement for applying or 13 rejected by vote of the membership have included Semira Ben-Amor (Finland), 14 Raffi Boghosian (Dubai), Claude Budin-Juteau (France), Yong Chavez 15 (Philippines), Alison De Souza (Singapore), Maria Estevez (Spain), Rosa Gamazo 16 (Spain), Sabrina Joshi (India), Catherine Nitelet-veddder (Belgium), Joanna 17 Ozdobinska (Poland), Gill Pringle (England), Yuki Saruwatari (Japan), Sophia 18 Silva (Uruguay), Evie Sullivan (Austria), and Christian Thiele (Germany). One 19 rejected applicant managed to find a bright side, though: “the gossip press voted 20 against [me] but the nice thing was [and] is that all, and I mean all, the successful 21 real journalist[s] voted for me.” 22 76. During 2018-2019, just one of the six applicants certified by the 23 HFPA as objectively qualified survived the membership vote. But even the rare 24 applicants who do pass the membership vote would be premature in toasting their 25 good fortune. The process described above is merely the process for becoming a 26 “provisional member.” Section 4.2(B) of the Bylaws requires that provisional 27 members repeat the process after a year to become active members. 28 23 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 24 of 42 Page ID #:24 1 77. Notwithstanding the numerous and unlawful roadblocks to 2 membership, the HFPA has been creating more at an accelerating rate. It amended 3 Article IV of its Bylaws, entitled “Membership,” twice in 1996, once more in each 4 1998, 2002, 2009, 2014, 2017, four times in October 2019, once more in December 5 2019, and yet again in May 2020 (when it decided that although members could 6 rely on television reporting to remain qualified, applicants could no longer use 7 television reporting to become qualified in the hope that the amendment would 8 defeat Plaintiff Flaa’s application). 9 78. Not only are the Bylaws subject to change on a whim (as the HFPA 10 demonstrated by suddenly excluding applicants, but not members, who rely on 11 television journalism to demonstrate that they are active reporters), but they are 12 malleable. To aid a favored applicant, the HFPA’s Credentials Committee decided 13 in 2020 that the required period of MPAA membership need not be continuous, or 14 even recent. 15 Flaa’s Rejections by the HFPA Were Unrelated to Her Superior Achievements or 16 Personal Traits. 17 79. Before being forced to withdraw his 2019 endorsement of Flaa for 18 membership, Ramzy Malouki acknowledged the reason Flaa was rejected for 19 membership in 2018: 20 I am aware . . . that when Kjersti applied to [the] HFPA last year, the 21 Scandinavian members did not agree. Upon their requests, Kjersti 22 was willing to sign legal documents to prove that she would never sell 23 to their clients. Please note that even as a non-member, Kjersti has 24 dropped Aud [Morisse’s] newspaper VG as an outlet to assure 25 [Morisse] that she would never interfere with her work. Kjersti has 26 never sold an article to Denmark in her entire career as a journalist. 27 (Defendants Aud Berggren Morisse and Tina Johnk Christiansen are from Norway 28 and Denmark, respectively.) Unfortunately, defendant Morisse got to Malouki, 24 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 25 of 42 Page ID #:25 1 who subsequently explained that Morisse was so upset that he could not continue 2 to serve as Flaa’s sponsor. He thereupon withdrew his sponsorship one day before 3 applications were due. 80. 4 In a letter to his fellow HFPA members, Frank Rousseau also 5 addressed Flaa’s 2018 rejection: “Kjersti applied for membership last year where 6 she experienced an unjustifiable campaign against her, including blackmailing 7 from an HFPA member, as well as fabricated stories, to make people vote against 8 her.” 9 81. Magnus Sundholm (of Sweden) stepped in to sponsor Flaa after 10 Malouki was pressured to withdraw his sponsorship. Sundholm said of Flaa to his 11 fellow HFPA members: 12 Her original sponsor, a hard news reporter and former war 13 correspondent, was so pressured by some female members in the 14 organization that he saw no other option than to step down [as her 15 sponsor]. This behavior echoes of last year. Then, her 74-year-old 16 sponsor was harassed in text messages and called all sorts of nasty 17 things by the same members. So, you might wonder, what has Kjersti 18 done to trigger this kind of bullying? Is it because she is: 19 1) An accomplished journalist with over 17 years in the profession? 20 21 2) Well liked and endorsed by all the studios and distributors? 22 3) Successful on YouTube with her celebrity interviews? 55 million views. 400 interviews. 52,000 subscribers. 23 24 4) Producing celebrity interviews for the largest entertainment TV-show in Norway? 25 26 5) Working for one of the major newspapers in Norway? 27 6) Skilled in producing, video editing and photography? 28 25 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 26 of 42 Page ID #:26 1 7) their online presence? 2 3 Frequently asked by HFPA members for help on how to grow 82. Sundholm also addressed the concern that Flaa might compete with 4 other HFPA members, declaring, “Kjersti has never in her career sold a single 5 article to Denmark, Sweden or Finland.” He next addressed Flaa’s 2018 rejection: 6 Kjersti had an agreement with Aud last year, which Aud, without any 7 explanation, chose not to honor last minute. Kjersti has since had no luck in 8 getting any response of contact with Aud. Our Danish member has yet to 9 come up with an honest explanation for her continu[ou]s aggressive 10 campaign against [Flaa]. 11 The Individual Defendants Have Conspired to Deny Flaa Fair Procedure and Have 12 Engaged in or Aided and Abetted Unlawful Anti-Competitive Conduct. 13 83. To ensure that Plaintiff Flaa would not compete with them in “their” 14 markets of Norway and Denmark, Defendants Christensen and Morisse attempted 15 to secure a signed agreement from Flaa committing Flaa to never compete with 16 them as a quid pro quo for not blocking her from admission to membership in the 17 HFPA. Going even further, Christensen demanded that Flaa agree in writing that if 18 admitted, Flaa would never support Danish entertainment reporter Sara Gerlach 19 Madsen for membership. Christensen and Morisse openly campaigned against 20 Flaa’s admission on the basis that although Flaa had pledged to restrict her 21 journalistic activities to television interviews as a means to assure them that she 22 would not compete for print reporting using material gathered at HFPA press 23 conferences, they believed that Flaa would not be able to sustain herself by doing 24 television interviews and would be driven by financial need to compete with them 25 in the print entertainment reporting market. Christensen and Morisse claim to have 26 a private agreement that allows either to sell to the “other’s” market when the other 27 person is not able to cover a given story. They were, however, unwilling to run the 28 26 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 27 of 42 Page ID #:27 1 risk that Flaa might disturb their monopoly by using admission to the HFPA to 2 compete with them. 3 84. To that end, they campaigned against Flaa’s admission by, among 4 other things, telling HFPA members that Flaa would ruin Morisse’s “career” 5 (Morisse was already in her mid-70s) if she were admitted to membership. HFPA 6 member Jack Tewksbury later disclosed that Christensen and Morisse were both in 7 tears as they persuaded him to vote against Flaa in 2018. 8 9 10 11 85. In 2019, Christensen attempted to persuade Frank Rousseau to withdraw his sponsorship of Flaa, claiming to “have proof” that Flaa was a bad person. Rousseau cut that short by demanding to see it. 86. Also in 2019, Christensen and Morisse teamed up again, this time to 12 persuade Ramzi Malouki to withdraw his sponsorship of Flaa on the eve of the 13 application deadline. Morisse again claimed that if admitted, Flaa would “ruin” 14 Morisse’s “career.” 15 87. Attempting to cover their tracks, Christensen and Morisse jointly 16 asked Malouki to tell the HFPA’s then-president, Defendant Meher Tatna, that it 17 was entirely his idea to withdraw his sponsorship and deny that Christensen and 18 Morisse had anything to do with his decision. Informed of what had happened, 19 Tatna not only refused to remonstrate Christensen and Morisse but angrily 20 criticized another member for privately explaining to the membership why 21 Malouki had withdrawn his support of Flaa. Tatna also contacted members 22 individually, ordering them not to speak to The Wrap. As Tatna explained, if 23 word of what had happened were to get out, the HFPA’s reputation would be 24 harmed. Tatna’s actions and failure to act thus conveyed to the membership that 25 voting to deny a qualified applicant admission for anti-competitive reasons was 26 perfectly acceptable. 27 28 88. The Wrap annually reports on the HFPA’s membership votes as best it can (most rejected applicants refuse to speak to The Wrap fearing that doing so 27 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 28 of 42 Page ID #:28 1 would forever kill any possibility that they might someday be admitted), and 2019 2 was no exception. Attempting to leave The Wrap with nothing to report, 3 Defendant Tatna contacted members individually, ordering them not to speak to it. 4 Tatna told them that if word of what had happened were to get out, the HFPA’s 5 reputation would be harmed. Then, putting her best public relations spin on the 6 HFPA’s actions, Tatna piously conveyed to The Wrap that the HFPA would again 7 amend its Bylaws, this time to ensure that more applicants were admitted. True to 8 form, the HFPA promptly amended its Bylaws to ensure that it became more 9 difficult to obtain admission. 10 89. In 2020, Christensen and Morisse have been even more invidious in 11 attempting to prevent Flaa from gaining admission to the HFPA. Taking into 12 consideration that Morisse’s health would no longer permit her to work full time 13 even if she wanted to, Christensen and Morisse schemed to back another 14 Norwegian reporter they had earlier tried to smear as a dishonest journalist, Mari 15 Glans. Remarkably, they did so after telling Defendant Soria that the Norwegian 16 journalism market did not have room for more than one journalist. 17 90. Although Glans had not planned to apply for admission this year and 18 did not have the necessary journalistic credentials, Morisse volunteered to serve as 19 Glans’s second sponsor when Elisabeth Sereda (of Austria) announced that she 20 would become Glans’s first sponsor. Sereda assured her fellow members that 21 Glans, “writes SOLELY for Norwegian publications and is not in competition with 22 any other member,” and that Sereda “would still not have considered sponsoring 23 her without the approval of our Norwegian member Aud [Morisse].” Christensen 24 and Morisse have told others that through this stratagem, they hope to prevent Flaa 25 from at last surviving the initial membership vote. By adding Glans, a Norwegian, 26 to the HFPA’s membership roll, they would be able to persuasively tell other 27 members that there were enough Norwegian members for the foreseeable future 28 and could delay Flaa’s admission for decades. 28 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 29 of 42 Page ID #:29 1 91. Defendant Navai openly acknowledges that Flaa is “a very good 2 journalist” or an “outstanding journalist.” She collaborated with Flaa for over 3 seven years, asking Flaa to cover press junkets for her when she was traveling. 4 Nevertheless, she believes that the HFPA should exclude anyone who might 5 compete with a member in selling articles to a given publication. She further 6 believes that the HFPA should deny membership to anyone who has sold articles to 7 a publication that itself competes with a publication for which a member writes. 8 By accusing Flaa to other members of having done those things, saying that Flaa 9 wanted Morisse “to retire and die,” and “ageism,” Navai has actively participated 10 11 in the scheme to unlawfully deprive Flaa of admission to the HFPA. 92. As the HFPA’s current president, Defendant Soria has attempted to 12 protect the HFPA’s corrupt and unlawful practices by enforcing its implied oath of 13 omertà. After Flaa sent a privileged pre-litigation offer to enter into a confidential 14 settlement to the HFPA’s outside counsel, Marvin Putnam, Soria invited a German 15 member, Frances Schoenberger, to meet him for lunch. There, Soria shared Flaa’s 16 privileged settlement offer with Schoenberger (who is neither a board member nor 17 an officer of the HFPA) before dispatching her to convey a message to Magnus 18 Sundholm. Sundholm is a 25-year veteran of Scandinavia’s largest newspaper, 19 Aftonblandet, a member of the HFPA, and lives with Flaa. The message 20 Schoenberger conveyed to Sundholm was: “Obviously you have leaked numbers 21 from the HFPA’s treasurer’s report. Members are never going to go for this, and 22 you can’t continue being a member if this moves forward, and you can’t come to 23 press conferences because there could be sensitive information there. You cannot 24 continue to work as the official photographer for the HFPA. We have a good thing 25 going. That can all be taken away.” Schoenberger further intimated that unless 26 Flaa abandoned her legal claims, one of her sponsors would again be pressured 27 into withdrawing his endorsement thereby making Flaa ineligible for admission. 28 29 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 30 of 42 Page ID #:30 1 The sponsor has, however, emphatically refused to withdraw his sponsorship of 2 Flaa. 3 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 4 Violation of the Common Law Right of Fair Procedure 5 (Against All Defendants) 6 93. 7 forth at length. 8 94. 9 Flaa repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-92, above, as though fully set California has long recognized a common-law right of fair procedure that attaches to quasi-public organizations that make decisions affecting a person’s 10 ability to practice a lawful trade or profession. When quasi-public organizations 11 do so, they have a duty to devise fair procedures, and to implement those 12 procedures fairly, in admitting qualified applicants. Their admissions decision- 13 making must be both substantively rational and procedurally fair. 14 95. As an organization afforded tax-free treatment by both the Internal 15 Revenue Service and the California Franchise Tax Board, defendant HFPA is a 16 quasi-public organization. In exchange for its tax exemption, it is required to act in 17 the best interests of the entire class of professionals from which its members 18 derive—foreign entertainment reporters residing in Southern California—without 19 regard to membership status. It may not offer preferential treatment to members at 20 the expense of non-members. 21 96. The HFPA is also a quasi-public organization in that it serves as a 22 gatekeeper organization for foreign entertainment reporters in Southern California 23 seeking to practice their profession. 24 97. Since the California Supreme Court first applied the right-of-fair- 25 procedure doctrine 76 years ago, California courts have in a variety of 26 circumstances recognized the effect that exclusion from membership in a private 27 organization may exert upon a person’s ability to pursue a particular profession or 28 calling. Subsequent California decisions have applied the right of fair procedure to 30 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 31 of 42 Page ID #:31 1 the admissions practices of professional societies, membership in which is a 2 practical prerequisite to the pursuit of a profession. 98. 3 Such is the case here. Admission to membership in the HFPA brings 4 with it access to events at which all the important players in the motion picture and 5 television industries are present, including, importantly, those with new releases to 6 discuss. Membership in the HFPA also brings with it special access to those 7 persons at those events. Moreover, membership in the HFPA allows members to 8 defray the cost of attending the press junkets vital to their work. 99. 9 The HFPA not only fails to offer a fair procedure for seeking 10 membership, it does not even make a pretense of doing so. It has objective 11 requirements that applicants for membership must meet but arbitrarily requires that 12 an applicant must also find two sponsors for no evident purpose. It also requires 13 two votes of approval by the membership without providing any guidelines or 14 standards for approving or rejecting applicants. It places no emphasis whatever on 15 evaluating the quality of an applicant’s work. Instead, it freely allows its members 16 to base their admissions decisions on whether an applicant might become a 17 competitive threat to an existing member. Indeed, the HFPA’s Bylaws even 18 attempt to prohibit competition among members. The HFPA also freely allows 19 members to reject applicants based on their personalities and does nothing to 20 correct or prohibit the spread of character slurs and false accusations that 21 invariably confront every applicant. The emotional toll that character assignation 22 campaigns take has led numerous applicants to stop re-applying for membership, 23 thereby abandoning any hope of ever being admitted. And when all is said and 24 done, a rejected applicant has no right to appeal, no right to contest the 25 misinformation communicated about him or her, and no right to a review of any 26 sort. 27 28 100. In 2018 and 2019, the individually named defendants took advantage of the utter institutional lack of fair procedure to unfairly and maliciously 31 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 32 of 42 Page ID #:32 1 communicate false or misleading information concerning Flaa to other HFPA 2 members, or to use their authority as officers of the HFPA to combat or prohibit 3 misinformation campaigns, as alleged hereinabove. The foreseeable and intended 4 consequence of their acts and omissions was to ensure that Flaa would unfairly be 5 denied admission. 6 101. As a direct and proximate cause of Flaa’s unfair rejection for 7 membership in the HFPA when she first applied, she was unable to get access to 8 hundreds of press conferences attended by major Hollywood talent. Had she been 9 able to attend (as all HFPA members were), she would have been able to conduct 10 and sell many dozens of print interviews to Norwegian and other Scandinavian 11 publications. In addition, she would have been able to conduct dozens of video 12 interviews that she would then have been able to sell to television shows and 13 online media outlets in Scandinavia. Further, Flaa has a fast-growing YouTube 14 channel on which she shares her video interviews. Her channel has over 64,000 15 subscribers and typically gets between one and two million views per month. Had 16 she been admitted to the HFPA, Flaa would have been able to conduct far more 17 celebrity video interviews and would have derived far more income from her 18 YouTube channel as a consequence. 19 102. Accordingly, Flaa seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief 20 against Defendants prohibiting them from denying her admission to the HFPA as a 21 full member and from denying future qualified applicants the benefits of fair 22 procedure by modifying the requirements of their existing membership admissions 23 process in the following respects: 24 (a) Elimination of the sponsorship requirement. 25 (b) Elimination of the membership vote. 26 (c) Elimination of the “New Member” category of membership, making 27 everyone who would be a New Member under the Bylaws as currently 28 constituted an “Active Member.” 32 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 33 of 42 Page ID #:33 103. Flaa additionally seeks damages against Defendants jointly and 1 2 severally according to proof at trial, together with her costs and reasonable 3 attorneys’ fees. 4 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 5 Declaratory Relief 6 (Against Defendant HFPA) 7 104. Flaa repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-92 and 94-103, above, as 8 though fully set forth at length. 105. For-profit companies enjoy a large measure of freedom in deciding 9 10 whom to hire, how many persons to hire, how much to pay employees, what 11 benefits to offer, how to distribute profits, and the like. In exercising those 12 freedoms, they do not need to consider the needs and interests of their competitors 13 but are free to consider their concerns alone. But there is a quid-pro-quo. They 14 must pay taxes. 106. Companies give up a measure of those freedoms though when they 15 16 successfully petition the government to be relieved of the burden of paying taxes. 17 They may no longer act purely in their own self-interest but must serve a broader 18 good. 19 107. Defendant HFPA enjoys a tax-free existence under Section 501(c)(6) 20 of the Internal Revenue Code and a corresponding exemption from paying 21 California state taxes. In exchange, it may not engage in economic activities that 22 favor its members. As was explained during the Hearings on Tariff Schedules of 23 the Revenue Act of 1913 Before the Subcommittee of the Commerce on Finance, 24 63d Cong., 1st Session at 2001, 2003 (1913), the tax exemption created by Section 25 501(c)(6) was to help “cooperative agencies of good citizenship . . . increase the 26 incomes, not of themselves, but of the individuals in their communities, 27 irrespective of membership in the organizations.” (Emphasis added.) In other 28 words, the benefits provided by an organization exempt under Section 501(c)(6) 33 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 34 of 42 Page ID #:34 1 may not accrue solely to its members but must benefit members of its industry 2 generally, as numerous courts have held. 3 108. As shown at length above, the benefits that accrue to the few, the 4 fortunate, the members of the HFPA, do not accrue to members of the industry 5 generally. 6 109. It is through its Bylaws that the HFPA excludes foreign entertainment 7 reporters residing in Southern California from enjoying the benefits that HFPA 8 members fight so fiercely to withhold from industry colleagues. 9 110. An actual case or controversy exists in that Plaintiff Flaa contends, 10 and Defendant HFPA denies, that the following provisions of the HFPA’s Bylaws 11 are unlawful in light of the HFPA’s commitments and obligations as a tax-exempt 12 Section 501(c)(6) mutual benefit corporation: 13 14 1. Section 4.1(E), which provides as follows: E. New members shall be: 15 1. New members must fulfill all the requirements for active 16 membership. 17 2. After a period of one year, new members are eligible to 18 apply for Active Membership. 19 20 21 3. A maximum of five new members a year may be accepted into the Association. 2. Sections 4.2(A)(6), (7), which provide as follows: 22 6. Sponsorship from two active members, including a letter of 23 recommendation from each sponsor detailing: 24 (a) How long the member has known the applicant. 25 (b) How long the applicant has been located in this area. 26 (c) How long the applicant has been writing about the 27 entertainment industry. 28 34 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 35 of 42 Page ID #:35 1 2 (d) Any other information that would support the applicant’s journalistic credentials. 3 7. Each active member may sponsor only one new applicant for 4 membership each year. 5 6 3. The following portion of Section 4.2(A), following subsection (7): If the applicant meets the requirements, then the application 7 shall be submitted to the membership for 30 days’ consideration. If 8 active members have any questions or concerns about the application, 9 they shall promptly advise the Credentials Committee about those 10 questions or concerns in writing. The Credentials Committee shall 11 investigate all such questions or concerns, including contacting the 12 applicant for additional information if appropriate, and if necessary, 13 shall then convene an open meeting in which members can share their 14 questions or concerns in person. After this, the Credentials 15 Committee shall advise the membership of their conclusions so that 16 the active members are able to consider those conclusions in their 17 decision on the application. Prior to the next meeting active members 18 shall decide by secret ballot and by a majority vote of those active 19 members voting on each applicant whether to accept the applicant as a 20 member. All members shall submit their ballots to the Association’s 21 accounting firm prior to the August membership meeting. The 22 accounting firm shall count the votes and attend the August 23 membership meeting to announce the results. 24 25 4. Section 4.2(B), which provides as follows: B. New members who fulfill the requirements for Active 26 membership after a period of one year, having been scrutinized by the 27 Credentials Committee, may apply for active membership and be 28 confirmed by the majority of active members. All members shall 35 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 36 of 42 Page ID #:36 1 submit their ballots to the Association’s accounting firm prior to the 2 August membership meeting. The accounting firm shall count the 3 votes and attend the August membership meeting to announce the 4 results. 5 111. Accordingly, Plaintiff Flaa seeks a judicial declaration that the 6 foregoing Bylaw provisions, and any others that are substantially similar in sum 7 and substance or that would achieve the same ends, are unlawful and 8 unenforceable. 9 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 10 Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 11 (Against All Defendants) 12 112. Flaa repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-92, 94-103, and 105-111, 13 14 above, as though fully set forth at length. 113. Southern California, and the Los Angeles area in particular, 15 constitutes a substantial market for foreign entertainment reporters who reside in 16 the area and earn a livelihood by gathering and selling entertainment news. 17 18 19 114. Plaintiff Flaa is a participant in the entertainment news reporting industry in the Southern California market. 115. Defendants have entered into an unlawful contract, combination in the 20 form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce as 21 alleged hereinabove. 22 116. Defendants’ actions have caused injury not only to competition but to 23 Plaintiff Flaa individually, by reason of which Flaa has suffered actual damages in 24 an amount to be proven at trial, which damages shall be trebled and awarded to 25 Flaa as provided in Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15. 26 117. Unless the actions of Defendants as alleged hereinabove are enjoined, 27 competition in the relevant market will continue to be irreparably harmed in a 28 manner that cannot be compensated by money damages. 36 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 37 of 42 Page ID #:37 1 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 2 Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 3 (Against All Defendants) 118. Flaa repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-92, 94-103, 105-111, and 113- 4 5 117, above, as though fully set forth at length. 6 119. Defendants’ actions as alleged hereinabove constitute a course of 7 conduct calculated to monopolize the market for foreign reporting of entertainment 8 news emanating from Southern California in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman 9 Act. 10 120. In engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants have acted 11 with the specific intent to impede, prevent, or destroy competition in the 12 international market for entertainment news gathered in Southern California and 13 given their consistent pattern of unlawful behavior, there is a dangerous probability 14 that their efforts will continue to succeed. 15 121. Defendants’ actions as alleged hereinabove have caused injury not 16 only to competition but to Plaintiff Flaa individually, by reason of which Flaa has 17 suffered actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which damages shall be 18 trebled and awarded to Flaa as provided in Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, 19 15 U.S.C. § 15. 20 122. Unless Defendants’ actions as alleged hereinabove are enjoined, 21 competition in the relevant market will continue to be irreparably harmed in a 22 manner that cannot be compensated in monetary damages. 23 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 24 Violation of the Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16720, et seq. 25 (Against All Defendants) 26 27 123. Flaa repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-92, 94-103, 105-111, 113-117, and 119-122, above, as though fully set forth at length. 28 37 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 38 of 42 Page ID #:38 1 124. Defendants’ actions as alleged hereinabove have caused injury not 2 only to competition but to Plaintiff Flaa individually, by reason of which Flaa has 3 suffered actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which damages shall be 4 trebled and awarded to Flaa as provided in Section 16750(a) of the Cartwright Act, 5 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16750(a). 6 125. Unless Defendants’ actions as alleged hereinabove are enjoined, 7 competition in the relevant markets will continue to be irreparably harmed in a 8 manner that cannot be compensated in monetary damages. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 9 10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Flaa prays for relief as follows: 11 1. On the First Claim for Relief: 12 A. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendants 13 prohibiting them from denying her admission to the HFPA as a 14 full, voting member. 15 B. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendants 16 prohibiting them from denying membership in the HFPA to 17 objectively qualified applicants. 18 C. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the 19 HFPA from enforcing the requirement that applicants for 20 admission must have sponsors. 21 D. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the 22 HFPA from treating persons who have satisfied its admissions 23 requirements as “new” or “provisional” members or otherwise 24 denying them the benefits of full membership for any period of 25 time. 26 27 E. For a damages award against Defendants jointly and severally in an amount to be proved at trial. 28 38 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 39 of 42 Page ID #:39 1 2 3 F. For an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees against Defendants jointly and severally. 2. On the Second Claim for Relief: 4 For a judicial declaration that the following provisions of the HFPA’s 5 Bylaws are unlawful in light of the HFPA’s commitments and obligations as 6 a tax-exempt mutual benefit corporation: 7 8 9 Section 4.1(E), which provides as follows: E. New members shall be: 1. 10 11 membership. 2. 12 13 16 After a period of one year, new members are eligible to apply for Active Membership. A maximum of five new members a year may be accepted into 14 15 New members must fulfill all the requirements for active the Association. Sections 4.2(A)(6), (7), which provide as follows: 6. Sponsorship from two active members, including a letter 17 of recommendation from each sponsor detailing: 18 (e) How long the member has known the applicant. 19 (f) How long the applicant has been located in this area. 20 (g) How long the applicant has been writing about the 21 entertainment industry. 22 (h) Any other information that would support the 23 24 25 applicant’s journalistic credentials. 7. Each active member may sponsor only one new applicant for membership each year. 26 The following portion of Section 4.2(A), following subsection (7): 27 If the applicant meets the requirements, then the application 28 shall be submitted to the membership for 30 days’ 39 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 40 of 42 Page ID #:40 1 consideration. If active members have any questions or 2 concerns about the application, they shall promptly advise the 3 Credentials Committee about those questions or concerns in 4 writing. The Credentials Committee shall investigate all such 5 questions or concerns, including contacting the applicant for 6 additional information if appropriate, and if necessary, shall 7 then convene an open meeting in which members can share 8 their questions or concerns in person. After this, the 9 Credentials Committee shall advise the membership of their 10 conclusions so that the active members are able to consider 11 those conclusions in their decision on the application. Prior to 12 the next meeting active members shall decide by secret ballot 13 and by a majority vote of those active members voting on each 14 applicant whether to accept the applicant as a member. All 15 members shall submit their ballots to the Association’s 16 accounting firm prior to the August membership meeting. The 17 accounting firm shall count the votes and attend the August 18 membership meeting to announce the results. 19 Section 4.2(B), which provides as follows: 20 B. New members who fulfill the requirements for 21 Active membership after a period of one year, having been 22 scrutinized by the Credentials Committee, may apply for active 23 membership and be confirmed by the majority of active 24 members. All members shall submit their ballots to the 25 Association’s accounting firm prior to the August membership 26 meeting. The accounting firm shall count the votes and attend 27 the August membership meeting to announce the results. 28 40 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 41 of 42 Page ID #:41 1 Any other Bylaw provisions substantially similar in sum and 2 substance to the foregoing or that would achieve the same ends. 3 3. On the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Claims for Relief: 4 A. For treble damages according to proof at trial; 5 B. For preliminary and permanent relief prohibiting the HFPA and its 6 members from unlawfully competing with non-HFPA-member 7 foreign entertainment journalists residing in Southern California or 8 denying them the benefits of HFPA membership 9 C. For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees. 10 D. For costs of suit; and 11 E. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just. 12 13 Dated: August 3, 2020 ONE LLP 14 15 16 17 18 19 By: /s/ David W. Quinto David W. Quinto Joanna Ardalan Attorneys for Plaintiff Kjersti Flaa 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 41 COMPLAINT Case 2:20-cv-06974 Document 1 Filed 08/03/20 Page 42 of 42 Page ID #:42 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 2 3 Plaintiff Kjersti Flaa hereby demands trial by jury of all issues so triable under the law. 4 5 Dated: August 3, 2020 ONE LLP 6 7 8 9 10 11 By: /s/ David W. Quinto David W. Quinto Joanna Ardalan Attorneys for Plaintiff Kjersti Flaa 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 42 COMPLAINT