The reality star is being eaten alive on social media after she hit Dodd with legal papers.
One fan wrote, “No drama but you show your hypocrisy by suing Kelly when you have done the same thing?” and another said, “@vgunvalson was sued by an 82 year old woman, yet recently on an interview she said that she’s never been sued #lies . and she is suing @RHOC_KellyDodd ? she should expect a counter suit.”
Another commented, “mao this is hilarious, she is the one that has defamed @RHOC_KellyDodd @ShannonBeador and @TamraBarney and everything is on camera and can be viewed by judges/lawyers etc good luck to @vgunvalson on winning this case #rhoc.”
Another wrote, “Suing Bravo is a good way to exit” and one had this to say, “@vgunvalson why are you suing for defamation when @RHOC_KellyDodd could do the same to you for insuiating she does cocaine and bringing harm in the form of bullying to her child? Also, why are you suing NBC, your employer who even gave you the chance to be OG of the OC? #RHOC.”
According to court documents obtained by The Blast, Gunvalson filed suit as “Jane Rose” against Dodd, Bravo Network and NBC Universal. The suit alleges defamation, libel, interference with prospective economic business and false light.
In the suit, Gunvalson lays out her career accomplishments as a Retirement Planning Specialist and President of an insurance and financial services company.
Gunvalson takes issue with several comments made by Dodd on the show. She points to Dodd talking about Gunvalson saying “You prey on older people”; “You are a con woman” and you engaged in “fraud.”
She says, “These statements themselves are express false statements of fact, and they falsely state a knowledge of negative facts about Plaintiff’s work capabilities, ethics, integrity, and professionalism.”
Gunvalson claims Dodd is aware those allegations are “untrue”. She believes Dodd is referencing an ongoing lawsuit accusing Gunvalson of fraud.
On October 7, 2019, Gunvalson emailed producers telling them Dodd was lying and explained if it aired it would hurt her reputation and livelihood.
She adds, “In the last 31 years of her profession, Plaintiff has never been sued, is on the National Ethics Bureau with a clean record, has not had any complaints with the Department of Insurance and has an A+ raring with the Better Business Bureau.”
“By intentionally, recklessly and with actual malice publishing that portion of the episode in question which contains this known falsehood and disseminating it to the general public as fact through the medium of television and to an audience who would have no question that the falsehoods concerns the Plaintiff, Defendants will damage the Plaintiff’s reputation in an amount that cannot be quantified.”
The suit reads, “By intentionally, recklessly and with actual malice publishing that portion of the episode in question which contains this known falsehood and disseminating it to the general public as fact through the medium of television and to an audience who would have no question that the falsehoods concerns the Plaintiff, Defendants will damage the Plaintiff’s reputation in an amount that cannot be quantified.”
Gunvalson is suing seeking unspecified damages for her mental and emotional distress along with lost profits, compensation and loss to her reputation.”
She demanded an injunction prohibiting the footage from being broadcast in the future.
She claimed it would have a “long-lasting ripple effect on Plaintiff’s career as a whole.”
The court shut down Gunvalson’s motion for a temporary restraining order but allowed her case to move forward.