Bonnie Rotten

Bonnie Rotten Sues Max Hardcore

I picked this up from courthouse news regarding the lawsuit between Bonnie Rotten and Max Hardcore. The dispute is over a model release that Bonnie Rotten claims she didn’t sign for the movie Fuck Puppets 2.

LOS ANGELES (CN) – A pornographic actor and filmmaker asked a judge to weigh in on a dispute over image rights to an actress who he claims agreed to perform in one of his films.
Paul Little aka Max Hardcore sued actress Alaina Hicks, 21, who performs under the name Bonnie Rotten, in Superior Court.

Little claims the actress is trying to repudiate a January 2012 artists agreement that gave him permission to use her performance in an adult film he acted in and produced.

Little claims that Hicks received a “substantial benefit” from appearing in his film, “Fuck Puppets 2.”

“Hicks without justification, breached the agreement by repudiating the contract and demanded that plaintiff Little cease and desist from using her performance in the adult film that plaintiff Little produced,” the complaint states.

Though Hicks continues to exploit her performance in the movie, she sued Little in Cook County, Illinois for appropriation of identity and defamation, claiming she never gave Little permission to use her performance in the film, Little says.

In that lawsuit, obtained from the Courthouse News Service database, Hicks claims that Little tweeted images and links to a scene in the porn flick, along with several comments, including: “‘I partied with Bonnie Rotten before she got into the business.'”

“Videos produced by and featuring defendant Little, who performs under the stage name Max Hardcore frequently depict forced sex, degrading language and vomiting and urination,” the Cook County lawsuit says.

In the Cook County filing, Hick says that Little was convicted in Florida on obscenity charges in 2008 and says that the scene in which she appears contained “numerous examples” of degrading and humiliating conduct.

But in his July 3 complaint, Little says: “Defendant Hicks brought her action in a state court in the State of Illinois despite the fact the agreement that she signed was entered into in California, her performance that was required under the contract was in California and she identified herself in the complaint filed in state court in Illinois as a resident of the State of California.”

Little wants a judge to find the agreement is binding, plus damages and costs.

He is represented by Keith Rouse of Pasadena.

Hicks’ attorney Karl Hunsicker called Little’s filing “nothing more than retaliation,” adding that his client had been forced to take legal action after Little “refused to sign an agreement reached by both parties in July of 2013.”

“To date, neither myself nor my client have seen the purported model release alluded to in Mr. Little’s lawsuit despite repeated requests,” Hunsicker said in an email.

 

31 Replies to “Bonnie Rotten Sues Max Hardcore”

  1. Removed Account

    This confuses me a little. Can you break this down for me in layman terms?

    From what I understand … Bonnie Rotten did a scene for Max Hardcore. She I guess did not sign a model release. When he attempted to release the footage she sent him a cease and desist. Is that right? If so, why did he not get a release when the scene was shot?

    And then this ““nothing more than retaliation”. Okay but retaliation against what?

  2. MikeSouth

    The way I read it its unclear who is really the defendant. I suspect there was a model release but the article alludes to an “agreement reached by both parties” that Little subsequently refused to sign, likely because her career took off making the scene more valuable.

  3. truthsguardian

    Question 1 – Did her check clear? Question 2 – Where the stipulations on the agreement? if not, what made her want to sue?

  4. LurkingReader

    @truthsguardian

    1. No clue
    2. No clue
    2a. She filed suit in May for Slander/Libel with a demand of 50k

    Only additional details…he doesn’t have counsel listed and hasn’t filed any docs related to that case.

    His case was filed by Rouse who handled his previous chapter 13 filings which means her 50k demand prolly isn’t going to pan out to much whatever all the details turn out to be.

  5. truthsguardian

    @ LurkingReader

    Slander/Libel? Interesting. If she was paid and the agreement was in writing in the form of a model release …. well this will end before it starts. She has been used and abused in various adult projects so I am wondering what prompted her to put her career on the line. producers dont like talent that file lawsuits and dont want any trouble.

    Curious to see what is what.

  6. LurkingReader

    @truthsguardian

    Guess you’ll need to look further than the dockets I peeked at. They pretty much ended the deal for me beyond bullshit gossipy drama that isn’t worth much beyond its entertainment value.

  7. BT

    She can’t really sue him for slander based on things he’s written to promote her performance. Slander is more or less gossip. Paul Little calls other producers and says not so nice and untrue things about Bonnie Rotten.

    The only way I can think of that she can sue him for libel – since he’s writing things to promote the film, like I partied with Bonnie Rotten before she was famous, is if it is untrue that the footage was shot before she was famous?

    But, here’s the thing. She is clearly a public figure. She has to prove that anything he has written about her is patently untrue (aka – well I’m not really a fuck puppet); that he knew it was untrue when he published but did it anyway to cause harm to her career and reputation: and that she suffered a quantifiable financial damage.

    I also think its funny that she says that his films feature urination (ah, she’s the new squirt woman, and I want to see her prove that when she squirts a stream that looks like a water cannon that she is not, ah, peeing) and degradation/humiliation (doesn’t she perform for Kink.com?).

    This seems a little silly. But what the heck to I know.

  8. mharris127

    I can verify that Bonnie Rotten has done scenes for Kink. I can also verify from the model search on the Kink site that she has done scenes for Everything Butt and Sex and Submission, both sites requiring anal penetration. She has also done scenes for other companies including Adam & Eve and Evil Angel where she has sex on screen as well. Although I have not watched her perform (as I am not a fan of her rather skanky look and frankly can’t believe she made it as far as she did looking like she would be more comfortable at a Hell’s Angels convention than a porn set) from what I have seen she has at least taken dick to the ass for Kink and done penetration scenes for at least two other companies. That would make her a “fuck puppet” IMO. She has also feature danced (aka stripped) at a few Gentleman’s Clubs (aka titty bars or strip clubs) on top of taking dick to the ass, so her willingness to do sexual things in public is not in question either. That pretty much takes libel (at least in regard to her sexual proclivities) off of the table IMO. Therefore, I think the only questions legally here are did she file in the proper venue (probably not from what I see meaning she needs to refile in California) and whether she signed the model release. If she did, she does not have a case. If she did not, Paul Little AKA Max Hardcore better settle this case with at least all of the sales her scene made with her before a California judge hears it.

    All the above assumes she was 18 or more when the scene took place.

  9. Hop Sing

    Prof. Harris: “I can verify BR had done scenes for Kink.”

    There was no mention of Kink in Mike’s post.

    Still deny being a shill for Kink, Matt?

  10. mharris127

    I was attempting to explain why she qualified as a “fuck puppet” (the words in the lawsuit essentially charging libel). I needed my Kink example (along with my Adam & Eve and Evil Angel examples) to explain (and prove) why she wasn’t libelled. If I were an expert witness helping prepare for Max’s side of this case (yes, I have done so for court cases both testifying in court and explaining issues in an attorney’s office several times although not specifically about libel) I would have explained it in much the same way to the attorneys except with more diplomatic language. I have also been deposed in court cases a few times, a deposition is similar to court testimony except that it is done in an attorney’s office where you answer questions from both sides of the case. I am sure both Bonnie and Max will be subject to deposition before trial if this case gets beyond the first hearing (I would love to be in the room at Bonnie’s deposition when she attempts to explain with the evidence I reiterated above how she isn’t a “fuck puppet”). Please read my whole post before commenting, Idiot Hop. If you had you would have figured out that my Kink example was justified in explaining my point.

    Just in case you haven’t figured it out, Hop, I teach and explain to people using examples. Evidently you need me to post a picture of my dick in Bonnie’s ass in order to be able to get what I am saying here. Maybe if and when Kink really does hire me as the new Sex and Submission and Everything Butt director I can do that (assuming I can get it hard for a not very attractive to me Bonnie Rotten, I would much rather fuck a tied up Aaliyah Love or suspended Maitresse Madeline). Maybe I will even talk to Van Darkholme for you and tell him you want to take his dick up your ass for one of the Kink Male sites, Hop. However I have to get hired at Kink first (for the record, I haven’t even applied). If I do, I will be sure to let you know so you can submit a picture of yourself for me to give Van Darkholme so he can decide if he wants to fuck you up the ass (without lube) or not.

  11. LurkingReader

    @mharris

    “I can verify that Bonnie Rotten has done scenes for Kink.”

    Only relevant if Kink the company were somehow related to the topic at hand.

    “fuck puppet” is a term frequently used in the kinky world of BDSM. Oversimplified this term would indicate the submissive partner in a dominant/submissive forum. A submissive is defined as a fuck puppet when the dominant is in total control and using extreme forms of dehumanizing or demoralizing behavior to manipulate them. Prior mutual consent and pre-arranged safety or stop signals, codes, words or gestures distinguish these scenes from the heinous assault they may appear to be.

    When you can explain that to a five year old you can call yourself an expert or teacher. First rule of teaching ..all material must be related and relevant.

    Despite the frequent use of anal sex to control or manipulate a fuck puppet it is not confined or definitive to the term. Examples related to consuming fecal matter or golden urinary showers would be much closer to the mark.

    The fact that I pulled up “fuck puppet” on the urban dictionary minutes before posting this clearly explains why you have nothing to worry about when it comes to being deposed or testifying as an expert about any thing beyond how much you like Kink.com

  12. BT

    LurkingReader – the relevance to the fact that she performed for Kink is this. According to the reporting – and that’s all we have to go by – she says that her career is hurt by being associated with Max Hardcore. In part, that is because his scenes sometimes involve urination, degradation and humiliation.

    I first brought up squirting and Kink – not MHarris. My point was this. She is the new Squirt woman. If you watch her scenes, she is not squirting (whatever that really is). She’s peeing. And, when she works with someone like Veronica Avluv, another voluminous squirter, they are squirting – peeing – into each other’s mouths. If you’re reputation is in part built on your willingness to both pee on someone and be peed on by them, its pretty hard to argue that your reputation is ruined and your career harmed by being associated with a director who includes peeing in his scenes. Heck, if she’s ever shot a scene with James Deen, he’s associated with peeing scenes. He loves filming them.

    Second, she has shot for Kink.com. That company’s stock-in-trade is humiliation and degradation. They have whole niches devoted to it. So, you can’t argue legally that your brand is tarnished by being associated with one producer who humiliates talent when you willingly shoot for another that is possibly the most violent and brutal shop among the name-brand porn shops.

    If being associated with felons is a problem with her, heck she shouldn’t be in porn. I realize the owner of Kink may not have been convicted of a crime – I am not calling him a felon – but Kink has been busted for having cocaine and shooting off firearms. That doesn’t appear to bother her.

    Last, if this really went to trial, she has to prove real economic damages. You can’t just say being associated with Max Hardcore is causing me to lose money. She has to prove it. She has to show that she was making $X before Max began promoting the scene and she is making less than $X now as a direct result of that scene. She has to bring in a producer who says: I would love to shoot Bonnie Rotten, but I won’t because she shot a scene with Max Hardcore and I can’t imagine anyone else ever hiring her again because of that.

    I’m not going to get into the “what constitutes a fuck puppet” argument.

    This is going to come down to whether she was paid for the scene and signed a model release, any subsequent agreements they may or may not have had, and whether they were legally binding. I’m still confused as to why this was filed in a circuit court in Chicago. Could be she knows a lawyer in Chicago who was willing to file this for her. But it really makes no sense.

  13. LurkingReader

    @BT

    Using her performances as you did points out the public persona and describing them in context of how the term ‘fuck puppet’ is used absolutely made sense. It also tied in questions people had as to why urination and his prior conviction would be relevant.

    Expect that his suit and any responses he makes will spell out in detail every production she played a submissive and that those briefs will argue prior consent and pre arranged consent and safe words as a defense to her claims.

    The mystery around the model release and references to an unsigned post performance agreement is also where I see the basis for the suit. If there wasn’t a Model Release spelling out prior consent it may not matter if she cashed a check after the fact or how many other similar scenes she performed in. If there isn’t a model release I expect her attorney would use the model release for every similar scene submitted to prevent it being used as evidence or use them to make a case about her performance limitations and how the content at issue breaks that pattern.

    Personally filed a civil suit in Florida Middle with demand for ‘unspecified damages’ that required inclusion of facts to ensure defendant couldn’t remove it to State Court. Also wrote NPO checks for over 100k to cover travel and local counsel costs to successfully defend a suit. That experience prompted written policy inclusion of locale for five national/international NPO where counsel advised that we could specify locale but couldn’t specify venue.

    Also expect that Max’s comments re both being California residents would relate to the following from an order granting removal to Federal for a civil suit filed in Indiana State court against a Florida NPO.

    “This Court has original jurisdiction of this action under 28USC 1332, which may be removed to this Court by Defendant pursuant to the provisions of 28USC 1441(b), because it is a civil action between citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.”

    This still doesn’t explain why he didn’t file within 30 days to have case removed to California. Until I saw there were three claims for 50k assumed it didn’t meet threshold for removal. There are lots of ways to justify venue shopping but lawyer location isn’t one of them.

    My guess as to why Max didn’t file for removal to Federal in California … There wasn’t a signed contract spelling out prior consent and the post performance agreement remained unsigned. Freeman is a California Court decision that distinguishes filmed sexual for payment from pandering from payment for sex equating to pandering/prostitution. Iirc Freeman doesn’t specify requirements for a signed model release.

    Someone commented re prostitution angle and others pointed out cashing the check as confirmation of a handshake agreement. Don’t know but…seems plausible that using his tweets is a way around both in the absence of a signed model agreement. She could be using the tweets to back up claim that he filmed a personal sexual encounter for personal purposes and never intended it for public consumption and any cashed check is for unrelated agreements.

    Lastly…bickering with erik2690 or mharris among others doesn’t mean every opinion I offer is intended to be argumentative. Standing behind my viewpoint or opinions doesn’t mean I’m trying to argue against or defeat yours or anyone else’s. I’m comfortable with and invite detail debates to help evolve a fuller picture than I’m capable of seeing. Though the process is sometimes intimidating and humbling I’m not threatened by evolving pictures or expect the process to lead to consensus.

  14. mharris127

    I don’t have a problem with you, Lurking. You aren’t posting just to piss me off, you actually have a valid point even if I disagree with some of them. It is people like Hop Sing (whom I suspect is actually a certain guy currently working daily on Lankershim Blvd. in Hollywood that thinks his video podcast featuring him and his girlfriend will eventually make it big) that just want to piss me off and make me look like an idiot (unsuccessfully IMO) that piss me off. I thought that was clear with the different tone of my posts responding to you versus the ones responding to Hop but maybe it is good to make that crystal clear.

  15. mharris127

    I don’t expect to be deposed or testify as an expert about anything sexual (including BDSM). Now if it involves a company’s accounting practices or how a credit union’s management mismanaged a credit union causing it to go broke and the need for the NCUA to pay off depositors I might.

    Also, thanks for clarifying the term “fuck puppet” with information from the Urban Dictionary. It is a term that I actually don’t like but since it was used here I needed to explain it. In porn the term (from what I can gather) is used more loosely as a chickie that gets fucked roughly on screen for money.

  16. BT

    Agreed. This thing will have nothing to do with defamation, libel or anything like that. It’ll be misappropriation of her likeness because there’s no signed release or there’s some other business arrangement that we’re not aware of based on the reporting. At the end, it’s about money.

  17. Jamie Profit

    Come on Matthew. Its just Rob Black playing with you and have some fun. You know how to get back at Rob. Anyway, Hi Rob!

    Shalom!

  18. LurkingReader

    @mharris & BT

    A wise man said the following to my husband in front of me…at the time I was mortified and offended as only a 21yo bride of six weeks can be.

    “She’s a talker, if ever a day comes and she isn’t talking you know it’s time to ditch Dodge toot suite”

    Life’s path has proven how true and wise those words are. It takes much more than differences in opinion or preference for me to have a problem with someone vs the usual exasperation or annoyance that keeps life interesting. When I have a real problem with someone my silence speaks louder than anything my verbose loquacious natural gift for gab could ever say. 😉

    Because there has been at times a hostile tone to the back & forth I’d call it bickering vs bantering where more agreement is apparent in the back & forth.

    Never worked NCUA as S&L and Commercial Banks are backed via FDIC. With Interest rates at 14% and A-loans at 17-19% it was very interesting to see the creative arguments tossed around the S&L board table to get an approval for sketchy loans. All employees were required & paid to attend…per their board policy as a form of training and policy compliance which paid off big time when we got picked for a random FDIC full audit right down to share cards & club accounts.

    Was curious and wondered if my idea of fuck puppet being similar to sock puppet was near the mark. Was a bit surprised at how closely they aligned. Lol first time I heard sock puppet was a new upstart hurling it at me across a board table…was so astonished it didn’t register I was sitting there with mouth hanging wide open till someone stood up and countered on my behalf…told the guy he was nuts cuz I’m an equal opportunity annoyance and he was in for a rude awakening if he ever tried to pin me down to any company line. 😉

  19. mharris127

    Yes, I do, Jamie. Some of my methods aren’t appropriate for this venue, however.

    Lurking, the NCUA is a different animal than the FDIC in several ways as they have more control over a credit union’s destiny and management than the FDIC does over banks and S&Ls — right down to the NCUA having the say-so to stop an expansion of services and a merger of two credit unions in its tracks no matter what the membership wants or what is best for said members. I was involved in one merger, the only way it could legally be done was very convoluted involving a change of field of membership from a community CU where we served a geographical area to a multiple common bond policy where we were only authorized to take new members from a couple of employers (in our case a factory and a community college). Luckily we were only under that field of membership for one week from the change in field of membership until the merger actually took place (the surviving CU was a multiple common bond where the “common bond” was paying $1 to join a co-operative, if it had been a community charter CU we would not have had any issues regarding the NCUA with the merger).

  20. LurkingReader

    @mharris

    different field names but lots of regulatory red tape from both…S&L had to ditch club plans for a/m of newer s&l that didn’t have them but fought & won on sharecard variance. Shawmut when they finally got a/m with Fleet CC straightened out was a nightmare..retail branch managers had to manually recode every asset then do it again when FDIC changed mind. when FDIC showed up at Shawmut Norfolk – banking was still prohibited from inter-county banking – President of Shawmut Cambridge sent me a magnet with bank logo ‘what are the odds?’ as a joke because he hired me for experience with FDIC audit at S&L & branch level at BayBank. Trudged home many a day wondering what new way FDIC planned to wreck our week. 😉

Leave a Reply