–
LOS ANGELES, Calif. – The plaintiff and the defendant in the People vs. Justin Gimelstob arrived at the Los Angeles County courthouse in the shadow of LAX Airport in grand style.
Gimelstob drove a Range Rover, dressed in an elegant grey suit.
Randall Kaplan and wife Madison arrived in a white Land Rover Discovery, more casually dressed. This long, lean, perfectly matched pair were in shades of grey and denim.
The protagonists meshed seamlessly with the 120 seats in Judge Yvette Versategui’s courtroom which were, of course, grey.
But they stood in stark contrast to the rest of the defendants in the cases being heard Wednesday. One man arrived wearing dressed for court in a track suit. Another brought his two very young children into the courtroom with him – clearly not having any other child care options on this day. A middle-aged women wearing an orange prison jumpsuit and charged with stalking and a number of contempt of court issues appeared briefly – and exited stage right as quickly as she arrived.
These two men of privilege were involved, on Oct. 31, in what would have been for two other random men essentially a bar brawl. Except that in this case, it occurred outdoors, with both parties dead sober, in an exclusive Los Angeles neighbourhood. And the two did not shake hands and turn the page.
Kaplan is accusing Gimelstob of hitting him some 50 times and causing significant physical harm. The original charge of battery is a felony.
The case that resulted from that altercation is now on its third judge, and suffered its second delay in the last five days.
A resolution at hand? Not so fast
Judging by the multiple sessions between the attorneys and the judges Wednesday, the process seemed to be nearing a resolution that would avoid the process playing itself out into a full trial.
And, more crucially for Gimelstob, who is an influential figure in the tennis with jobs in multiple areas of the game – including a seat on the ATP Tour Board and a gig as a commentator for Tennis Channel – it looked to end without jail time or admission of guilt.
Gimelstob’s attorney, Shawn Holley, has represented a number of high-profile celebrity clients including Kim Kardashian and Lindsay Lohan. She was a member of the “Dream Team” that defended disgraced former football legend O.J. Simpson more than 20 years ago.
Holley knows as well as anyone that with a client with a public profile, there’s a balance to be struck. A trial might well vindicate them. But the potential consequences to their reputation or brand that a lengthy trial might create might not be worth it, on balance. Those are waters Holley has successfully navigated many times before – finding the right balance for her client.
Her job, at its core, is damage mitigation litigation.
With Gimelstob involved in a court tussle with his ex-wife over the custody of their son – a case that has dragged on for 3 1/2 years now, the motivation to not have a felony on his record is high.
And as one of the movers and shakers in tennis, the optics would be poor as well.
A long day – in two courtrooms
The day began at 8:30 a.m. on the third floor of the courthouse with lengthy debates between the judge, district attorney Lucre Boado and Holley.
A well-leafed copy of the penal code was pulled out often.
While all this was going on, some information from inside the courtroom was being supplied to a veterans communication expert Kaplan had engaged to deal with the media interest. That intel ended up – whether in its original form or the result of a case of broken telephone – on social media.
(Gimelstob addressed those reports in a statement later Wednesday).
One particular Tweet, which stated Gimelstob had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanour and would be sentenced to 45 days of community service picking up trash, was erroneous. Gimelstob had entered no plea at all – never mind a guilty one.
Shortly after that, Judge Versategui recused herself from the case.
She had examined some new evidence and documentation presented. And she reportedly was acquainted with one person mentioned in the material. Even if that individual was not material to the case at hand, the judge did what she appeared to be mandated to do under those circumstances.
So shortly before 11 a.m., the search was on for another judge to hear the case.
If one couldn’t be found, there would have been yet another postponement.
The interested parties – including a lawyer unofficially observing the case on behalf of the ATP – then trooped up to the eight-floor courtroom of Judge Leslie C. Brown.
This courtroom, with fewer than half the seats but with an additional 12 seats for a jury, was smaller and quieter. And it seemed the Gimelstob case was the only thing going on.
Close quarters, but no contact
The scenes were, at times, a little surreal.
Despite the fact that the restraining order Kaplan filed back in December is still in force, he and Gimelstob often were separated by only a few feet.
They would cross each other in the hallway outside the courtroom during the numerous and lengthy breaks.
Once, as Gimelstob was standing at the exit to the courtroom, Kaplan made only the slightest arc of a detour to get around him, and to the door.
Both studiously avoided acknowledging each other’s existence, regardless of the close quarters.
Judge Brown in afternoon session
After a 2 1/2-hour lunch break during which the new judge tried to familiarize himself with the case, it was back to the chambers for the two lawyers. Only for a short period, after which they again discussed matters with their clients.
It seemed clear at this point that the new judge was of the opinion that the original framework for the resolution wasn’t significant enough.
By 2:30 p.m. … another half-hour trip to the judge’s chambers for the attorneys.
Both Kaplan and his wife had prepared victim impact statements. Their presence at the day’s proceedings was surely in part due to the fact that they expected to read them in front of the judge.
Kaplan had his statement neatly typed on several sheets of paper. He was holding them in his hand, ready to go.
But on this day, at least, they were not afforded the opportunity.
Late in the day, a new date
By 3:20 p.m., with the courtroom staff grumbling about how late it was getting, the attorneys were back in chambers for another 13 minutes. Finally, at 3:37 p.m., court was officially in session and Judge Brown finally entered his own courtroom.
If the case had been close to a resolution five hours before, it now became a matter of trying to find a date amenable to all for a hearing to set the date for a preliminary hearing.
Thus, it appears for right now that, rather than a plea deal, the case might proceed.
Judge Brown briefly left the courtroom, visibly annoyed the parties needed a few minutes to find a mutually acceptable date.
He returned.
“Are we ready now?” he asked.
Finally, at 3:46 p.m., Gimelstob officially appeared in front of the judge – whose first order of business was to ask him how his name was pronounced.
“There was discussion about possibly resolving the case,” Judge Brown said.
Those discussions never having been concluded, the next court date will be March 13.
It’s possible there might be a resolution on that day. If not, the judge will – finally – set a date for the preliminary hearing no more than 20 days after that.
When it was all over, the two interested parties hopped back into the luxury SUVs and back to their regular lives.
Gimelstob continues with his various duties. He will be down at Indian Wells next week, as both the ATP Board and Players’ Council will meet. One of the items on the agenda will be the future of current ATP Tour CEO Chris Kermode.
About Post Author
More Stories
Australian Open 2025 – Day 11 doubles, mixed final results
Australian Open 2025 – Day 11 singles final results
Australian Open 2025 – Day 10 doubles, mixed final results