Former Berkeley College Republicans president sues BAMN organizer Yvette Felarca for more than $100K in damages


Related Posts

Berkeley College Republicans’ former president, Troy Worden, filed a motion Tuesday against Yvette Felarca, an organizer for national activist group By Any Means Necessary, asking for more than $100,000 worth of damages.

Worden announced his motion in a press release issued by Praetorian Public Relations on Tuesday. The release alleged that Felarca filed a “frivolous” restraining order against Worden that restricted his First and Second Amendment rights and “made it difficult” for him to walk around campus to attend his classes.

“I am glad that we are no longer playing defense and that we are finally going after BAMN for filing this frivolous action,” Worden alleged in the release.

Worden declined to comment on the suit, deferring to his attorney. When asked about the motion, Felarca laughed out loud, adding that her lawyer would issue a statement on her behalf.

The temporary restraining order, which Felarca filed Sept. 7 against Worden for alleged stalking and intimidation, was dismissed Oct. 26. Mark Meuser — an attorney with the law firm Dhillon Law Group, which represents Worden — said the motion filed Tuesday is in the same lawsuit as Felarca’s restraining order. He clarified that Worden is “going back against” Felarca for damages and her attorneys for allegedly filing a “frivolous lawsuit.”

According to Meuser, the motion asks for more than $100,000 in damages from Felarca. Worden also filed a sanctions motion against Felarca’s attorney, Shanta Driver, who is the founder of BAMN. Meuser said the sanctions motion asks that Felarca’s attorney be held jointly liable for the damages. The press release alleged that Driver “should have known that the motion was frivolous” and that it “was brought for the improper purpose of restricting Worden’s rights.”

“The motion for sanctions … is a motion to say, ‘Don’t hold the defendant solely liable for damages — make her attorney liable (as well),’ ” Meuser said.

Meuser alleged that Felarca made several false statements against Worden when she filed the restraining order. He said Felarca testified that Worden made threatening statements against her in a classroom. He added, however, that Worden’s attorneys had presented the court with video footage from the classroom and that Worden did not make any threatening statements in that video.

Felarca also testified that Worden took a selfie with her Feb. 17 and then “made a grimacing face” after the photo was taken, according to Meuser. Meuser said, however, that his team presented the court with evidence that Worden was working for the University of California at the date and time that Felarca alleged this incident occurred.

Meuser said Felarca also testified that Worden “stared at her” on a few occasions when she was handing out flyers on Sproul Plaza. He alleged that Felarca “made up” the two incidents of harassment and used instances of Worden staring at her in public as reasons for the restraining order.

“You are not entitled to a civil restraining order because somebody stares at you in a public place,” Meuser said. “We beat the temporary restraining order … (and) we are now coming against her for the attorney fees and costs in defending Troy.”

Chantelle Lee is the city news editor. Contact her at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter at @ChantelleHLee.

Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comment policy
  • rychastings

    good, I hope he gets a judgement against her

  • X Ray

    Remember that a-hole who sued his dry cleaners for $54 million? It’s like that.

    Once again, the Daily Cal turns itself into a Right Wing sewer here. I’d add a comment about how the mighty have fallen except, of course, it’s the Daily Cal so not a lot of mightiness here.

    More like a fall through the rotting floorboards. In any event, the editors here should be more embarrassed than they apparently are.

    • y_p_w

      They’re just reporting the news. These are a couple of people who have ended up in the news. I don’t make too much of this. It’s probably going to go as far as the time someone sued the University of California claiming unequal treatment in venue rentals.

    • roccolore

      Fascist Democrats like you hate America and hate free speech.

    • zzz

      Is it that hard for you to accept that people who share your politics are horrible?

      Instead of forming an opinion on evidence you fire up the defense mechanisms and attack the messenger.

      Is it that hard for you to contemplate that Felarca is a crazy sociopath political cultist?

      What upsets you here?

  • Levi Russell

    I hope they get it. Felarca is a totalitarian.

  • cadcam

    Felarca is a complete lunatic.

  • Ronald Weissman

    Has UC reacted to this suit?

  • rychastings

    good, I hope he gets a judgement against her

  • ananymous

    I’d like to know what universe Felarca’s living in. She doesn’t like it when others “stare” at her. Yet she feels completely entitled to punch them when they challenge her beliefs. And she teaches in a middle school? Every best wish to Mr. Worden in his civil lawsuit against her.

  • la di dah

    Worden will probably get some legal fees but if he paid $100K in legal fees, his lawyer price gouged him and his lawyer is kinda abusing the legal system by price gouging and trying to stick it to Fellarca. Just a guess.

    • Kyle Hood

      They are not going after “legal fees.” They are going after her for civil rights violations. Did you even read this article? They have her on 1st and 2nd Amendment rights violations. They are also attacking her attorney for filing a request with the court that she knew to be frivolous. This has nothing to do with how much he paid for his legal help.

      • y_p_w

        I personally believe she’s about as nutty as the guy suing her. However, she can’t personally infringe on this guy’s 1st or 2nd amendment rights. She filed a restraining order, and the most that could do is that the government keeps him away from her or the government restricts his right to keep firearms. She can’t specifically restrict those rights without the intervention of the courts.

        • jeyhovah

          You clearly don’t understand how the legal system works

          • y_p_w

            The claims are a bit off the deep end. I’ve served on a jury before in a malicious prosecution claim. It basically only got there because someone was arrested and incarcerated. Without an arrest and overnight in jail they would have had nothing.

            Most of what Felarca did was considered privileged. It’s not that she said anything, but whether or not there was any malice. Certainly no judge would allow an argument that the 1st/2nd Amendment rights of someone receiving a restraining order were violated.

          • jeyhovah

            Alright.If someone makes a false accusation or misconstrues facts in a manner that is premeditated with the point of having the legal system intervene and disallow someone from speaking freely, then that party is responsible for the government intervening. I completely understand your point that its the government doing it, not the person, but it is the person’s actions that caused the government to restrict liberties, ergo, the person is responsible.

            Please note that I’m not making any assertion as to the validity of the claim itself, simply that Felarca can be held accountable for the restriction of rights if the claims are fraudulent. I disagree with you about having an arrest and overnight in jail they would have nothing. Completely. 100% that is not accurate.

          • y_p_w

            The restraining order was only against approaching Felarca. Without seeing it, I don’t know if he was forced to hand over any firearms, although it sounds like he’s saying it did.

            He and his attorney are going to have a tough time. There’s a very high bar on these cases because allowing anyone to go forward with malicious prosecution on the basis of an order being rescinded would make it difficult to get an order. He didn’t really lose his liberty, so I’m not sure what case he has. Simply on the basis of his own claims, I don’t see how it’s going to go forward. Without either him being arrested, incarcerated, or forced to suffer a loss of reputation, what does he have? He’s certainly not going anywhere suing a plaintiff’s attorney.

          • jeyhovah

            I’m sure there are damages in there somewhere even if the 1st and 2nd amendment rights are spurious claims, e.g., defamation of character, harassment, or some other charge.

          • y_p_w

            The standards for winning such a case are high. And suing an attorney is really difficult given that their communications with the client are privileged. It doesn’t matter who the client is is or who the defendant is. I doubt this goes anywhere.

            He got the restraining order lifted. For most that about the best case scenario. You asked if I knew how the legal system works. I know enough that malicious prosecution is very difficult to prove to a court, as it should be.