Judge rules former HFPA member’s suit needs shoring up

A lawsuit brought by a former member of the board of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, alleging his membership was wrongfully terminated, will have to be shored up for it to proceed, a judge has ruled.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Wendy Chang heard arguments on Tuesday on the HFPA’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Magnus Sundholm’s case on grounds it is legally deficient and part of a “smear campaign” against the organization.

The judge temporarily took the case under submission and ruled later in the day, declining to toss the lawsuit and giving Sundholm a chance to file an amended complaint. A copy of her written ruling was not immediately available.

The judge also granted an HFPA motion to quash the service of summons on 14 individual defendants who are members of the HFPA’s board of directors, finding they were not properly served.

Sundholm, a journalist for the Swedish daily Aftonbladet, alleges in his breach-of-contract/wrongful discharge suit filed Dec. 8 that HFPA’s ending of his membership in October deprived him of benefits he received as a member.

The HFPA board accused Sundholm, a member since 2008, of “fraudulent, illegal conduct that was contrary to the interests of the HFPA,” according to the complaint. But Sundholm maintains he erroneously misidentified himself on an IRS form submitted in connection to his filing a whistleblower complaint against the HFPA and that the organization used the mistake as an excuse to fire him for having brought the complaint.

Sundholm also ties his removal to a backlash for the actions of his partner, Kjersti Flaa. The Norwegian journalist brought an antitrust suit against the organization in 2021 in which she alleged that within the HFPA there is a “culture of corruption” in which qualified candidates are barred from joining.

But in their court papers, HFPA lawyers maintained the lawsuit is “the latest in a smear campaign” by Sundholm against the HFPA for denying Flaa’s admission into the organization.

“Previously, as part of that campaign, Mr. Sundholm falsely represented to the IRS, under penalty of perjury, that he had the authority to act on behalf of and bind the HFPA in matters before the IRS,” the HFPA attorneys stated in their court papers. “This was not true in any regard.”

The alleged smear campaign began earlier when the HFPA denied Flaa’s membership application and she subsequently sued the organization in federal court, “alleging the same unfounded claims and allegations that Mr. Sundholm now repeats in the instant action,” the HFPA lawyers stated in their court papers.

When the HFPA did not invite Flaa to join as she had demanded, Sundholm then filed “a supposed whistleblower complaint with the IRS in which he baselessly claimed the HFPA had violated tax laws and was unlawfully funneling millions of dollars to its members,” according to the HFPA lawyers’ court papers.

The HFPA “refused to be shaken down and Mr. Sundholm and his companion’s crusade to harm the HFPA through a frivolous litigation, a whistleblower complaint, and anonymous press leaks ultimately failed,” the HFPA attorneys further argued in their court papers.

Sundholm’s lawsuit “fails to assert a single legally cognizable cause of action, instead of spending pages upon pages asserting false and irrelevant allegations,” the HFPA attorneys stated in their court papers.

But Sundholm maintains the HFPA has not removed other members who have violated the organization’s bylaws for not following the organization’s rules, including being critical of the organization.

Last August, the HFPA passed a set of reforms aimed at diversifying its ranks after media reports surfaced in early 2021 about the organization’s demographics and conduct.

More from Entertainment