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 |
May 01, 2004

CASE CAPTION: CTB Film Company Ltd. v. Michael Biehn, L.A. Superior Court # BC314452.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of written contract.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff is a successful film company based in Russia. It is producing a film entitled “The American.” Defendant Biehn agreed to play the lead role. Principal photography began in New York in early November 2003 and Biehn was fine. He then traveled to Russia for further shooting on Nov. 11. The next day, the second day of shooting there, he appeared on the set “reeking of alcohol and obviously intoxicated” and verbally abused the crew. Over the next several days, Biehn's speech was slurred and erratic and he had trouble walking. At times, he carried a Pepsi bottle filled with vodka. His acting performance was unacceptable and he made sexual advances to some employees on the film. One actor refused to work with him because he was afraid of him. To deal with Biehn's deteriorating appearance, CTB eliminated close-ups of him and many scenes became useless because Biehn was not familiar with the script. Production was eventually suspended when Biehn agreed to check into a hospital where he was diagnosed with acute alcoholic intoxication. Production was stopped on Nov. 18, 2003.

RELIEF SOUGHT: At least $1 million.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Michael J. Plonsker and Lawrence C. Hinkle of Los Angeles' Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan (310-907-1000).


CASE CAPTION: Bryan Zuriff and Schulhoff-Zuriff Productions Inc. v. Richard Salomon, L.A. Superior Court # BC313902.

CAUSE OF ACTION: Declaratory relief.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Zuriff and David Schulhof, a former vice-president at Miramax, formed Schulhoff-Zuriff Productions (SZP) in 2003 to develop and produce reality TV shows. They met with representatives of the William Morris Agency in late 2003 to discuss a show featuring Jason Davis, the 20-year-old grandson of billionaire Marvin Davis. At the meeting, they came up with the idea of having Davis do an internship at a hotel-casino, starting at the bottom, with the idea of moving up the corporate ladder. They eventually sold a pilot to NBC, with Adam Cohen, the producer of “The Simple Life,” and Cara Tapper, his production company partner acting as executive producers, along with Zuriff and Schulhoff.

In April 2004, it was reported that defendant Salomon, who was in the infamous sex video with Paris Hilton (star of “The Simple Life”), had dropped his slander suit against Hilton. The same day, Salomon, through his attorneys, sent Zuriff and SZP a letter claiming that he and Zuriff in June 2002 had agreed to be partners in creating a reality show involving children and grandchildren of billionaires. The letter threatened legal action if Zuriff and SZP continued with the Davis show without giving Salomon compensation and credit. Zuriff and SZP claim there was no such joint venture agreement and that Salomon has no interest in the project.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Declaration that Salomon has no interest in the Davis project.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Dale F. Kinsella, Michael J. Jump and Jennifer L. McGrath of Los Angeles' Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman Machtinger & Kinsella (310-553-3610).

CASE CAPTION: CTB Film Company Ltd. v. Michael Biehn, L.A. Superior Court # BC314452.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of written contract.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff is a successful film company based in Russia. It is producing a film entitled “The American.” Defendant Biehn agreed to play the lead role. Principal photography began in New York in early November 2003 and Biehn was fine. He then traveled to Russia for further shooting on Nov. 11. The next day, the second day of shooting there, he appeared on the set “reeking of alcohol and obviously intoxicated” and verbally abused the crew. Over the next several days, Biehn's speech was slurred and erratic and he had trouble walking. At times, he carried a Pepsi bottle filled with vodka. His acting performance was unacceptable and he made sexual advances to some employees on the film. One actor refused to work with him because he was afraid of him. To deal with Biehn's deteriorating appearance, CTB eliminated close-ups of him and many scenes became useless because Biehn was not familiar with the script. Production was eventually suspended when Biehn agreed to check into a hospital where he was diagnosed with acute alcoholic intoxication. Production was stopped on Nov. 18, 2003.

RELIEF SOUGHT: At least $1 million.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Michael J. Plonsker and Lawrence C. Hinkle of Los Angeles' Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan (310-907-1000).


CASE CAPTION: Bryan Zuriff and Schulhoff-Zuriff Productions Inc. v. Richard Salomon, L.A. Superior Court # BC313902.

CAUSE OF ACTION: Declaratory relief.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Zuriff and David Schulhof, a former vice-president at Miramax, formed Schulhoff-Zuriff Productions (SZP) in 2003 to develop and produce reality TV shows. They met with representatives of the William Morris Agency in late 2003 to discuss a show featuring Jason Davis, the 20-year-old grandson of billionaire Marvin Davis. At the meeting, they came up with the idea of having Davis do an internship at a hotel-casino, starting at the bottom, with the idea of moving up the corporate ladder. They eventually sold a pilot to NBC, with Adam Cohen, the producer of “The Simple Life,” and Cara Tapper, his production company partner acting as executive producers, along with Zuriff and Schulhoff.

In April 2004, it was reported that defendant Salomon, who was in the infamous sex video with Paris Hilton (star of “The Simple Life”), had dropped his slander suit against Hilton. The same day, Salomon, through his attorneys, sent Zuriff and SZP a letter claiming that he and Zuriff in June 2002 had agreed to be partners in creating a reality show involving children and grandchildren of billionaires. The letter threatened legal action if Zuriff and SZP continued with the Davis show without giving Salomon compensation and credit. Zuriff and SZP claim there was no such joint venture agreement and that Salomon has no interest in the project.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Declaration that Salomon has no interest in the Davis project.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Dale F. Kinsella, Michael J. Jump and Jennifer L. McGrath of Los Angeles' Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman Machtinger & Kinsella (310-553-3610).

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.