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 |
October 01, 2004

CASE CAPTION: Bills Dirks (aka Frankie Ross) v. Taxi Productions Inc., KJLH Radio, Steveland Morris Productions and Steveland Morris, L.A. Superior Court # BC321897.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Wrongful termination in violation of public policy; unfair business practices in violation of Calif. Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq.; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff was a disc jockey for KJLH, a station in Inglewood, CA. In June 2003, the plaintiff was contacted by a representative of a record company who said he had been instructed by Aundrae Russell, the station's program director, to contact the station's creative director, Levi Booker, if he wanted a certain Earth, Wind & Fire song added to the station's playlist. Booker told the representative that this would cost $3500. The representative gave the amount to him in cash. The representative told the plaintiff that KJLH was not giving the song enough play. When the plaintiff told Russell about this, Russell appeared angry that the plaintiff had this information. From then on, Russell's attitude toward the plaintiff became hostile. About 2-3 weeks later, the station conducted a promotional event spotlighting Earth, Wind & Fire for a full day. To the plaintiff's knowledge, the station had never done this for anyone except defendant Morris (aka Stevie Wonder), who has a substantial ownership interest in the station. When the plaintiff later told Wonder of his concerns, Wonder said that he would put Booker on notice to straighten up or be fired. In October 2003, Russell fired the plaintiff without offering a reason.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Dwight D. Stirling and Joyce E. Crucillo of Long Beach, CA's Stirling Law (562-439-2660).


CASE CAPTION: Michael Tierney v. Miramax Films, L.A. Superior Court # BC321297.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Among others: common law and commercial misappropriation of likeness; intentional and negligent misrepresentation; intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage; and unfair competition.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff's uncle, actor Lawrence Tierney, appeared in the film “Reservoir Dogs.” The plaintiff is the actor's sole legal heir. On April 29, 2002, Toby Dana, legal clearance coordinator for Miramax, sent the plaintiff a fax stating that Miramax wanted to use a clip of “Reservoir Dogs” on the DVD of the movie “Jackie Brown” as an example of director Quentin Tarantino's previous work. The plaintiff asked for a reasonable fee for the use. Dana offered $700. No agreement was reached. Dana was later replaced by Andrea Scharf, who in September 2002, left a voice-mail message for the plaintiff apologizing for Miramax using the clip on the DVD without the plaintiff's written consent.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Mark Yablonovich, Marc Primo and Christopher Nissen of Los Angeles' Initiative Legal Group (310-556-5637).


CASE CAPTION: Leigh Ann Burton v. Oscar De La Hoya, Golden Boy Promotions LLC and Richard Schaefer

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of implied-in-fact contract; breach of confidence; unfair competition; and an accounting.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: In August 2003, the plaintiff developed an idea for a reality TV series that put unknown boxers and their significant others in a training compound to compete for the grand prize of a Las Vegas fight against a known boxing champion. The plaintiff registered her treatment in September 2003, then discussed it with GRB Entertainment, a production company. The plaintiff contacted the defendants in October and disclosed the concept in detail after defendant Schaefer promised confidentiality. The plaintiff later pitched the idea to Schaefer and defendant De La Hoya at the Golden Boy offices. The parties negotiated until January 2004. Then in March 2004, the plaintiff first learned that the defendants had reached an agreement with Endemol USA and Fox TV to develop the plaintiff's idea. The defendants have denied the plaintiff's role in the show's development.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Bruce A. Broillet and Scott H. Los Angeles' Carr of Greene, Broillet, Panish & Wheeler (310-576-1200) and Donn Christensen of Arcadia, CA (626-357-9123).

CASE CAPTION: Bills Dirks (aka Frankie Ross) v. Taxi Productions Inc., KJLH Radio, Steveland Morris Productions and Steveland Morris, L.A. Superior Court # BC321897.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Wrongful termination in violation of public policy; unfair business practices in violation of Calif. Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq.; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff was a disc jockey for KJLH, a station in Inglewood, CA. In June 2003, the plaintiff was contacted by a representative of a record company who said he had been instructed by Aundrae Russell, the station's program director, to contact the station's creative director, Levi Booker, if he wanted a certain Earth, Wind & Fire song added to the station's playlist. Booker told the representative that this would cost $3500. The representative gave the amount to him in cash. The representative told the plaintiff that KJLH was not giving the song enough play. When the plaintiff told Russell about this, Russell appeared angry that the plaintiff had this information. From then on, Russell's attitude toward the plaintiff became hostile. About 2-3 weeks later, the station conducted a promotional event spotlighting Earth, Wind & Fire for a full day. To the plaintiff's knowledge, the station had never done this for anyone except defendant Morris (aka Stevie Wonder), who has a substantial ownership interest in the station. When the plaintiff later told Wonder of his concerns, Wonder said that he would put Booker on notice to straighten up or be fired. In October 2003, Russell fired the plaintiff without offering a reason.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Dwight D. Stirling and Joyce E. Crucillo of Long Beach, CA's Stirling Law (562-439-2660).


CASE CAPTION: Michael Tierney v. Miramax Films, L.A. Superior Court # BC321297.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Among others: common law and commercial misappropriation of likeness; intentional and negligent misrepresentation; intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage; and unfair competition.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff's uncle, actor Lawrence Tierney, appeared in the film “Reservoir Dogs.” The plaintiff is the actor's sole legal heir. On April 29, 2002, Toby Dana, legal clearance coordinator for Miramax, sent the plaintiff a fax stating that Miramax wanted to use a clip of “Reservoir Dogs” on the DVD of the movie “Jackie Brown” as an example of director Quentin Tarantino's previous work. The plaintiff asked for a reasonable fee for the use. Dana offered $700. No agreement was reached. Dana was later replaced by Andrea Scharf, who in September 2002, left a voice-mail message for the plaintiff apologizing for Miramax using the clip on the DVD without the plaintiff's written consent.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Mark Yablonovich, Marc Primo and Christopher Nissen of Los Angeles' Initiative Legal Group (310-556-5637).


CASE CAPTION: Leigh Ann Burton v. Oscar De La Hoya, Golden Boy Promotions LLC and Richard Schaefer

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of implied-in-fact contract; breach of confidence; unfair competition; and an accounting.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: In August 2003, the plaintiff developed an idea for a reality TV series that put unknown boxers and their significant others in a training compound to compete for the grand prize of a Las Vegas fight against a known boxing champion. The plaintiff registered her treatment in September 2003, then discussed it with GRB Entertainment, a production company. The plaintiff contacted the defendants in October and disclosed the concept in detail after defendant Schaefer promised confidentiality. The plaintiff later pitched the idea to Schaefer and defendant De La Hoya at the Golden Boy offices. The parties negotiated until January 2004. Then in March 2004, the plaintiff first learned that the defendants had reached an agreement with Endemol USA and Fox TV to develop the plaintiff's idea. The defendants have denied the plaintiff's role in the show's development.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Bruce A. Broillet and Scott H. Los Angeles' Carr of Greene, Broillet, Panish & Wheeler (310-576-1200) and Donn Christensen of Arcadia, CA (626-357-9123).

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.

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.

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.