Blac Chyna’s High-Stakes Appeal Against the Kardashians: Unpacking the Judge Bias Claims and Legal Showdown

The highly publicized legal saga between **Blac Chyna** (born Angela White) and the influential **KarJenner family** has taken another dramatic turn. Following her resounding loss in the initial defamation lawsuit, new court documents reveal that Chyna has officially filed to appeal the verdict, igniting yet another intense legal skirmish. This time, her challenge targets the very foundation of the trial: the presiding judge. This bold move sets the stage for a prolonged and complex legal battle, with both sides once again gearing up for a contentious fight in the public eye and within the courtroom, grappling with serious accusations of judicial misconduct and strategic legal maneuvers.

At the heart of **Blac Chyna’s** appeal is a preemptory challenge against **Judge Gregory W. Alarcon** of the Los Angeles Superior Court. According to detailed court documents recently obtained by HollywoodLife, Chyna, through her legal team, alleges that Judge Alarcon demonstrated a profound lack of impartiality throughout the 10-day trial. She claims his conduct was “undeniably hostile and extremely biased” in his rulings, not only against her but also against her attorney, **Lynne Ciani**. This accusation of judicial bias is a serious one, suggesting that the integrity and fairness of the entire legal proceeding were compromised from the outset, potentially impacting the jury’s ability to render an unbiased decision.

The 33-year-old reality television personality and entrepreneur firmly believes that Judge Alarcon’s alleged bias had a direct and detrimental impact on several crucial aspects of the case. Her filing specifies that the judge’s actions affected “the jury making ‘key liability verdicts in her favor,'” implying that potentially favorable findings or evidence were either overlooked or undermined due to his alleged prejudice. Furthermore, Chyna asserts that she was “denied due process with regard to the jury instructions and special verdict form.” These elements are fundamental to a fair trial, as they guide the jury in understanding the applicable law and applying it accurately to the facts presented. Any perceived manipulation or unfair presentation of these instructions could significantly sway a verdict, making Chyna’s claims a cornerstone of her appeal and a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the initial ruling.

A “preemptory challenge” in the legal context, while sometimes employed before a trial begins to remove a judge without cause, in this instance serves as a strong assertion of judicial misconduct post-verdict, laying the groundwork for an appeal. Chyna’s legal team is effectively arguing that the playing field was not level, and thus, the initial judgment cannot stand. This strategic move aims to dismantle the verdict by questioning the very authority and fairness of the judicial officer who presided over the proceedings, rather than merely challenging the jury’s interpretation of facts or the application of law. Such a challenge demands a rigorous review of judicial conduct throughout the entire trial, scrutinizing every decision and interaction for evidence of impropriety or favoritism.

Unsurprisingly, the KarJenner clan, known for their tenacious approach to legal challenges and protecting their brand, is already fighting back vigorously. Their formidable attorney, **Michael G. Rhodes**, swiftly filed a comprehensive 20-page opposition on Monday, May 9, directly refuting Chyna’s claims. The opposition argues that despite any supposed issues or concerns Chyna and her legal counsel might have harbored regarding Judge Alarcon, they “nonetheless proceeded without complaint as Judge Alarcon presided over a 10-day trial.” This forms a crucial part of the Kardashian defense: asserting that Chyna’s team effectively waived their right to challenge the judge by not raising these objections in a timely manner during the actual trial, when such issues could have been addressed in real-time.

The KarJenner legal team’s document meticulously details their counter-arguments, emphasizing that Blac Chyna and her attorney “had ample time to raise her completely misguided allegations about Judge Alarcon’s impartiality, along with numerous opportunities to brief evidentiary issues, jury instructions, and the special verdict form” in the days and weeks following the alleged incidents of bias. This suggests a pattern of inaction on Chyna’s part, which the defense is keen to highlight as a strategic oversight or a post-verdict attempt to salvage a losing case. The document underscores the principle that procedural objections, especially those concerning judicial conduct, must typically be raised contemporaneously to allow the court to address them and potentially rectify any perceived errors before a verdict is reached. Waiting until after a decision has been made significantly weakens the credibility of such claims.

Furthermore, the Kardashian’s opposition asserts a critical point that directly challenges Chyna’s attorney: “Indeed, Judge Alarcon explicitly invited Ms. Ciani to brief issues relating to jury instructions and evidentiary issues, such as sustained objections for hearsay and lack of authenticity, which she never did.” This detail paints a picture where Chyna’s attorney allegedly failed to utilize available legal avenues to address her concerns when given the opportunity by the court itself. The record continues, revealing that “Instead, Ms. Ciani first raised several of the [issues discussed in her statement of disqualification] in a written filing after the jury had begun deliberating.” This timing is highly problematic from a legal standpoint, as raising such fundamental objections after deliberations have commenced can be perceived as an opportunistic move rather than a genuine concern for fairness during the trial itself, potentially aimed at undermining a verdict already in progress.

The Kardashian’s legal brief further escalates their critique of Chyna’s attorney, stating, “Judge Alarcon demonstrated considerable tolerance towards Ms. Ciani despite her failure to understand and apply basic rules of evidence.” This is a scathing indictment of Ciani’s legal prowess, implying that any perceived difficulties Chyna’s team faced during the trial were due to their own legal shortcomings rather than inherent judicial bias. Moreover, the document posits that Ciani’s current efforts are an attempt to “salvage” her professional reputation, “deflecting blame for her own shortcomings at trial and generate further publicity for Plaintiff.” This accusation suggests that the appeal is not solely about justice for Chyna but also a strategic maneuver by her attorney to protect her standing and keep the high-profile case in the media spotlight, potentially benefiting Chyna through continued public attention and an extended narrative surrounding the controversy.

The KarJenner’s opposition concludes with a powerful argument against disqualification, stating, “Plaintiff’s request for disqualification should be denied for at least two reasons.” The first reason cited is that “Plaintiff has waived her request for disqualification by failing to seek such recourse during trial, when the purported facts constituting the grounds for disqualification allegedly occurred.” This “waiver” argument is a significant procedural defense, emphasizing that legal objections must be raised proactively and promptly to be considered valid. The second reason underscores the gravity of the accusations: “Second, even if the Court entertained Plaintiff’s late request, Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated suggestions of bias on the part of Judge Alarcon come nowhere close to meeting the high burden required for his disqualification.” This highlights the immense legal hurdle Chyna faces; proving judicial bias is exceptionally difficult and requires concrete, undeniable evidence of actual prejudice, not just perceived unfairness or dissatisfaction with a ruling.

To fully understand the current appeal, it’s crucial to recall the origins of the original lawsuit. Blac Chyna had initially sued the Kardashians, claiming they had defamed her and actively interfered with the E! network to ensure her reality show, Rob & Chyna, was canceled. The lawsuit sought a staggering $100 million in damages, alleging that the family’s influence and false statements led to significant financial losses and reputational harm for Chyna. She argued that the KarJenners used their considerable power and connections in the entertainment industry to sabotage her career and brand, particularly after her turbulent relationship with **Rob Kardashian** ended, causing her to lose out on lucrative opportunities.

The cancellation of Rob & Chyna was a central point of contention, with Chyna claiming the family intentionally spread rumors and negative publicity to pressure E! into pulling the plug on the show. This alleged interference, she contended, cost her millions in potential earnings from the show itself, as well as endorsement deals and other business ventures directly tied to her public profile as a reality star. The trial featured explosive testimonies from various family members, including Kim, Kris, Khloe, and Kylie, each denying Chyna’s allegations and painting a picture of a volatile relationship between Rob and Chyna that independently led to the show’s demise, asserting they had no direct influence over E!’s programming decisions.

Ultimately, after a protracted and highly scrutinized trial, the jury’s verdict sided unequivocally with the Kardashians. They found no evidence of defamation or intentional interference, meaning Chyna was awarded zero damages. Following the verdict, the Kardashians’ lawyer, **Michael G. Rhodes**, expressed profound gratitude to the jury and commended the judge. “We are also grateful for the steady hand of Judge Alarcon in making sure that this was a fair trial. The jury sent a clear message to Ms. White and her lawyer — I hope they are listening. Justice has prevailed,” he stated in an official announcement received by HollywoodLife. This statement starkly contrasts with Chyna’s current allegations, underscoring the deep division in how both parties perceive the fairness and outcome of the initial legal proceedings, highlighting the contentious nature of this ongoing celebrity legal drama.

The legal process for challenging a judge’s impartiality is notoriously difficult and rarely successful. Appellants typically face an exceptionally high burden of proof, needing to demonstrate not just perceived unfairness but actual, documented evidence of bias that demonstrably prejudiced the outcome of the trial. Chyna’s current appeal now moves to a higher court, where appellate judges will meticulously review the trial records, including transcripts, motions, and rulings, to determine if Judge Alarcon’s conduct indeed constituted reversible error warranting a new trial, or if the initial verdict should be upheld. This stage of the legal battle is often more technical and less about presenting new evidence, focusing instead on whether legal errors were made during the original trial. The ongoing nature of this dispute ensures that the spotlight remains firmly fixed on one of Hollywood’s most contentious celebrity feuds, captivating audiences and legal observers alike.

As this high-profile legal battle continues to unfold, the public and media remain keenly interested in the ultimate outcome. Blac Chyna’s unwavering determination to appeal highlights her strong belief in the merit of her claims, while the Kardashians’ robust defense showcases their collective resolve to protect their formidable brand and public reputation at all costs. HollywoodLife has reached out to both Blac Chyna’s and the Kardashians’ representatives for further comment on these latest developments, as the legal drama promises to deliver more twists and turns in the coming months, shaping not only the lives of those involved but also potentially setting new precedents in celebrity litigation.