Ex-employee wins defamation lawsuit against "King of Instagram." $6.5M. Los Angeles County.

Summary

VP is fired, then defamed, alleges it was after he refused to approve defendant's expense account.

Case Name: Curtis Heffernan v. Ignite International, Ltd., et al.
Court and Case Number: Los Angeles Superior Court / 20STCV25549
Date of Verdict or Judgment: Friday, May 09, 2025
Date Action was Filed: Tuesday, July 07, 2020
Type of Case: Defamation
Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Wendy Chang
Plaintiffs:
Curtis Heffernan
Defendants:
Dan Bilzerian, Ignite International, LTD and Ignite International Brands, LTD
Type of Result: Jury Verdict

Gross Verdict or Award: $6,500,000
Net Verdict or Award: $6,500,00 for defamation. In regards to the whistleblower claim, the jury found for defendants.
Award as to each Defendant:
Joint award against all defendants.
Economic Damages:
$500,000
Non-Economic Damages:
$6,000,000
Trial or Arbitration Time: 14 days
Jury Deliberation Time: 7 1/2 hours
Jury Polls: 11-1 (against Ignite); 12-0 (against Dan Bilzerian)

Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Workplace Justice Advocates, PLC by Tamara Freeze and Xinyue Liu, Irvine.

Lim Law Group, PC by Preston Lim, Gardena.
Attorney for the Defendant:
The Medrala Law Firm, PLLC by Jakub Medrala, Las Vegas, NV.

Flangas Law Group by Kimberly Stein, Las Vegas, NV.

Facts and Background:
Plaintiff worked as an executive vice president of a cannabis company, Ignite International, LTD, which was a subsidiary of Ignite International Brands, LTD. Both companies were founded by an Instagram celebrity, Dan Bilzerian. Bilzerian is an internet influencer sometimes known as the "King of Instagram." Wikipedia notes that he is known for his "extravagant lifestyle."

In 2020 plaintiff refused to sign off on a list of Mr. Bilzerian's expenses, which he believed to be personal in nature. Plaintiff was fired the next day.
Plaintiff's Contentions:
That after the initial lawsuit was filed, defendant Dan Bilzerian defamed plaintiff when he stated to a tabloid media outlet, TMZ, that plaintiff was fired for incompetence and negligence.

Further, that defendants retaliated against plaintiff for whistleblowing regarding inappropriate expense claims.
Defendant's Contentions:
That plaintiff was fired for incompetence and negligence and was not defamed.