Gharavi v. Eli lawsuit accuses social media harassment with defamation and copyright infringement claims Alleges $100,000+ Defamation Damages
Nima Gharavi, a wrestling official, and his company, Right Call Officials, Inc., have initiated legal action against David J. Eli, claiming defamation and copyright infringement. Filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, No. 1:26-cv-07209, on June 18, 2026, the lawsuit seeks damages exceeding $100,000, as well as statutory damages for multiple counts of infringement. The plaintiffs allege that Eli disseminated false statements accusing Gharavi of engaging in pedophilic acts and other defamatory content, substantially damaging their reputations and infringing on copyrighted materials by reproducing and distributing videos and photos without permission.
Defamation Mechanism Alleged Against David J. Eli
The complaint against David J. Eli alleges that he published false statements accusing Nima Gharavi of offensive conduct, including pedophilic acts. These statements, disseminated through social media from June 20, 2025, to October 13, 2025, identified Gharavi by his full name and have garnered substantial viewership, with one post achieving approximately 17,000 views. The complaint also describes specific instances where Eli allegedly used defamatory language, calling Nima "a pedophile," "a creep," and accused him of "encouraging the sexualization of kids" (Compl. ¶19).
The complaint underscores the seriousness of these defamation allegations, contending that Eli’s public posts were made knowingly and with malicious intent to harm the plaintiffs' reputations. These defamation claims are categorized under both defamation per se and defamation per quod. The lawsuit seeks damages exceeding $100,000 for the harm caused by the alleged defamatory statements and asks for punitive damages due to Eli's conduct being particularly harmful and malicious (Compl. ¶31).
These allegations remain unproven at this stage, and no responses from the defendants have been filed in court.
Copyright Infringement Mechanism Alleged Against David J. Eli
The complaint filed by Nima Gharavi and Right Call Officials, Inc. alleges that David J. Eli engaged in copyright infringement by reproducing, displaying, and distributing Nima's copyrighted materials without authorization. These activities purportedly violated Nima's exclusive rights to his works, which are protected under multiple U.S. Copyright Registrations, including VA 2-486-833, PAu 4-266-023, PAu 4-266-050, PAu 4-266-016, PAu 4-281-814, and VA 2-504-863 (Compl. ¶53).
Each action by Eli is claimed to constitute a separate instance of infringement, with each social media post or repost constituting a separate claim of infringement under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1)–(3), (5) (Compl. ¶56). The complaint identifies individual social media posts and reposts as specific acts of unauthorized use, reproduction, and distribution of the protected works. The plaintiffs allege that these actions were performed willfully, with Eli purportedly making deliberate copies and derivative works from Nima's original material (Compl. ¶57).
Under the Copyright Act, Nima and Right Call Officials, Inc. assert their rights to seek substantial statutory damages for each act of infringement due to what they claim is Eli's willful and intentional conduct. The complaint underscores the plaintiffs' call for a jury trial to determine the extent of damages and any further relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Nima Gharavi's and Right Call Officials, Inc.'s Financial Claims
The complaint filed by Nima Gharavi and Right Call Officials, Inc. against David J. Eli seeks significant financial remedies for alleged harm caused by Eli's actions. According to the filing, the plaintiffs are demanding compensatory damages exceeding $100,000 for defamation. These damages are purported to address the impact of alleged false statements made by Eli, which accuse Gharavi of severe misconduct and have been widely disseminated through social media channels (Compl. ¶54-58).
In addition to defamation claims, the plaintiffs seek statutory damages for copyright infringement, with amounts up to $150,000 per infringement for copyright claims according to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). The complaint alleges that Eli copied, displayed, and distributed these works without authorization from the plaintiffs, with each social media post or repost constituting a separate claim of infringement (Compl. ¶56). These statutory damages are designed to remedy the unauthorized use of copyrighted material and deter willful infringement.
The total potential damages sought by Gharavi and Right Call Officials, Inc. across multiple counts could be substantial, given the per-infringement statutory claims and the broader compensatory claims for the defamation. The resolution of these financial claims will likely prove central to the litigation, encompassing both tangible and punitive dimensions under the applicable statutes. It remains to be seen how the court will assess and adjudicate these demands as the case progresses.
Parties Involved in the Case
The complaint identifies Nima Gharavi as a plaintiff. Nima is an individual domiciled in Chicago, Illinois. He is portrayed as a professional who has been actively involved in officiating wrestling matches across the United States since 2016 and has shared related media content on various platforms since 2018.
Accompanying Nima Gharavi as a plaintiff is Right Call Officials, Inc. (RCO), an Illinois S corporation. RCO maintains its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. The corporation is involved in the administration and officiating of wrestling events and is closely associated with the professional activities of Gharavi.
The defendant in this legal matter is identified as David J. Eli. He is also an individual domiciled in Chicago, Illinois. The complaint accuses him of engaging in defamatory activities against the plaintiffs and infringing upon their copyrighted materials.
The case encompasses complaints of defamation per se and per quod against Eli, along with accusations of copyright infringement under various sections of the United States Copyright Law.
Defamation Claims by Nima Gharavi and Right Call Officials, Inc.
The complaint filed by Nima Gharavi and Right Call Officials, Inc. (RCO) against David J. Eli sets forth claims for both defamation per se and defamation per quod (Compl. ¶4; Compl. ¶19). The plaintiffs assert that Eli published various false and defamatory statements between June 20, 2025, and October 13, 2025, which have significantly damaged their reputations. According to the filing, Eli's allegations included calling Gharavi defamatory names, which Gharavi firmly denies (Compl. ¶25).
Under defamation per se, the complaint claims that Eli's statements were inherently damaging to Gharavi's personal and professional standing, as they accused him of criminal behavior that could severely impact his career and public image. Such statements are alleged to have been made with malice, reaching a substantial audience (Compl. ¶31).
The defamation per quod claim involves statements that, while not defamatory on their face, are alleged to have injured the plaintiffs by implication. The plaintiffs argue that Eli's accusations, which were not apparent without context, damaged their reputation in the wrestling community, causing both emotional and financial harm. The complaint cites the need for plaintiffs to expound upon the allegations to genuinely reflect their detrimental effect, seeking compensatory damages exceeding $100,000.
Copyright Infringement Claims by Nima Gharavi and Right Call Officials, Inc.
Nima Gharavi and Right Call Officials, Inc. have brought forward claims of copyright infringement against David J. Eli, alleging unauthorized use of their copyrighted materials. The plaintiffs assert that Eli reproduced, displayed, and distributed these works without permission, in violation of their exclusive rights. These works are protected by several U.S. Copyright Registrations, including VA 2-486-833, PAu 4-266-023, PAu 4-266-050, PAu 4-266-016, PAu 4-281-814, and VA 2-504-863 (Compl. ¶53).
The complaint details multiple counts of infringement, highlighting that each separate unauthorized social media post or repost constitutes a distinct act of infringement. The plaintiffs maintain that Eli's conduct was willful and deliberate, causing damage to both Nima and RCO, although the precise amount of resulting damages is to be determined at trial (Compl. ¶56).
In addition to seeking recovery of damages, the plaintiffs are pursuing statutory damages for each act of infringement, with amounts up to $150,000 per infringement according to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). These claims are part of a broader legal strategy to obtain a permanent injunction to prevent Eli from any further infringing activities, alongside compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged defamation also included in the suit.
Relief Sought and Procedural Posture
The plaintiffs, Nima Gharavi and Right Call Officials, Inc., have requested a jury trial to adjudicate their claims against David J. Eli. The relief sought includes a permanent injunction as a preventive measure against any future defamatory or infringing actions by the defendant. This request aims to halt continued damage to their reputation and intellectual property.
In terms of monetary damages, the plaintiffs are pursuing compensatory damages in connection with the alleged defamation, along with punitive damages intended to penalize the egregious nature of the alleged conduct. Additionally, they seek statutory damages for each instance of copyright infringement, which could reach significant amounts per infringement (Compl. ¶56, 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)). These figures highlight the severe impact the plaintiffs allege resulted from the defendant's conduct.
The plaintiffs also seek to recover attorneys’ fees and litigation costs as part of their demands for relief. They argue that these additional compensatory mechanisms are necessary to adequately address the harm caused and to deter similar conduct in the future (Compl. ¶58). Furthermore, Gharavi and RCO have requested any other relief deemed just and proper by the court.
This procedural posture of the case outlines the measures the plaintiffs consider essential to recompense and protect against the broad spectrum of harms they allege occurred due to the defendant's actions. These legal remedies are integral to the plaintiffs' strategy as they seek judicial intervention.
The allegations described here are taken from the filing and remain unproven; no responsive pleading is reflected in the source document.
From the Complaint Public Court Record
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION NIMA GHARAVI and RIGHT CALL OFFICIALS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. DAVID J. ELI, Defendant. Case No. 26-cv-07209 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff Nima Gharavi (“Nima”) and Right Call Officials, Inc. (“RCO”) (together, “Plaintiffs”) hereby bring the present action against Defendant David J. Eli (“Defendant”), and allege as follows: I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. The Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the copyright claims in this action pursuant to the provisions of the Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. § 501, et seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)–(b), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a). 3. The Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant since Defendant is domiciled in Illinois and is subject to general personal jurisdiction in this forum. The Court may also properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant since Defendant directed tortious conduct expressly aimed at Plaintiffs, an Illinois resident and an Illinois corporation, that caused substantial and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs. Specifically, Defendant, an Illinois resident, Case: 1:26-cv-07209 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/18/26 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1
2 posted a series of defamatory statements and accusations on his social media account, many of which also infringed Nima’s federally registered copyrights, which caused Plaintiffs substantial reputational and business harm in the State of Illinois. II. INTRODUCTION 4. This is an action for defamation and federal copyright infringement arising from a series of defamatory and infringing social media posts made by Defendant between June 20, 2025, and October 13, 2025. Using at least two X (formerly Twitter) accounts, and potentially more social media accou
Questions about this topic: david@newmanbrunk.com