Landlord law firm accuses tenant rights advocates of libel and privacy invasion

PASADENA -- The founder and head of BASTA, an anti-eviction non-profit that demands jury trials for a majority of Los Angeles County unlawful detainer cases, testified Friday that he authorized a contractor to purchase the domain name dennisblock.com, which was used to redirect traffic of people presumably looking for information about one of Los Angeles County's largest law firms representing landlords.

The plaintiff, Dennis P. Block, claims it was used to direct traffic to a fake Twitter account that mocked him and his staff. The defendant, BASTA and founder Daniel J. Bramzon, said that traffic to the site was directed to a Yelp page for Dennis P. Block and Associates.

The defense argues that comments -- some of them pornographic and referring to Block's family -- posted on Twitter accounts with Block's name, were parody and protected by the First Amendment and the anti-SLAPP law.

On Friday, Bramzon testified that he "authorized" contractor "Brett Schulte to purchase the website domain, DennisBlock.com."

"Was it purchased in Dennis Block's name? No. The name, 'Dennis Block,' was purchased in BASTA's name," Bramzon acknowledged under cross-examination by Block's attorney, Christopher L. Frost of Frost LLP.

Block sued Schulte, Bramzon and BASTA in 2017, saying the Twitter site @DennisPBlock, was created without his permission and was used to tweet defamatory statements suggesting that he and his staff were immoral, unethical, misogynistic and incompetent. The account also posted Block's personal cell phone number and photos of his law firm's attorneys and their family members, the lawsuit said. Dennis P. Block et al. v. John Doe et al., EC067254 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Sept. 5, 2017).

"While he was working with BASTA, you reprimanded Brett Schulte for a number of things, right?" Frost asked.

"Yes," Bramzon replied.

"And you've never reprimanded him regarding a fake Twitter account, correct?" Frost said.

"Correct," Bramzon replied.

"You knew about the fake Twitter account in 2017 but you didn't reach out to Twitter until 2022, right?" Frost said.

"Correct," Bramzon replied.

Outside court, Bramzon's attorney, Blake Makoa Kawabata, showed a reporter documents that he said were provided by Twitter under subpoena that he said showed Schulte had registered the account in his name.

Kawabata of the Law Offices of Kawabata + Rosenberger said that Bramzon's admission on the witness stand that he authorized the domain name does not have an impact on the case because it isn't related to the claims.

BASTA and Bramzon filed an anti-SLAPP motion in 2018, arguing that the case should be dismissed because Block had made himself a public figure, and the "Not Dennis Block" Twitter account was "intended to serve as a warning to consumers about [Block's] trustworthiness."

Superior Court Judge Ralph C. Hofer found that the allegations arose from protected activity and granted the motion in part by striking two causes of action: negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Hofer denied Schulte's motion to strike the remaining claims, finding the plaintiffs could prevail against him.

A 2nd District Court of Appeal panel reversed that order, concluding that the comments published on Twitter "do not involve a public issue or an issue of public interest."

"Having resolved the merits of this consolidated appeal, we would be remiss if we did not comment on the topic of civility," Division 4 Justice Brian S. Currey wrote.

"The case raises the issue whether the alleged participation of Bramzon (and/or other attorneys employed by or acting on behalf of BASTA) in the challenged tweets and other alleged conduct constitutes professional incivility, including expressions of gender bias and misogyny," he wrote.

The panel asked the parties to file briefs on whether the tweets and alleged conduct violate State Bar disciplinary rules.

"Because the facts are almost wholly undetermined at this early stage of the proceedings, we are unable to resolve the issue, and leave it to the superior court on remand to make such inquiries, orders, and/or referrals to the State Bar as it deems appropriate," Currey wrote. Justices Nora M. Manella and Audrey B. Collins concurred.