Judge rules Sharks Evander Kane must face discovery in abortion-for-pay lawsuit

San Jose Sharks star winger Evander Kane has had multiple off-ice issues this year: He filed for personal bankruptcy, endured the very public and messy ongoing divorce from his wife and the public learned through a report in The Athletic that teammates disliked him so much that they wanted him to be traded. Now, a

San Jose Sharks’ star winger Evander Kane has had multiple off-ice issues this year: He filed for personal bankruptcy, endured the very public and messy ongoing divorce from his wife and the public learned through a report in The Athletic that teammates disliked him so much that they wanted him to be traded. Now, a new concern: A federal bankruptcy judge gave the go-ahead for discovery in a lawsuit filed by Hope Parker, who alleges Kane reneged on a promise to pay her at least $2 million if she aborted their pregnancy.

That means Parker, who first sued in 2018 in California state court, can begin seeking testimony and electronic correspondence from Kane, who says he changed his mind about paying Parker before she sent him proof of the abortion. That argument did not win over bankruptcy judge Stephen Johnson.

“Plaintiff (Parker) was unwilling to terminate the third pregnancy until Defendant (Kane) offered her two to three million dollars to do so,” Johnson wrote. (According to bankruptcy court documents, Parker allegedly aborted a fetus conceived with the hockey player twice before, and Kane paid her $125,000 for the second abortion.) “Then, on June 13, 2018, Plaintiff sent Defendant a text message of her lab results, which confirmed she had terminated the third pregnancy. When Plaintiff requested Defendant update her on the status of her payment, Defendant, for the first time, told (Plaintiff) he was not going to pay her, stating: ‘I’ll have my lawyer contact you I’m not dealing with this any further then.’

“I can infer from the complaint that Plaintiff falsely said he would pay … to abort the third pregnancy, and that he did so to deceive (her) into actually undergoing that abortion.”

Parker’s case in California was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and then stayed since Kane’s January bankruptcy filing. A status conference scheduled earlier this month was pushed into next year. That leaves Parker’s complaint within the bankruptcy process. She has filed a separate case within Chapter 7 seeking to ensure that if Kane is allowed to walk away from his debts, her debt would be treated differently.

Bankruptcy law does not allow a debt to be waived if it is obtained under false pretenses. Johnson OK’d that argument to proceed. It doesn’t mean the court is ruling in Parker’s favor, but that it sees enough reason for the case to move forward.

“To use a boxing analogy, this is the first round in this litigation,” said Schuyler Carroll, a bankruptcy attorney at Loeb & Loeb. “There are still nine rounds left to be fought. Parker won this round, but she still has a long way to go. Having said that, because so much of bankruptcy is resolved by settlement, a ruling like this often leads to settlement discussions.”

The Parker complaint is just one aspect of the Chapter 7. A host of lenders have filed their own adversarial proceedings against Kane and appealed some of Johnson’s rulings. Kane himself is appealing Johnson’s decision that limits how much of his real estate he can shield from the creditors.

(Photo: Stan Szeto / USA Today Sports)

Could a settlement happen?

A settlement could happen if Kane wants to avoid more damaging disclosures, like the kind made by his wife, who alleged he bet on his own games (a claim he denies).

Parker’s lawyers wrote in the April 1 complaint that Kane’s communication with their client was urgent. They say his texts to Parker about the pregnancy included concerns about his career, “it will be terrible; this will ruin … my career; I’m begging you please” and suggested she “take the pills,” presumably to end the pregnancy.

Her lawyers said Parker told Kane “she was not going to let him bully her into having an abortion as he had with the first two pregnancies.”

Those were messages Parker allegedly possessed herself. In discovery, she would gain access to all of Kane’s emails and texts, and depose him.

“In an adversary proceeding, the rules of discovery apply,” said Zev Shechtman, a bankruptcy attorney with Danning, Gill, Israel & Krasnoff, LLP. “She can develop the evidence and proceed toward trial on the merits of the remaining claims.”

Kane’s bankruptcy attorney, Stephen Finestone, said, “In ruling on a motion of this type, the court must assume the allegations to be true. On the claim with respect to Ms. Parker’s specific debt, the court has found that, assuming the allegations are true, she has at least stated a basis for a claim at this point. The court reserved for another day the question of whether public policy is a basis to deny Ms. Parker’s claim. Mr. Kane contends that the allegations are … false and once the facts and law are further developed he will prevail.”

Advertisement

What are Kane's representatives arguing?

While Parker’s April 1 complaint paints Kane as a bully who forced her into abortions, his argument is he is sticking up for women’s rights. Kane contends that Parker’s claims are blocked by California public policy because his agreement with her would interfere with a woman’s right to choose whether to have or abort a child. Judge Johnson did not rule on that argument.

At a June 15 hearing, Finestone said, “There’s some protection of women that has to take place here.” And in a May 3 motion to dismiss Parker’s claims, he wrote, “California law has long held that such promises are outside the scope of adjudication due to their intensely personal nature.”

What are Parker's representatives arguing?

Parker’s lawyer, Jonathan Lewis, arguing for the validity of the agreement, said at the June 15 hearing, “Hope Parker has the right to carry … to term. She does. And she was intending to do it until Mr. Kane said, ‘OK, I will give you two to three million (dollars) to terminate. And she said, ‘Fine.’ And the funny thing is, he benefited from that. So if the court came down and said, ‘I don’t think that men should be able to pay women to terminate (pregnancies), I am sure there are a lot of men with means that would be very upset with the court’s decision, to be honest with the court.”

“He promised her money, she did the act, and even here, and there’s nothing illegal about it."

ncG1vNJzZmismJqutbTLnquim16YvK57k2tna2hhbnxzfJFqZmlwX2eAcLbUnZ6eZaKquaa%2FjKyfmqqbqHqmwsCnm56qXaCur7GMpqysrF2brqSxjJ2grJufq7KzxYyipWaZkqS%2FtbXOp2Sfp6JivaLFjKWYsKulnsFw

 Share!