Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Courthouse Steps

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
December 01, 2003

CASE CAPTION: Intermedia Film Distribution Inc. and AGV Productions Inc. v. Universal City Studios LLP, L.A. Superior Court #BC306610.

CAUSE OF ACTION: Declaratory relief.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: AGV owns the sequel rights and theme park rights to the “Terminator” and “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” motion pictures. AGV obtained these rights by paying $8 million to Carolco Liquidating Trust and $7.5 million to Pacific Western Productions. The plaintiffs produced the film “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.” The defendant claims to own or control and is exploiting theme park rights related to “Terminator 3.” This interferes with the rights of the plaintiffs, who must disclose Universal's claimed interest to potential licensees. “Defendants intentionally have cast a black cloud over plaintiffs' title to the theme park rights, to prolong the period of time in which defendant's theme parks have a monopoly on rides and attractions under a Terminator theme.” Universal Studios asserts ownership based on an alleged 1992 letter agreement with Carolco Pictures.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Declaration that the defendants have no theme park rights related to “Terminator 3″ or any other “Terminator” remake.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Brian L. Davidoff and Gregory J. Sater of Los Angeles' Rutter Hobbs & Davidoff (310-286-1700).


CASE CAPTION: Richard Salomon v. Paris Hilton, Rick Hilton, Kathy Hilton and Siri Garber, L. A. Superior Court # BC305984.

CAUSE OF ACTION: Slander.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: In or about May 2001, actress Paris Hilton allowed the plaintiff, an independent movie producer and her boyfriend at the time, to videotape the two of them engaging in sexual intercourse. She was an active participant throughout and, among other things, made sure that the camera caught her in a well-lit bathroom so that she could be clearly seen. She is much more image conscious today, particularly with the debut of her show (“Simple Life”) on Fox. Hilton, her family, and at least one of her publicists “have embarked on a cold, calculated and malicious campaign to portray Salomon as a rapist who took advantage of a sweet and innocent girl who had no idea what was happening to her.” They hinted to the press that there might be an issue as to whether Hilton was underage that could have been easily dismissed with one phone call. When rumors of the video first aired a few months ago, Hilton denied it existed. But when publications claimed to have obtained clips, the defendants, which include her parents and a publicist, changed course and launched into to all-out “attack mode” on Salomon. Among other things, they claimed that Paris was so out of it that she could not even hold herself up and thus could not consent to intercourse. They have also vaguely referred to Salomon as a “criminal.” Anyone viewing the tape would conclude that Paris was fully aware and cognizant of what was going on. There is no unlawful behavior on the footage.

RELIEF SOUGHT: $10 million.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Martin D. Singer, Brian G. Wolf and Paul S. Berra of Los Angeles' Lavely & Singer (310-556-3501).

CASE CAPTION: Intermedia Film Distribution Inc. and AGV Productions Inc. v. Universal City Studios LLP, L.A. Superior Court #BC306610.

CAUSE OF ACTION: Declaratory relief.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: AGV owns the sequel rights and theme park rights to the “Terminator” and “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” motion pictures. AGV obtained these rights by paying $8 million to Carolco Liquidating Trust and $7.5 million to Pacific Western Productions. The plaintiffs produced the film “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.” The defendant claims to own or control and is exploiting theme park rights related to “Terminator 3.” This interferes with the rights of the plaintiffs, who must disclose Universal's claimed interest to potential licensees. “Defendants intentionally have cast a black cloud over plaintiffs' title to the theme park rights, to prolong the period of time in which defendant's theme parks have a monopoly on rides and attractions under a Terminator theme.” Universal Studios asserts ownership based on an alleged 1992 letter agreement with Carolco Pictures.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Declaration that the defendants have no theme park rights related to “Terminator 3″ or any other “Terminator” remake.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Brian L. Davidoff and Gregory J. Sater of Los Angeles' Rutter Hobbs & Davidoff (310-286-1700).


CASE CAPTION: Richard Salomon v. Paris Hilton, Rick Hilton, Kathy Hilton and Siri Garber, L. A. Superior Court # BC305984.

CAUSE OF ACTION: Slander.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: In or about May 2001, actress Paris Hilton allowed the plaintiff, an independent movie producer and her boyfriend at the time, to videotape the two of them engaging in sexual intercourse. She was an active participant throughout and, among other things, made sure that the camera caught her in a well-lit bathroom so that she could be clearly seen. She is much more image conscious today, particularly with the debut of her show (“Simple Life”) on Fox. Hilton, her family, and at least one of her publicists “have embarked on a cold, calculated and malicious campaign to portray Salomon as a rapist who took advantage of a sweet and innocent girl who had no idea what was happening to her.” They hinted to the press that there might be an issue as to whether Hilton was underage that could have been easily dismissed with one phone call. When rumors of the video first aired a few months ago, Hilton denied it existed. But when publications claimed to have obtained clips, the defendants, which include her parents and a publicist, changed course and launched into to all-out “attack mode” on Salomon. Among other things, they claimed that Paris was so out of it that she could not even hold herself up and thus could not consent to intercourse. They have also vaguely referred to Salomon as a “criminal.” Anyone viewing the tape would conclude that Paris was fully aware and cognizant of what was going on. There is no unlawful behavior on the footage.

RELIEF SOUGHT: $10 million.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Martin D. Singer, Brian G. Wolf and Paul S. Berra of Los Angeles' Lavely & Singer (310-556-3501).

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.