\n
<\/p>\n
A case of mistaken identity can cost you, especially if it involves Kim Kardashian.<\/p>\n
When Kardashian shared a photo of a Texas death row inmate on Instagram to raise questions about his conviction for double murder, there was only one problem: She had the wrong man.\u00a0<\/p>\n
With his execution date nearing<\/a> in early 2024, Kardashian posted on Instagram and Facebook to raise awareness about Ivan Cantu, who was convicted of killing his cousin and his cousin\u2019s fianc\u00e9e. Unfortunately, the image she posted featured a different Ivan Cantu\u2014one very much not behind bars, who was living in Westchester, New York, and working as a project manager. Her social media team had mistakenly pulled his headshot from LinkedIn. <\/p>\n Kardashian\u2019s team corrected the social media flub quickly, but because the reality TV star-turned-criminal justice advocate is one of the world\u2019s most-followed social media figures, the damage was done. At least, that\u2019s what Cantu\u2019s legal team argued when the Cantu not <\/em>on death row sued the celebrity<\/a> the following year.<\/p>\n Now, after his lawsuit was thrown out last year, a judge just ruled that the still-living Cantu owes the billionaire influencer, reality TV star, and entrepreneur more than $167,000 in legal fees.\u00a0<\/p>\n In a civil complaint filed in Los Angeles, the Cantu from New York argued that the incident exposed him to online hate, ridicule, and contempt. “Kardashian published and disseminated false information about Cantu that was clearly untrue, erroneous, unfounded, shocking, scandalous, degrading, disgraceful, and\/or shameful,” the complaint stated.\u00a0<\/p>\n Cantu said that having one of the world\u2019s most famous people link his likeness to a murder case caused emotional distress and damaged his reputation. He sued for defamation through libel, defamation through slander, false light, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and misappropriation of likeness.\u00a0<\/p>\n Late last year, the court granted a request by Kardashian\u2019s legal team to toss out the lawsuit under special legal rules known as anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws, which are designed to block lawsuits that seek to stifle free speech. \u201cThe purpose of the anti-SLAPP is to \u2018weed out, at an early stage [of litigation],\u2019 claims arising from activity protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that lack merit,\u201d the court wrote in its decision.\u00a0<\/p>\n In December, Kardashian filed a motion to force Cantu to cover the legal fees incurred in dealing with the lawsuit. This week, Judge Michael Small granted that motion in part, meaning that Cantu is on the hook for the sophisticated legal representation that helped Kardashian prevail against him:<\/p>\n \u201cYes, it may seem anomalous that a person of modest financial means (as Plaintiff says he is) would have to reimburse a person who has lots of money (as Plaintiff says Kardashian has).<\/p>\n “Income disparities are, however, irrelevant to the attorney\u2019s fees equation under 425.16, subdivision (c)(1). Thus, even if Plaintiff\u2019s finances are dwarfed [by] Kardashian\u2019s, he still has to pay Kardashian the reasonable fees and costs she incurred in connection with her successful anti-SLAPP motion.\u201d<\/p>\n According to Monday\u2019s filing, the court did reduce one portion of the fees Cantu will owe to $38,261, down from $57,107. Unfortunately, that leaves the bill at $167,473\u2014a price that\u2019s difficult to swallow for anyone who isn\u2019t hanging out in the upper echelons of wealth.<\/p>\n While Kim K has found herself fighting for the wrongfully accused<\/a> in recent years, one irrefutable fact of being a billionaire remains: If you come at her in court, you best not miss.<\/p>\nCantu vs. Kardashian<\/h2>\n