Bit Parts

Suit's Still Up

The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, held that Al Jardine can proceed with his claim of breach of fiduciary duty against individuals who control The Beach Boys' business entity. Jardine v. Love, B161099. The Los Angeles Superior Court had found that a trademark ruling by a federal appeals court against Jardine over concert use of The Beach Boys' name barred the state court suit. Jardine alleged in the state suit that the other shareholders and directors of Brother Records Inc. had improperly turned control of the Beach Boys' business over to band member Mike Love and had refused to pay Jardine a share of monies earned from Beach Boys' performances. Reversing and remanding in an unpublished opinion, the state court of appeal noted, however, “We find that the primary right claimed by [Jardine] under his federal breach of implied contract [counterclaim] was his right to perform [using The Beach Boys' name] under the implied contract, while the primary right claimed under his breach of fiduciary duty claim was his right as a minority shareholder not to have the value of his share of the corporation diminished by the actions of the remaining shareholders as directors.”

Concert Injury Suit to Continue

The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate Division, Division One, reversed a grant of summary judgment that had been granted in favor of a club owner in a suit by an injured patron. Anton v. The Roxy Theater, B165830. Plaintiff Robert Anton was allegedly attacked and beaten unconscious when he attended shows by a “faux facist” band and a hardcore punk group. Anton claimed in his negligence suit that none of the Roxy's security guards offered him help either during or after the attack. The club argued that the attack wasn't foreseeable. But in an unpublished opinion, the court of appeal stated, “Without expressing a view about what would be sufficient at trial, the point now is that [the] evidence is entirely insufficient to support summary judgment because it does not defeat Anton's claims that the guards were inadequately trained and inadequately supervised, and that they acted unreasonably under the circumstances of the unprovoked attack on Anton.”

Royalty Software Injunction Denied

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction to a music library owner seeking to require a company to continue to provide royalty-tracking software. Freeplay Music Inc. v. Verance Corp., 03-7803. Freeplay Music argued that it would cost $200,000 to procure a replacement contract and that it would lose the royalty payments from 400 publicly distributed songs already encoded with the defendant's technology. But the appeals court noted in its unpublished opinion that “Freeplay does not stand to lose customers or the ability to supply customers with its product, rather, it just stands to lose profits. … Lost profits alone are not sufficient to show irreparable harm.”

Handbills Can Name Disney

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that the co-owner of a California shopping mall violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by barring union representatives from naming Disney Enterprises, a mall tenant, in handbills distributed on mall property. Glendale Associates Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Board, 01-71566. Local 57 of the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, and the Broadcasting and Cable Television Workers Sector of the Communication Workers of America became involved in a contract dispute with the American Broadcasting Co. (ABC), which Disney owns. In an effort to pressure ABC to settle the dispute, union representatives distributed handbills to customers outside the Disney Store at the Glendale Galleria. Citing mall policy, the galleria's co-owner asked the union to remove the Disney name from the handbills. The appeals court emphasized that the union representatives were engaged in the NLRA “right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations.” The 9th Circuit also found that the mall co-owner had violated the free speech protections of the California constitution.

Overtime Owed

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that a company that provided security services on film sets failed to pay overtime wages to its employees. Chao v. Casting, Acting and Security Talent Inc. (CAST), 02-55253. CAST paid what it characterized as an average hourly rate to its employees for standard film-industry 12-hour shifts. CAST argued that it was exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because it provided services only in California and thus wasn't “an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for [interstate] commerce” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 207(a)(1). But the appeals court noted, “As film production companies are engaged in the production of films intended for national and international distribution, they are engaged in interstate commerce for the purposes of the FLSA.”

Suit's Still Up

The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, held that Al Jardine can proceed with his claim of breach of fiduciary duty against individuals who control The Beach Boys' business entity. Jardine v. Love, B161099. The Los Angeles Superior Court had found that a trademark ruling by a federal appeals court against Jardine over concert use of The Beach Boys' name barred the state court suit. Jardine alleged in the state suit that the other shareholders and directors of Brother Records Inc. had improperly turned control of the Beach Boys' business over to band member Mike Love and had refused to pay Jardine a share of monies earned from Beach Boys' performances. Reversing and remanding in an unpublished opinion, the state court of appeal noted, however, “We find that the primary right claimed by [Jardine] under his federal breach of implied contract [counterclaim] was his right to perform [using The Beach Boys' name] under the implied contract, while the primary right claimed under his breach of fiduciary duty claim was his right as a minority shareholder not to have the value of his share of the corporation diminished by the actions of the remaining shareholders as directors.”

Concert Injury Suit to Continue

The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate Division, Division One, reversed a grant of summary judgment that had been granted in favor of a club owner in a suit by an injured patron. Anton v. The Roxy Theater, B165830. Plaintiff Robert Anton was allegedly attacked and beaten unconscious when he attended shows by a “faux facist” band and a hardcore punk group. Anton claimed in his negligence suit that none of the Roxy's security guards offered him help either during or after the attack. The club argued that the attack wasn't foreseeable. But in an unpublished opinion, the court of appeal stated, “Without expressing a view about what would be sufficient at trial, the point now is that [the] evidence is entirely insufficient to support summary judgment because it does not defeat Anton's claims that the guards were inadequately trained and inadequately supervised, and that they acted unreasonably under the circumstances of the unprovoked attack on Anton.”

Royalty Software Injunction Denied

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction to a music library owner seeking to require a company to continue to provide royalty-tracking software. Freeplay Music Inc. v. Verance Corp., 03-7803. Freeplay Music argued that it would cost $200,000 to procure a replacement contract and that it would lose the royalty payments from 400 publicly distributed songs already encoded with the defendant's technology. But the appeals court noted in its unpublished opinion that “Freeplay does not stand to lose customers or the ability to supply customers with its product, rather, it just stands to lose profits. … Lost profits alone are not sufficient to show irreparable harm.”

Handbills Can Name Disney

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that the co-owner of a California shopping mall violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by barring union representatives from naming Disney Enterprises, a mall tenant, in handbills distributed on mall property. Glendale Associates Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Board, 01-71566. Local 57 of the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, and the Broadcasting and Cable Television Workers Sector of the Communication Workers of America became involved in a contract dispute with the American Broadcasting Co. (ABC), which Disney owns. In an effort to pressure ABC to settle the dispute, union representatives distributed handbills to customers outside the Disney Store at the Glendale Galleria. Citing mall policy, the galleria's co-owner asked the union to remove the Disney name from the handbills. The appeals court emphasized that the union representatives were engaged in the NLRA “right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations.” The 9th Circuit also found that the mall co-owner had violated the free speech protections of the California constitution.

Overtime Owed

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that a company that provided security services on film sets failed to pay overtime wages to its employees. Chao v. Casting, Acting and Security Talent Inc. (CAST), 02-55253. CAST paid what it characterized as an average hourly rate to its employees for standard film-industry 12-hour shifts. CAST argued that it was exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because it provided services only in California and thus wasn't “an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for [interstate] commerce” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 207(a)(1). But the appeals court noted, “As film production companies are engaged in the production of films intended for national and international distribution, they are engaged in interstate commerce for the purposes of the FLSA.”