The Case of the Plastic Surgeon vs. Spin Doctor

Making them pay after judgment day . . . suing the man in the white bucks . . . sex, lies and videotape.

You’re “Doc Hollywood,” the plastic surgeon to the stars, and the silicone is about to hit the fan. You hire spin doctors to rebut allegations before the state Medical Board that you mocked and fondled your celeb patients while they were under the knife.

Then comes the bill: $149,274.94, according to a lawsuit in Superior Court in Santa Monica.

Surgeon Steven M. Hoefflin claims in his lawsuit that his Beverly Hills public relations consultants, Sitrick & Co., “grossly overcharged” him for the spin control. Among the allegations: Sitrick charged $25,000 to talk on the phone to yours truly and another writer from USA Today.

Hoefflin also is not happy that Sitrick was unable to keep the story out of the tabloids. The suit, by the way, was filed by the Encino law firm where Hoefflin’s brother, Richard M. Hoefflin, is a partner.

Richard Hoefflin had no comment, saying he preferred to litigate in court, not in the media.

In its response to Hoefflin’s suit, Sitrick alleges that Hoefflin was the fraudulent one. The firm alleged that Hoefflin paid a $20,000 retainer but never intended to pay the rest of the fees, even though he was kept informed of the mounting PR bills.

Hoefflin meddled, the court papers stated, which wasted time and increased the tab. The PR firm claimed in its court papers that eight of its employees spent more than 460 hours managing the Hoefflin crisis.

And, the PR firm contended, the billing dispute was not responsible for a parting of the ways. Instead, the firm maintained in its papers, the relationship with Hoefflin disintegrated after he asked it to conduct an unethical smear campaign he called “an atomic bomb” against people who had made the original accusations being investigated by the Medical Board.

The firm also contends that Hoefflin invited some of its employees to watch him perform surgery on a patient, without obtaining the patient’s consent. And, the court papers state, Hoefflin’s actions during an interview with People magazine “raised credibility issues.”

Michael Sitrick, proprietor of the firm, said he prefers to handle disagreements privately, but that Hoefflin’s suit brought the dispute into the public arena.

Meanwhile, the Medical Board’s investigation continues.

HOT PROPERTIES: Almost daily, an aspiring writer or filmmaker sues a bigger Hollywood player, claiming their labor of love was stolen out from under them. Only a handful of these cases find their way to a courtroom. Even fewer come to judgment.

Which is what makes the case of independent filmmaker Audrey Lewis against producer C.J. Ver Halen and his Film Center truly remarkable.

On Wednesday, three of the center’s properties in Hollywood are scheduled to be auctioned at a sheriff’s sale to satisfy Lewis’ $1.2-million judgment against the man she says tried to steal her film, “The Gifted.”

Along with another parcel in Crenshaw, the combined assessed value of the properties, according to county records, is slightly more than $270,000.

Lewis is determined to use any money she receives to finish her project in the way she had envisioned.

The film is a mystical portrayal of American descendants of an African tribe that 5,000 years earlier had received a “gift”--supernatural powers that could some day save the world.

It is available at about 1,800 Blockbuster stores. Lewis believes her life’s work deserves better. The film went right to video and has never been shown commercially in theaters.

Now in her late 40s, Lewis has worked behind the scenes at most of the major studios. Ver Halen ran a post-production house for three decades before branching out into B movie production.

They met when Ver Halen put the word out that he was looking for young filmmakers to mold. According to court papers, Lewis signed on with Ver Halen and one of his companies in 1990 when she ran out of money after shooting the film. The film still needed a soundtrack, animation and special effects, according to court records.

In her lawsuit, Lewis alleged that Ver Halen’s company defrauded her by completing the work late, and by using schlocky effects. She also contended that after the film was completed, Ver Halen sabotaged her attempts to market it.

Nonetheless, “The Gifted” was named best feature film by the Black Film Makers Hall of Fame in 1993. Lewis was inducted on the strength of her original screenplay.

Her suit went to trial, and a jury awarded Lewis $5 million in May 1996. A judge reduced the award to $1.2 million that August. Since then, Lewis has been trying to make Ver Halen pay.

Her attorney, David Wall, recently filed two creditors’ suits on Lewis’ behalf in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeking to attach other assets to satisfy the judgment. In the lawsuits, Wall alleged that Ver Halen’s son and other business associates had been shifting assets in an attempt to hide them--including taking out a $1.6-million mortgage on Ver Halen’s Beverly Hills home.

Ver Halen, who is in his 80s and is said to be ailing, could not be reached. His son and partner, attorney Peter Ver Halen, also could not be reached. Peter Ver Halen represented his father’s company during the suit.

In a telephone interview, Lewis said she is looking forward to the end of her lengthy legal ordeal.

“It’s been a long battle, and I think it’s almost over,” she said. “It really is the nature of Hollywood, but I don’t think I anticipated that the battle would be so hard and last so long. I was advised by everyone in Hollywood not to fight these people because they were too big for me.”

But, she added, “I’m determined to fight it to the end.”

SEEKING BIG BUCKS FROM MR. WHITE BUCKS: The widow of entertainer Pat Boone’s longtime personal manager has sued Boone and some of his corporate alter-egos for more than $1 million, alleging that they cheated the manager’s heirs out of royalties, profit-sharing and pension plans.

According to Honora Spina’s Los Angeles Superior Court suit, her husband, Jack, was Boone’s personal manager--and his friend--from the 1950s, when Boone first rose to fame as a wholesome crooner in white buck shoes, until 1989.

Because of the “close personal and social relationship” that developed between Boone and Spina, the suit says, Spina “placed confidence and trust” in Boone et al to properly manage the royalties and financial plans and disburse Spina’s interests to his heirs upon his death.

Yet after Spina died in September, Boone and his various corporate entities “repudiated” Spina’s and his heirs’ interests in the plans, according to the suit, filed by attorney Jerry Kaplan.

“She is misinformed,” said Boone’s business manager, John Mucci Jr., whose firm also is named as a defendant in the suit. “It’s a sad thing. Pat and Jack were good friends and had a very, very good, long relationship.”

Named as defendants were Boone, identified in the suit as Charles “Pat” Boone; his wife, Shirley; Mucci’s management company; Pat Boone Enterprises Inc.; Cooga Mooga Inc.; and other Boone business entities and associates.

Honora Spina is asking the court to declare her rights on behalf of the heirs to receive money from Boone’s royalties and pension plans. She also is alleging fraud, negligence, conversion of funds and breach of contract, and seeks an accounting of Boone’s corporate holdings to determine what, if anything, is owed her.

In an interview, Boone called the lawsuit “an attempted hijacking” that has no basis in fact. Boone pointed out that he and Spina “never had contracts. We just shook hands.”

SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE: Poison lead singer Bret Michaels is returning Monday to U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to enforce a temporary restraining order against a Seattle adult entertainment company that wants to send into cyberspace his home sex video with Pamela Anderson, as she was known in her pre-Tommy Lee days.

Michaels and his lawyer, Edwin F. McPherson, are asking the court to hold Internet Entertainment Group in contempt for allegedly defying the court’s previous order barring advertisement, sale and distribution of the tape. They are seeking $1.5 million in damages, $50,000 in attorneys fees, and fines of $50,000 for each day IEG continues to advertise the Michaels tape on its World Wide Web site.

IEG, which continues to peddle a purloined sex tape featuring Pamela and husband Lee, claims it owns the rights to the Michaels tape, made available by “a close friend” of Michaels. It also is sparing little in bashing Michaels and McPherson on the Web site, where the rocker and his lawyer are known as “Bret and Fast Eddie.”

In court papers, Michaels claims he has “suffered humiliation on a daily basis” since IEG’s Bret-bashing campaign began Jan. 23, the day he obtained his restraining order. The stress also has caused Michaels, a diabetic, to experience “a drastic and potentially deadly” increase in his blood sugar level, court papers say.

As for the alleged “close friend” who made the tape available to IEG? Michaels claims to have never met him, and points out that the man misspelled his name in legal documents.

Instead, Michaels asserts in a court declaration, he was contacted first by the man, who claimed to be a private investigator working for Penthouse. Michaels claimed he was offered $1 million for the rights to the tape. He declined.

Since then, Michaels claims, his house in Nashville burned, his dog was poisoned, and the lug nuts on one of his car’s wheels were loosened while he was backstage at a Metallica concert in San Diego.

IEG recently retained attorney Alan Isaacman, who is Hustler publisher Larry Flynt’s lawyer and was portrayed by actor Ed Norton in “The People vs. Larry Flynt.” Isaacman said he would do his talking in court Monday.

Meanwhile, Pamela Anderson Lee also has sued IEG in federal court for $40 million in connection with the Michaels tape. She and her husband, Motley Crue’s Lee, also recently filed libel and slander suits in Superior Court in Van Nuys against the National Enquirer and the television show “American Journal” concerning allegedly false reports that the couple was sharing in IEG’s profits from the sale of their sex tape.

Times staff writers Anne-Marie O’Connor and Evelyn Larrubia contributed to this column.