Updated

Updated · MyNewsLA.com · Jun 15

Kat Von D Seeks $13,500 in Costs After Judge Dismissed Ex-Manager's Retaliation Suit

Updated

Updated · MyNewsLA.com · Jun 15

Kat Von D Seeks $13,500 in Costs After Judge Dismissed Ex-Manager's Retaliation Suit

Q: A judge cleared her name, so why must Kat Von D now fight to recover her legal fees?

Because winning on liability does not automatically entitle a party to recover legal fees or even all litigation costs. Judge Kevin Brazile’s 2025 ruling cleared Kat Von D personally by finding she was not the “alter ego” of High Voltage Tattoo, meaning she could not be held individually liable for the shop’s alleged retaliation. That ended her role as a defendant, but it did not automatically shift her legal expenses to Stephanie Davidson. Under California’s general “American Rule,” each side usually pays its own attorney fees unless a statute, contract, or sanction exception applies. Von D is now seeking about $13,500 in legal costs, which are narrower than full attorney fees and can include filing fees, transcripts, and similar litigation expenses. Even those costs can be contested and often require a separate post-ruling process. That is why there is now another fight. Davidson’s lawyers argue Von D should recover costs only if the claims against her were frivolous, and they say the suit was not. They maintain Davidson had a legitimate basis to sue, given her allegations that she was fired after raising COVID-19 safety concerns and that she faced disability discrimination as a type-1 diabetic. So the dispute is no longer about whether Von D stays in the case; the judge already removed her. It is about whether California law allows her to make Davidson pay the expenses she incurred defeating the personal-liability claims. That issue is set for an August 26, 2026 hearing.

Q: How can a celebrity owner escape a lawsuit while their company is still accused of wrongdoing?

A celebrity owner can be dismissed from a case if the court finds the alleged wrongdoing belongs to the company, not the individual personally. That is what happened here. Judge Kevin Brazile ruled that Kat Von D was not the “alter ego” of High Voltage Tattoo, meaning the business remained a separate legal entity and she could not automatically be held personally liable for the shop’s alleged retaliation or discrimination. In corporate law, owners are generally shielded by limited liability unless a plaintiff can “pierce the corporate veil.” In California, that usually requires specific proof of two things: that the owner and company were effectively the same entity, and that treating them as separate would produce an unjust result. Courts look for facts such as commingled personal and business funds, undercapitalization, failure to follow company formalities, or use of the business as a personal instrument. General accusations are not enough. So a company can still face claims for wrongful termination or retaliation while its owner is dismissed if the evidence does not support personal liability. The lawsuit then continues against the business entity alone, assuming it still exists legally for purposes of the case. That does not mean the underlying claims lack merit. Davidson’s lawyers are arguing exactly that in opposing Von D’s request for costs: they say the case against the tattoo shop was legitimate even if Von D herself was properly removed as a defendant.

1 articles · Updated · MyNewsLA.com · Jun 15

$13,500 in litigation costs is what Kat Von D is now seeking after winning dismissal from former manager Stephanie Davidson’s employment lawsuit, with an Aug. 26 hearing set in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Davidson argues Von D can recover costs only if the 2022 suit was frivolous, and says her claims were grounded in complaints that High Voltage Tattoo ignored COVID-19 safety rules despite her type-1 diabetes.
Judge Kevin Brazile removed Von D as a defendant last August, finding she was not the alter ego of the now-shuttered High Voltage Tattoo and therefore could not be liable on Davidson’s retaliation claim.
The dispute stems from Davidson’s 2020 firing after she says she reported alleged protocol violations to state health officials and Gov. Gavin Newsom; Von D closed the West Hollywood shop in 2021 and later moved to Indiana.