Bryan Freedman, the lawyer<\/a> representing UTA<\/a> in a clash over Michael Kassan\u2019s departure from the agency, has prevailed in a lawsuit accusing him <\/a>of defaming the MediaLink founder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Daniel Murphy, in an order issued on Tuesday, dismissed the case under a statute allowing for the early dismissal of lawsuits intended to chill free speech. He found that a comment from Freedman aimed at Kassan can only be construed as opinion, which can\u2019t make up the basis of a defamation claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sanford Michelman, a lawyer for Kassan, said in a statement, \u201cFreedman\u2019s defense was that everyone knows he blusters and is not truthful, therefore proving our point.\u201d He added, \u201cHe is unable to stop Mr. Kassan from competing and now he\u2019s unable to tarnish\u201d his client\u2019s reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lawsuit was an offshoot of a legal dispute that erupted in March when Kassan claimed that he resigned from UTA after being lied to about his powers at the agency and the company asserting that it fired him for misusing funds. In an arbitration action initiated by Kassan against UTA, naming chief executive Jeremy Zimmer, he alleged that UTA fraudulently induced him to agree to a sale of MediaLink \u201conly to then walk back the very promises made\u201d regarding what he would oversee at the agency and allowances for his special expenses budget. He resigned on March 6, allegedly preempting the agency terminating him the next day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A lawsuit from UTA followed, proceeded by a complaint filed by Kassan accusing Freedman of trying to tarnish his reputation at the direction of agency in a bid to prevent employees and clients from following him to his next venture. The allegedly defamatory statements concerned Freedman calling Kassan a \u201cpathological liar.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court concluded that Kassan\u2019s defamation claims \u201cfail as a matter of law and have no probability of success\u201d because Freedman\u2019s comments can\u2019t be understood as \u201canything other than a nonactionable statement of opinion.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Critical to the judge\u2019s analysis was that the statements were made in a \u201chighly publicized, contentious dispute\u201d between Kassan and UTA involving mudslinging in both direction. The context is critical, Murphy said, because it \u201cshows that the statement was made in an adversarial setting and heated dispute wherein the participants were expected to use epithets and hyperbole which an average reader would not take as fact.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In other cases, courts have found that accusations similar to calling someone a \u201cliar\u201d doesn\u2019t rise to defamation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Freedman didn\u2019t respond to a request for comment, while UTA declined comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n