A man who sued Kim Kardashian after his photo was mistakenly used in an online commentary about an inmate by the same name awaiting execution in Texas in early 2024 was ordered by the same judge to pay the media personality mandatory attorneys’ fees totaling more than $165,000.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael C. Small heard arguments on the 45-year-old Kardashian’s anti-SLAPP motion on Oct. 14 and took the issues under submission before ruling in her favor on Nov 5, dismissing Cantu’s case. Originally filed in February 2025 to allege defamation, false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence, plaintiff Ivan Cantu’s suit was amended May 28, 2025 to add a claim for misappropriation of likeness.
On Monday, Small granted Kardashian $167,475 in attorneys’ fees and $1,062 in costs. Like the anti-SLAPP motion, the judge had also taken the fees motion under submission after hearing arguments on April 22.
Kardashian had sought a total of $186,320, which the judge found excessive, in particular the more than $57,000 allegedly spent by her legal team in preparing the fees motion.
Small also noted the paradox of awarding a billionaire like Kardashian fees from a man with a more typical income.
“Yes, it may seem anomalous that a person of modest financial means — as plaintiff says he is –would have to reimburse a person who (Cantu says) has lots of money,” the judge said. “Income disparities are, however, irrelevant to the attorneys’ fees equation…”
The judge also noted that Kardashian is an “internationally renowned celebrity” and an advocate for criminal justice reform with a particular concern for prisoners facing death sentences who may have been wrongfully convicted of crimes.
In their opposition to Kardashian’s attorneys’ fees request, Cantu’s lawyers contended that the anti-SLAPP statute was “not intended to so severely punish an innocent victim who suffered injuries due to defendant’s admitted error and due to the clear inequity of the financial status of the parties, which would punish Mr. Cantu unfairly due to defendant’s wealth, power and ability to easily pay her attorney’s outrageously high fees.”
The state’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law is intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights. Cantu’s attorneys further stated in their pleadings that if Small was inclined to award attorneys’ fees and costs that he cap the total amount at $5,000.
In his court papers, Kardashian’s lead attorney, Emil Petrossian, stated that he spent more than 100 hours working on the anti-SLAPP motion at an hourly rate of $900 that was discounted from his normal charge of $1,100 an hour, saving Kardashian about $21,700.
In his November dismissal ruling, the judge said Cantu did not indicate that he sustained damages because of Kardashian’s mistake.
“The hitch for the plaintiff is that he failed to provide sufficient evidence that he suffered any injury as a result of Kardashian’s misappropriation of his likeness,” Small wrote in granting the anti-SLAPP motion while adding that Cantu only offered a declaration alleging he suffered emotional distress and damage to his reputation.
Cantu said in a sworn declaration that the error caused him to receive several online messages from strangers who believed he was going to be executed.
“The post caused me to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, emotional and mental anguish, headaches, loss of sleep and loss of reputation,” Cantu said.