 |
| gary michelson, sandra evling, dog bite, pitbull, alya michelson, los angeles, billionaire, california, la times, extortion, lawsuit, complaint, mary cummins, personal injury, brentwood,Patrick Soon-Shiong, la times |
TEXT OF BOTH LAWSUITS IS BELOW.
UPDATE: LA Times still has not mentioned or done a story about the alleged coverup. NY Times did a story. Other media picked up that story which is how I saw it.
ORIGINAL: Gary Michelson's dog Blue the unneutered blue nose pitbull? allegedly bit someone and their dog in a park in Brentwood. How many times have we all stated this would happen with his unneutered pitbulls. Was Alya the one walking the dog? Just pulled up the lawsuit. I think she was. They said a "she" was walking the dog in the off leash dog park and Alya is a defendant. She clearly can't control the dog. I never took my pitbull to an off leash dog park. She posts photos of herself with a blue nose male unneutered pitbull walking around town and in her fake model shoots. Below Instagram still from video September 2023. Is this the dog? Many more photos of this dog on Facebook. We all know Gary Michelson
buys purebred pitbulls then
doesn't neuter them. Everyone tells him to neuter them but he refuses. I told him this myself first time I went to his house and saw his dog walking in the street.
Below is from the lawsuit. Alya is in Brentwood all the time. Gary and Alya live in Brentwood. Kids go to school there.
"Defendants were the owners and/or keepers of the subject dog that attacked Plaintiff,
and one or more of the Defendants and their dog were present at the Veterans Barrington
Park, 333 South Barrington Ave., Los Angeles CA 90049 (mary cummins: off leash dog park) on August 9, 2022.
On August 9, 2022, Plaintiff was walking with her dog on public property within the
Veterans Barrington Park, 333 South Barrington Ave., Los Angeles CA 90049. Defendants'
dog ran toward Plaintiff and her dog. Defendants' dog charged at Plaintiff and her dog,
and attacked and bit Plaintiff while she was protecting her dog. As a result, Plaintiff
suffered severe injuries.
Defendants' dog had a propensity to run toward people and other animals and aggressively
come into contact with them, attack them, and bite them against their will. (Mary Cummins:Seems others at the dog park allegedly confirmed this per Plaintiff). Upon
information and belief, Defendants' dog had attacked and/or bitten people and other
animals multiple times prior to August 9, 2022. Defendants had actual and/or
constructive knowledge of this propensity and of prior bite incidents, and
notwithstanding this knowledge, Defendants allowed the dog to approach Plaintiff and her
dog without restraint on August 9, 2022 in violation of, at minimum, Los Angeles
or should have known of their dog's vicious propensities and prior bite incidents.
Defendants' dog attacked and bit Plaintiff on August 9, 2022, and Plaintiff sustained
severe injuries, causing her to require medical treatment. The dog owned and/or kept by
Defendants was a substantial factor in causing injury to Plaintiff.
Indeed, Defendants owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to Plaintiff. Here,
Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff, and as a result, Plaintiff was attacked and
bitten by the subject dog and suffered severe injuries. As a further result of
Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff has suffered bodily injury, emotional suffering,
medical expenses, and general damages according to proof."
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations contained within the
First Cause of Action for Strict Liability and the Second Cause of Action
for General Negligence. Despite Defendants' knowledge that their dog
engaged in multiple incidents of attacking and/or biting other animals and
people prior to August 9, 2022, Defendants permitted their dog to run
around a public dog park without restraint and outside of their immediate
presence and control. As a result of Defendants' reckless disregard of the
rights of other members of the public, including Plaintiff, to not be
attacked by a vicious animal with a history of multiple bite and attack
incidents running at large, Plaintiff was attacked and bitten by
Defendants' dog and suffered severe injuries."
"First Cause of Action – Strict Liability Page 4 of Complaint
Plaintiff (name): Sandra Evling alleges that Defendants Gary Michelson; Alya Michelson;
and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive are strictly liable for damages caused to Plaintiff:
On (date): August 9, 2022
At (place): Public property within the Veterans Barrington Park, 333 South Barrington
Ave., Los Angeles CA 90049
As
1) Defendants were the owners and/or keepers of the subject dog that attacked
Plaintiff, and one or more of the Defendants and their dog were present at the
Veterans Barrington Park, 333 South Barrington Ave., Los Angeles CA 90049 on
August 9, 2022.
2) Plaintiff was walking with her (Alya Michelson?) dog on public property within the Veterans
Barrington Park, 333 South Barrington Ave., Los Angeles CA 90049.
3) Defendants' dog ran toward Plaintiff and her dog.
4) Defendants’ dog charged at Plaintiff and her dog, and attacked and bit Plaintiff
while she was protecting her dog. As a result, Plaintiff suffered severe injuries.
5) Defendants’ dog had a propensity to run toward people and other animals and
aggressively come into contact with them, attack them, and bite them against their
will.
6) Defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of this propensity and of
prior bite incidents, and notwithstanding this knowledge, Defendants allowed the
dog to approach Plaintiff and her dog without restraint on August 9, 2022 in
violation of, at minimum, Los Angeles Municipal Code ("LAMC") Sections
53.34, 53.34.1, 53.06, and 53.06.2(a).
7) Defendants knew or should have known of their dog’s vicious propensities and
prior bite incidents.
8) The dog attacked and bit Plaintiff.
9) Plaintiff sustained injury, requiring medical treatment; and
10) The dog owned and/or kept by Defendants was a substantial factor in causing
injury to Plaintiff."
The lawsuit is typed in a court form. Sounds like it was filed quickly and cheaply after Gary Michelson filed a lawsuit for extortion. I haven't seen Gary's lawsuit yet.
It sounds to me like woman was bitten. She contacted Gary and probably said "let's just settle this with you or your insurance out of court." For some reason Gary got all huffy and said "NOOOOOO! I will sue you for extortion and destroy you like I destroy other people I don't like!" I can only imagine that Alya Michelson probably told Gary the dog only happily licked the woman, not even a scratch. This is probably what got Gary into his vengeance mode. Maybe Gary is taking medication of sorts which makes him more sensitive?
To check on status or see documents for a fee, go here and put in the case numbers below
Woman sues Gary for personal injury one month after being sued for civil extortion
23SMCV02510 6/7/2023 Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (Unlimited) MICHELSON GARY Stanley Mosk Courthouse 27
EVLING SCHNAUFER SANDRA NORA v Gary Michelson, Alya Michelson
Gary answered and denied all claims. I can only see the first free page. Gary has insurance. His insurance should hire the lawyer and reply to this case.
Gary sues woman Sandra Evling for Extortion before she sues him for personal injury
23STCV09935 5/3/2023 Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort (Unlimited) MICHELSON GARY Stanley Mosk Courthouse 39
Sandra replied but I can only see first page which is blank. Gary has filed multiple motion to compel discovery motions. I can only see first page which tells me nothing. I'm not willing to pay to view the pages.
This looks like the woman. She lives in Brentwood with her dog and likes to go walking. "When she is not working she enjoys spending time in her home in Brentwood (Los Angeles) or being out in nature, hiking with her dog." She rents an apartment near the dog park in Los Angeles.
Below is the extortion, emotional distress case. I only pulled up this one cover page. Steve Cooley the ex District Attorney is Gary's attorney! Steve Cooley helped Gary in a criminal case against his ex boyfriend which is in this blog. Steve Cooley used his influence to get the DA to go after his boyfriend in what I believe was a frivolous case.
01/28/2024 11:44 AM I just pulled up the full extortion case and read it. If this is true, I don't blame Gary Michelson for suing her for extortion. I'm amazed he didn't file a criminal police report. Maybe he did and she just hasn't been charged or arrested yet. I find it hard to believe anyone would put their criminal extortion threats in writing. Threatening to have someone's dog killed is very low, if it's true. I could see if it killed her dog and mauled her but ...
Animal control would not order a dog to be killed in Los Angeles. There are dog bite hearings. At most they could take away the dog license and he has to send the dog out of the city and county. I don't know if these things are true. Because of Gary Michelson lying about me and others it's hard to believe what he says. Why would the police arrest Gary? He owns the dog with Alya but Alya was allegedly the one in, out of control of the dog. Gary should stop allowing his dogs to go to the dog park. This was an off leash dog park. His unneutered pitbull humped dogs in the dog park previously that I know of. I now think the woman maybe sent her story to the LA Times after Gary sued her for extortion. In all honesty Gary should have paid the $85,000 so this story never would have seen the light of day even if he were in the right. It's spiraled out of control now with Patrick Soon-Shiong getting involved making it bigger and messier. This will be messy for everyone now.
"GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5. On or about April 19, 2023, Defendant texted Plaintiff requesting a meeting with
her. Plaintiff obliged and agreed to meet Defendant on April 21, 2023.
6. On or about April 21, 2023, Plaintiff met Defendant at Gold’s Gym located in the
County of Los Angeles, State of California. During that meeting, Defendant started the
conversation by stating that Plaintiff’s dog known as “Blue” needed to be “put down.”
7. Under the auspices of an alleged and disputed injury from an altercation between
Blue and Defendant’s dog, Defendant began to threaten and attempted to extort money from
Plaintiff.
8. Defendant threatened Plaintiff that she would:
a. file a police report to have Plaintiff arrested and have Blue confiscated;
b. file a complaint with animal control to have Blue killed;
c. do everything possible to have Blue destroyed;
d. file a complaint with the gym to have Plaintiff expelled from the gym;
e. recruit people from the dog park to file a class action lawsuit against
Plaintiff; and
f. cause Plaintiff to suffer public humiliation from the arrest and lawsuit.
9. Defendant then stated that if Plaintiff paid her $85,000.00, an amount which she
stated that “Plaintiff could easily afford,” Defendant would not carry out the threats. Defendant
further stated that Plaintiff simply pay her the $85,0000, and she would “do nothing and stay
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
quiet,”
10. After returning from the meeting, Plaintiff requested that Defendant put her
demands in writing.
11. On April 21, 2023, Defendant texted Plaintiff reiterating her demands and giving
Plaintiff two options by stating:
Option A:
1. Defendant would file a complaint with the gym which would result in both
Plaintiff and Blue getting banned/expelled from the gym.
2. Defendant would file a police report against Plaintiff and with animal control
which will force animal control take Blue away from Plaintiff, but even worse,
that animal control will put Blue “down.”
3. Defendant will together with several people from the park file a class action
lawsuit against Plaintiff which will cost Plaintiff “a loooot of money.”
Option B:
1. Plaintiff agrees to pay Defendant $85,000.00.
2. If Plaintiff agrees to pay the $85,000.00, Defendant will not go forward with her
intended threats.
3. Defendant will be willing to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement.
12. Defendant further wrote “with me ‘out of the way’ you’ll be able to keep Blue, and
still go to the gym.”
13. Plaintiff became completely distraught by the threats of Defendant with thoughts of,
among others, losing Blue, having Blue euthanized, getting arrested, and suffering public
humiliation stemming from the arrest and lawsuit.
14. For a few days after April 21, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendant exchanged texts
concerning the payment of the $85,000.00, and it was Plaintiff’s explicit understanding that
Defendant would not in any way carry out her threats during the time that the parties were actively
communicating about the payment.
15. On or about April 24, 2023, in an effort to collect her $85,000.00 blackmail money,
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Defendant sent Plaintiff her wire instructions to her bank account located at Wells Fargo Bank.
16. On or about April 26, 2023, Defendant texted Plaintiff requesting a status update
concerning the payment of the $85,000.00. In response, Plaintiff asked Defendant for assurances
that Defendant would not (1) proceed as threatened and (2) do everything in her power to have
Blue killed after payment.
17. On or about April 27, 2023, Defendant assured Plaintiff that she is a person of her
“word,” wants to move on and is willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement for payment.
18. During the period of time where Plaintiff and Defendant were communicating about
the threats and the payment, Plaintiff had the explicit understanding that Defendant would not
carry out any of her threats. However, while Plaintiff was contemplating whether he should pay
the blackmail money, he learned that Defendant had been actively recruiting people from the dog
park to file a class action lawsuit against Plaintiff.
19. On or about April 27, 2023, in sheer panic and complete fear that Defendant would
proceed to act on her further threats to call the police to have Plaintiff arrested and call animal
control to destroy Blue due to Plaintiff’s indecision and delay, Plaintiff instructed his staff to wire
the sum of $10,000.00 to Defendant and asked Plaintiff in return to refrain from any of her
threatened actions for a period of two (2) weeks but that the $10,000.00 be credited toward any
amount eventually paid to Defendant.
20. On or about April 27, 2023, in response to Plaintiff’s request for a two (2) week stay
her threatened actions for payment of $10,000.00, Defendant stated that she would not accept the
$10,000.00 alluding to the fact that she wanted the entire $85,000.00.
21. On or about April 28, 2023, Plaintiff explained that the $10,000.00 was not the full
amount that he would pay but money to hold off on any of her threats for a period of two (2)
weeks and that the $10,000.00 should be accepted as partial credit.
22. On or about April 29, 2023, Defendant wanted clarification that the $10,000.00 was
a partial payment of the $85,000.00. Plaintiff confirmed that it was a partial payment. Plaintiff
further pleaded with Defendant that he was physically sick over the entire situation, was not
sleeping, was having nightmares, was losing weight from not eating due to the thought that
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Defendant would have Blue destroyed. Further, Plaintiff stated that he would be devastated if
Defendant would file a police report against Plaintiff leaving a permanent mark on his record. (Mary Cummins: Gary already has a police record because of many dog off leash complaints which is considered criminal. He doesn't care about those complaints and they are permanent marks on his record. They're in this blog)
23. On April 29, 2023, Defendant stated that she would accept the $10,000.00 to hold
off any actions she threatened under Option A until May 15, 2023. She further stated that if she
did not receive documents concerning the payment of the remaining $75,000.00 by May 15, 2023,
Defendant would proceed with her threats under Option A."
Because this involves complex Gary things only get worse. Seems his buddy the owner of the LA Times Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong tried to cover up an LA Times story about the case. I once had LA Times squash a story involving me and Kapparot. Mayor told editor of LA Times to squash it and they did. Nobody cared because I'm a poor nobody. Because it's Gary the billionaire they care. Below is the article about the coverup and squashing of the dog bite case. I'm sure the story was about the dog bite AND extortion case as the extortion case was filed first.
"Gary Michelson, a billionaire surgeon who has invented multiple patented treatments for spinal disorders, sued Sandra Schnaufer for extortion and emotional distress in May 2023, according to court documents. The lawsuit claimed that Schnaufer was attempting to extort Michelson for injuries she claims she sustained when his dog, Blue, attacked her and her dog at Veterans Park on Barrington Avenue in August 2022.
Schnaufer countersued Michelson for damages in June 2023 in a complaint that read: “Defendants’ dog charged at Plaintiff and her dog, and attacked and bit Plaintiff while she was protecting her dog. As a result, Plaintiff suffered severe injuries.” The complaint cited multiple other attacks by the dog.
A Times reporter, Laurence Darmiento, learned of the lawsuit and began looking into the story.
Soon-Shiong learned about a potential Times story in early December and attempted to head off the reporting, telling Merida that he did not think it was worth pursuing. Merida was concerned about the interference, but relayed the information to then-investigations editor Scott Kraft and business editor Jeff Bercovici.
However, Soon-Shiong’s concerns were not allayed, although the story was still being reported and was not written. At one point he threatened to fire Merida if the story was published without him being able to see it first, according to an individual with knowledge of the incident.”
