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 |
September 02, 2004

CASE CAPTION: Drew Carey, Work Hard Inc. and International Mammoth Entertainment Inc. v. Dennis Ardi, L.A. Superior Court # BC320468.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Fraud; fraudulent concealment; breach of fiduciary duty; constructive fraud; rescission; declaratory relief; and legal malpractice.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: In 1994, Carey retained the firm of Shearman & Sterling as legal counsel. Ardi, the attorney at the firm responsible for Carey, left the firm in December 1995 and became a sole practitioner. Carey left Shearman and then retained Ardi, who worked as Carey's lawyer from December 1995 to Nov. 22, 2002. Carey paid Ardi 5% of all episodic payments and advances (but not residuals) that Carey received from “The Drew Carey Show.” In June and October 2000, Ardi asked Carey to sign two sworn declarations for use in Ardi's pending divorce proceeding. By doing so, Ardi circumvented Carey's independent counsel, Burt Deixler of McCambridge, Deixler & Marmaro, and his other personal representatives, including his personal managers, Richard Baker and Rick Messina of Messina Baker Entertainment Corp. Ardi knew he was required to bring such matters to the attention of Carey's business representatives. Carey signed the two declarations, which stated that Carey didn't have to continue paying Ardi once Ardi's services were terminated. Ardi intentionally delayed preparing a written retainer agreement with Carey until after Ardi finalized his divorce because Ardi allegedly intended to defraud his ex-wife. The divorce was finalized in June 2002. In late 2002, Ardi insisted that he had a “lock-in” clause that entitled him to 5% of Carey's earnings on the series forever as well as additional compensation on other entertainment projects, in direct contravention of their agreement. (Ardi allegedly earlier fraudulently told Carey that the payments would not be locked in so that Carey would continue using his services and so he could later claim he was entitled to continuing compensation.) Carey terminated Ardi as of Nov. 22, 2002. On Nov. 21, 2003, Ardi sued Carey's accountants and business managers claiming that they interfered with the attorney-client relationship and caused Carey to terminate Ardi. In actuality, Carey decided to terminate Ardi on his own after consulting with another law firm, Edelstein, Laird & Sobel. Carey has been damaged in an amount equal to his payments made to Ardi from Dec. 1995 to Nov. 2002.

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
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.

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.

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.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?