Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Courthouse Steps
CASE CAPTION: Loretta Jody Miller v. Tom Sizemore; Universal Studios; Universal Network T.V.; Bare Knuckles Production; CBS Entertainment; CBS Drama Development; and Forward Pass Production, L.A. Superior Court # BC323417.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Harassment, discrimination and retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; retaliation in violation of public policy; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; negligence and negligent supervision; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Defendant Sizemore stars in the TV series “Robbery Homicide Division.” He has engaged in egregious acts of sexual harassment against the plaintiff and other females. This has included engaging in sexual conduct with prostitutes in his trailer while forcing the plaintiff to do her job in the same area, making offensive statements in her presence, grabbing his genital area, masturbating in the plaintiff's presence, grabbing the plaintiff's buttocks and dropping his pants and pushing his penis into the plaintiff's face. The other defendants refused to stop Sizemore and told the plaintiff to ignore him. In retaliation for the plaintiff's opposition to his conduct, Sizemore told her that she was fired from her job. (The suit doesn't say what the job was.)
RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Nancy L. Abrolat, Pamela McKibbin Teren and Alexis L. Walker of Redondo Beach, CA's Abrolat & Teren (310-540-7400).
CASE CAPTION: Harvey Entertainment Inc. v. BVS Entertainment Inc., BVS International N. V., ABC Family Worldwide Inc. and The Walt Disney Co., L.A. Superior Court # BC323218.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and an accounting.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: BVS was formerly known as Saban. BVS (both of them) are subsidiaries of ABC Family (formerly Fox Family Worldwide Inc.) that, in turn, is owned by Disney. The plaintiff's predecessor, The Harvey Entertainment Co., entered into an agreement with Saban for a live-action direct-to-video film ' featuring Harvey's cartoon character Casper ' later entitled “Casper: A Spirited Beginning.” The plaintiff was to get 50% of net receipts less certain deductions. Saban was contractually obligated to use best efforts to maximize revenues. The defendants have engaged in a course of self-dealing to avoid paying the plaintiff its rightful share of the receipts. Saban licensed domestic TV rights to a joint venture with Fox Broadcasting Co. and ignored the standard windowing of rights among pay, network and cable television. The rights were licensed for $550,000, well below fair market value of at least $3 million. The film was packaged internationally with other titles with revenues being divided equally even though “Casper” was the more valuable title. Audits also discovered improper deductions and questionable charges in the home distribution of the video.
RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Bonnie E. Eskenazi, Elizabeth A. Moriarty and James M. Toma of Los Angeles' Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman Machtinger & Kinsella (310-553-3610).
CASE CAPTION: Mark Keizer v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., L.A. Superior Court # BC322445.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff was hired in Feb. 2004 to be executive producer of the news-talk show “Countdown” for $265,000 per year. He was hired in part because of his success in running “The Man Show” on Comedy Central. The plaintiff gave up his life in Los Angeles, moved to New Jersey and was given $20,000 for moving expenses. He was told in an e-mail from show host Keith Olbermann “to treat the staff casually and as friends.” The plaintiff relied on that statement when giving a speech upon meeting the staff. During the speech, the plaintiff said, “Last Thursday, I was in a rent-controlled apartment, 100 yards from the beach, surrounded by family and friends. I was working on a show where women with big breasts were running around. I gave all that up because that is how much I believe in Countdown.” The plaintiff didn't do or say anything inappropriate and was later told by two executives that the use of the word “breasts” was not a big deal. However, later that day, Phil Griffin, the defendant's vice president of programming, told the plaintiff he would be fired if he didn't resign.
RELIEF SOUGHT: At least $265,000.
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: David M. Cordrey of Beverly Hills, CA. (310-285-5378).
CASE CAPTION: Loretta Jody Miller v. Tom Sizemore; Universal Studios; Universal Network T.V.; Bare Knuckles Production;
CAUSES OF ACTION: Harassment, discrimination and retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; retaliation in violation of public policy; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; negligence and negligent supervision; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Defendant Sizemore stars in the TV series “Robbery Homicide Division.” He has engaged in egregious acts of sexual harassment against the plaintiff and other females. This has included engaging in sexual conduct with prostitutes in his trailer while forcing the plaintiff to do her job in the same area, making offensive statements in her presence, grabbing his genital area, masturbating in the plaintiff's presence, grabbing the plaintiff's buttocks and dropping his pants and pushing his penis into the plaintiff's face. The other defendants refused to stop Sizemore and told the plaintiff to ignore him. In retaliation for the plaintiff's opposition to his conduct, Sizemore told her that she was fired from her job. (The suit doesn't say what the job was.)
RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Nancy L. Abrolat, Pamela McKibbin Teren and Alexis L. Walker of Redondo Beach, CA's Abrolat & Teren (310-540-7400).
CASE CAPTION: Harvey Entertainment Inc. v. BVS Entertainment Inc., BVS International N. V., ABC Family Worldwide Inc. and
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and an accounting.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: BVS was formerly known as Saban. BVS (both of them) are subsidiaries of ABC Family (formerly Fox Family Worldwide Inc.) that, in turn, is owned by Disney. The plaintiff's predecessor, The Harvey Entertainment Co., entered into an agreement with Saban for a live-action direct-to-video film ' featuring Harvey's cartoon character Casper ' later entitled “Casper: A Spirited Beginning.” The plaintiff was to get 50% of net receipts less certain deductions. Saban was contractually obligated to use best efforts to maximize revenues. The defendants have engaged in a course of self-dealing to avoid paying the plaintiff its rightful share of the receipts. Saban licensed domestic TV rights to a joint venture with
RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Bonnie E. Eskenazi, Elizabeth A. Moriarty and James M. Toma of Los Angeles'
CASE CAPTION: Mark Keizer v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., L.A. Superior Court # BC322445.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff was hired in Feb. 2004 to be executive producer of the news-talk show “Countdown” for $265,000 per year. He was hired in part because of his success in running “The Man Show” on Comedy Central. The plaintiff gave up his life in Los Angeles, moved to New Jersey and was given $20,000 for moving expenses. He was told in an e-mail from show host Keith Olbermann “to treat the staff casually and as friends.” The plaintiff relied on that statement when giving a speech upon meeting the staff. During the speech, the plaintiff said, “Last Thursday, I was in a rent-controlled apartment, 100 yards from the beach, surrounded by family and friends. I was working on a show where women with big breasts were running around. I gave all that up because that is how much I believe in Countdown.” The plaintiff didn't do or say anything inappropriate and was later told by two executives that the use of the word “breasts” was not a big deal. However, later that day, Phil Griffin, the defendant's vice president of programming, told the plaintiff he would be fired if he didn't resign.
RELIEF SOUGHT: At least $265,000.
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: David M. Cordrey of Beverly Hills, CA. (310-285-5378).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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
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.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.