Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Decision of Note: <b>Film Loan Suit Will Remain In Louisiana</b>
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied motions to dismiss or to transfer a film loan dispute to California. Too Easy Entertainment L.L.C. v. Seven Arts Pictures, 04-2182.
Professional basketball star Baron Davis had loaned $1.505 million through his Louisiana-based limited liability company, Too Easy Entertainment, to the California-based defendants to produce the film “Asylum.” Too Easy filed suit after the defendants failed to meet a Dec. 31, 2003, repayment date.
The district court noted that the forum selection clause in the loan agreement stated “that the 'Borrower … agrees' that litigation 'may' be brought in a court located in Los Angeles County in the State of California. This provision means that if Too Easy chooses to litigate in California, Defendants cannot object to the forum. Since Too Easy is not required to file suit in California, the forum-selection [which thus was permissive] cannot be used as a basis to dismiss the suit in Louisiana.”
The court went on to deny the defendants' motion to transfer the case to California under 28 USC Sec. 1404(a) by noting in part that even though the loan documents were prepared in California and the loan made to California entities, the money was to be repaid to Too Easy at its bank in New Orleans.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied motions to dismiss or to transfer a film loan dispute to California. Too Easy Entertainment L.L.C. v. Seven Arts Pictures, 04-2182.
Professional basketball star Baron Davis had loaned $1.505 million through his Louisiana-based limited liability company, Too Easy Entertainment, to the California-based defendants to produce the film “Asylum.” Too Easy filed suit after the defendants failed to meet a Dec. 31, 2003, repayment date.
The district court noted that the forum selection clause in the loan agreement stated “that the 'Borrower … agrees' that litigation 'may' be brought in a court located in Los Angeles County in the State of California. This provision means that if Too Easy chooses to litigate in California, Defendants cannot object to the forum. Since Too Easy is not required to file suit in California, the forum-selection [which thus was permissive] cannot be used as a basis to dismiss the suit in Louisiana.”
The court went on to deny the defendants' motion to transfer the case to California under 28 USC Sec. 1404(a) by noting in part that even though the loan documents were prepared in California and the loan made to California entities, the money was to be repaid to Too Easy at its bank in New Orleans.
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.