Courthouse Steps

CASE CAPTION: Ruben Mellado, individually and as a private attorney general, v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., a division of Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., L. A. Superior Court # BC304678.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Unfair business practices in violation of Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200, et seq.; wrongful termination; and defamation.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff was a system delivery lead for the defendant's financial contract systems team. His responsibilities included reviewing participation statements for the payment of residuals, royalties and other fees. He was asked to validate a statement for the film “The Exorcist” but was unable to do it because of errors in the records or transactions that the plaintiff discovered relating to the years 1973 and 1974 that affected more than 140 additional titles/works. Despite knowing about the problem since about 1999 or 2000, Warner has continued to rely on the erroneous statements. In September 2003, the plaintiff was fired without any prior warnings. This was based on his reporting of the errors “which potentially subjected Warner Bros. to enormous liability for payments to artists, actors, directors, writers and other individuals and/participants entitled to payments from Warner Bros. for the use of their works.” The plaintiff was defamed by the pretextual statements given for his firing ' that he wasn't doing things he was instructed to do.

RELIEF SOUGHT: An injunction against continued deceptive business practices and restitution of compensation due the participants. Also, unspecified damages for wrongful termination and defamation.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Clifford H. Pearson, Gary S. Soter and Marina N. Vitek of Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Pearson, Tarzana, CA. (818-705-6800).

* * *

CASE CAPTION: Karen Childress v. Premiere Radio Networks Inc. and Kraig Kitchin, L.A. Superior Court #BC305180.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Violation of the Calif. Labor Code Sec. 1102.5 (which protects whistleblowers); violations of the Fair Housing and Employment Act (for retaliation, sex discrimination and age discrimination); retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff was informed by defendant Kitchin, her supervisor, that she was being fired as Senior Vice-President/Affiliate Relations of Premiere Radio Networks on October 31, 2002. Premiere and Kitchin decided to terminate Childress immediately after she objected to a sexually explicit e-mail that a Clear Channel Communications Inc. (Premiere's parent company) executive sent to her. Clear Channel executives passed the e-mail on to other Clear Channel employees. Premiere and Clear Channel have a history of sex discrimination and hostile treatment toward women. The plaintiff's duties were assigned to substantially younger employees who got more favorable treatment.

RELIEF SOUGHT: At least $10 million.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Dale F. Kinsella and Alan R. Kossoff of Los Angeles' Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman Machtinger & Kinsella (310-553-3610).

* * *

CASE CAPTION: Scarlet Moon Music Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment Inc., Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, BMG Music dba BMG Entertainment, Careers-BMG Music Publishing Inc., Warner Music Group Inc. and Warner/Elektra/Asylum Music Inc., L.A. Superior Court # BC304386.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Conversion; money had and received; and an accounting between copyright owners.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: This is a class action on behalf of persons who own fractional interests in one or more copyrights that have been exploited by the defendant co-owners. The plaintiff owns copyrights in songs composed by Paul Overstreet. In January 2000, the defendants sued MP3.com Inc. for copyright infringement, resulting in settlements under which MP3.com agreed to pay tens of millions of dollars to the defendants. That money was profit earned by use of the copyrights. The defendants have failed to account for this money or pay the plaintiffs their share.

RELIEF SOUGHT: An accounting and unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Henry D. Gradstein and Bruce E. Van Dalsem of Los Angeles' Gradstein, Luskin & Van Dalsem (310-571-1700).

* * *

CASE CAPTION: John Rhys-Davies v. Hallmark Entertainment Distribution LLC, Steve Boyum, Stephen Bridgewater, Tom Kuhn, Fred Weintraub, Larry Levinson, Trevor Williamson and Silver Star Ltd., L.A. Superior Court # BC303142.

CAUSE OF ACTION: Personal injury.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff was performing in a film called “La Femme Musketeer” on November 15, 2002, in the city of Istria in the country of Croatia. He was standing on the set awaiting instructions when he was thrown to the ground and crushed by a stage wall constructed of wood and tile.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Walter J. Lack and Brian J. Lawler of Los Angeles' Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack (310-552-3800).

* * *

CASE CAPTION: Raffaella De Laurentiis and Raffaella Inc. v. Jonathan M. Avnet and Wot Inc., L.A. Superior Court # BC304096.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Fraud; quantum meruit; breach of contract; and breach of fiduciary duty.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Defendant Avnet breached and repudiated an oral partnership agreement regarding the film “World of Tomorrow” in which the plaintiff invested $500,000 and spent more than a year of her life on production. The plaintiff used her contacts and resources to secure funding for the film. Avnet has now breached the agreement, claiming that he “never really thought about” sharing the millions of dollars he stands to make. The film is in post-production and domestic rights have been sold to Paramount Pictures for about $40 million. Total foreign sales are estimated to exceed another $40 million. At one point, the plaintiff was offered a job working on “Boomtown” for NBC, but she turned it down to focus on “World of Tomorrow.” She was also forced to hire another producer to work on a USA Network production. As a result of her efforts, the film was made during the period of time when the stars, Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow, were available.

RELIEF SOUGHT: At least $ 1 million.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Dale F. Kinsella and Patricia A. Millett of Los Angeles' Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman Machtinger & Kinsella (310-553-3610).

* * *

CASE CAPTION: Reed Elsevier Inc. v. Nielsen National Research Group Inc., U. S. District Court in Los Angeles # LACV03-7275.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Unlawful agreement to restrain trade under the Sherman Act; unlawful monopolization under Sherman Act; unlawful attempt to monopolize; unlawful conspiracy to monopolize; unlawful restraint of trade; unfair practices in violation of Calif. Bus. And Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq.; common law unfair competition; intentional interference with contractual relations; and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Reed Elsevier publishes Daily Variety and also provides a ratings service called “MarketCast.” Nielsen, which specializes in providing market research for entertainment companies, has attempted to impose exclusive agreements on third-party suppliers of consumer data to preserve its monopoly on entertainment-industry market research. Recently, MarketCast has developed a “new and innovative” technique of gathering information via the Internet through computers in kiosks at malls. Because this threatened Nielsen's dominance of the market, Nielsen has retaliated by attempting to block MarketCast's access to the limited supply of vendors for the mall-based survey services.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: R. Scott Feldmann and Dennis Gallagher of Irvine, CA's Crowell & Moring (949-263-8400).

CASE CAPTION: Ruben Mellado, individually and as a private attorney general, v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., a division of Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., L. A. Superior Court # BC304678.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Unfair business practices in violation of Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200, et seq.; wrongful termination; and defamation.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff was a system delivery lead for the defendant's financial contract systems team. His responsibilities included reviewing participation statements for the payment of residuals, royalties and other fees. He was asked to validate a statement for the film “The Exorcist” but was unable to do it because of errors in the records or transactions that the plaintiff discovered relating to the years 1973 and 1974 that affected more than 140 additional titles/works. Despite knowing about the problem since about 1999 or 2000, Warner has continued to rely on the erroneous statements. In September 2003, the plaintiff was fired without any prior warnings. This was based on his reporting of the errors “which potentially subjected Warner Bros. to enormous liability for payments to artists, actors, directors, writers and other individuals and/participants entitled to payments from Warner Bros. for the use of their works.” The plaintiff was defamed by the pretextual statements given for his firing ' that he wasn't doing things he was instructed to do.

RELIEF SOUGHT: An injunction against continued deceptive business practices and restitution of compensation due the participants. Also, unspecified damages for wrongful termination and defamation.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Clifford H. Pearson, Gary S. Soter and Marina N. Vitek of Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Pearson, Tarzana, CA. (818-705-6800).

* * *

CASE CAPTION: Karen Childress v. Premiere Radio Networks Inc. and Kraig Kitchin, L.A. Superior Court #BC305180.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Violation of the Calif. Labor Code Sec. 1102.5 (which protects whistleblowers); violations of the Fair Housing and Employment Act (for retaliation, sex discrimination and age discrimination); retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff was informed by defendant Kitchin, her supervisor, that she was being fired as Senior Vice-President/Affiliate Relations of Premiere Radio Networks on October 31, 2002. Premiere and Kitchin decided to terminate Childress immediately after she objected to a sexually explicit e-mail that a Clear Channel Communications Inc. (Premiere's parent company) executive sent to her. Clear Channel executives passed the e-mail on to other Clear Channel employees. Premiere and Clear Channel have a history of sex discrimination and hostile treatment toward women. The plaintiff's duties were assigned to substantially younger employees who got more favorable treatment.

RELIEF SOUGHT: At least $10 million.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Dale F. Kinsella and Alan R. Kossoff of Los Angeles' Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman Machtinger & Kinsella (310-553-3610).

* * *

CASE CAPTION: Scarlet Moon Music Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment Inc., Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, BMG Music dba BMG Entertainment, Careers-BMG Music Publishing Inc., Warner Music Group Inc. and Warner/Elektra/Asylum Music Inc., L.A. Superior Court # BC304386.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Conversion; money had and received; and an accounting between copyright owners.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: This is a class action on behalf of persons who own fractional interests in one or more copyrights that have been exploited by the defendant co-owners. The plaintiff owns copyrights in songs composed by Paul Overstreet. In January 2000, the defendants sued MP3.com Inc. for copyright infringement, resulting in settlements under which MP3.com agreed to pay tens of millions of dollars to the defendants. That money was profit earned by use of the copyrights. The defendants have failed to account for this money or pay the plaintiffs their share.

RELIEF SOUGHT: An accounting and unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Henry D. Gradstein and Bruce E. Van Dalsem of Los Angeles' Gradstein, Luskin & Van Dalsem (310-571-1700).

* * *

CASE CAPTION: John Rhys-Davies v. Hallmark Entertainment Distribution LLC, Steve Boyum, Stephen Bridgewater, Tom Kuhn, Fred Weintraub, Larry Levinson, Trevor Williamson and Silver Star Ltd., L.A. Superior Court # BC303142.

CAUSE OF ACTION: Personal injury.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff was performing in a film called “La Femme Musketeer” on November 15, 2002, in the city of Istria in the country of Croatia. He was standing on the set awaiting instructions when he was thrown to the ground and crushed by a stage wall constructed of wood and tile.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Walter J. Lack and Brian J. Lawler of Los Angeles' Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack (310-552-3800).

* * *

CASE CAPTION: Raffaella De Laurentiis and Raffaella Inc. v. Jonathan M. Avnet and Wot Inc., L.A. Superior Court # BC304096.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Fraud; quantum meruit; breach of contract; and breach of fiduciary duty.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Defendant Avnet breached and repudiated an oral partnership agreement regarding the film “World of Tomorrow” in which the plaintiff invested $500,000 and spent more than a year of her life on production. The plaintiff used her contacts and resources to secure funding for the film. Avnet has now breached the agreement, claiming that he “never really thought about” sharing the millions of dollars he stands to make. The film is in post-production and domestic rights have been sold to Paramount Pictures for about $40 million. Total foreign sales are estimated to exceed another $40 million. At one point, the plaintiff was offered a job working on “Boomtown” for NBC, but she turned it down to focus on “World of Tomorrow.” She was also forced to hire another producer to work on a USA Network production. As a result of her efforts, the film was made during the period of time when the stars, Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow, were available.

RELIEF SOUGHT: At least $ 1 million.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Dale F. Kinsella and Patricia A. Millett of Los Angeles' Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman Machtinger & Kinsella (310-553-3610).

* * *

CASE CAPTION: Reed Elsevier Inc. v. Nielsen National Research Group Inc., U. S. District Court in Los Angeles # LACV03-7275.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Unlawful agreement to restrain trade under the Sherman Act; unlawful monopolization under Sherman Act; unlawful attempt to monopolize; unlawful conspiracy to monopolize; unlawful restraint of trade; unfair practices in violation of Calif. Bus. And Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq.; common law unfair competition; intentional interference with contractual relations; and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Reed Elsevier publishes Daily Variety and also provides a ratings service called “MarketCast.” Nielsen, which specializes in providing market research for entertainment companies, has attempted to impose exclusive agreements on third-party suppliers of consumer data to preserve its monopoly on entertainment-industry market research. Recently, MarketCast has developed a “new and innovative” technique of gathering information via the Internet through computers in kiosks at malls. Because this threatened Nielsen's dominance of the market, Nielsen has retaliated by attempting to block MarketCast's access to the limited supply of vendors for the mall-based survey services.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: R. Scott Feldmann and Dennis Gallagher of Irvine, CA's Crowell & Moring (949-263-8400).