Evander Kane v Nik Richie

Our client, Nik Richie has been a famous journalist for more than twenty years, and he has recently focused on bringing a voice to women who have been the victims of sexual misconduct by high profile predators. Evander Kane is an NHL player who is surrounded by public controversies involving sexual assaults, violence against women, unpaid gambling debts, and fixing NHL games. These public controversies have been widely reported on by the media. 

Richie sat down with Kane’s ex-wife for a 72 minute interview where she discussed Kane, his behaviors, and allegations against him. Kane was unhappy his wife was speaking about him. Kane has a previous judgment (from a Canadian court) prohibiting his ex-wife rom “posting anything to social media about” him and his family. This judgment also bars Kane’s ex-wife from “disparaging him or his family” on “any form of social media,” and states that it “remains in effect permanently and will not expire.” His ex-wife may not speak about Kane, their family, their court proceedings, or even the Canadian courts. 

That kind of thing would never fly in the United States.  

Kane attempted to enforce this Canadian judgment, against (this will be hard to believe) Mr. Richie.  Richie was not part of the Canadian proceeding, but Kane’s lawyers still thought they could use the Canadian court order to suppress journalism in the United States.  

What is even more unbelievable, it the Kane succeeded (temporarily) in using this Canadian judgment to secure a prior restraint. Orange County entered an unlawful prior restraint against Richie, based on an ex parte application by Kane, in part relying on the Canadian judgment.  (They snuck into court like the little rats they are and got it in secret without giving Richie an opportunity to respond) 

Once Richie got word of the prior restraint against him, we intervened and got the initial injunction thrown out.  

While the prior restraint was vacated, Kane continues to maintain that the Canadian judgment’s restrictions on free speech are enforceable against third parties, in the United States of America. Kane has, for some unknown reasons, domesticated that judgment in Santa Clara County, despite the fact that Ms. Kane lives in Michigan.

It appears Kane has chosen California to try and domestic and enforce the judgment because California has extremely lax standard in its state courts for the issuance of prior restraints.  

While Richie has won for now, we have also filed an Anti-SLAPP against Kane (which remains pending) and are filing a federal claim for violation of the SPEECH Act.