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 |
December 27, 2004

CASE CAPTION: John Schindler, individually and on behalf of his crew and talent involved in the making of the film “Don's Plum” v. Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire, L.A. Superior Court # BC326085.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Fraud; interference with prospective economic advantage; breach of contract; bad faith denial of contract; and quantum meruit.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiffs' careers were harmed because the defendants blocked distribution of the mid-'90s film “Don's Plum.” The film was supposed to showcase the talents of all the participants; none were then stars. DiCaprio and Maguire went forward with the project and held auditions for the female roles. They turned to Schindler as a skilled and experienced film producer. After Schindler was told there was little money for the film, he said the only way he'd work on it was if it were shot as a feature film so that it might be commercially viable. Schindler then altered the film's structure to purely dramatic, rather than partly a documentary. He was also hired as co-director, line producer and unit production manager. The defendants have wrongfully denied that the film was intended for commercial purposes and have since claimed it was shot for “reels” – akin to a resume. But after “Don's Plum” was made, DiCaprio was cast in “Romeo & Juliet” and became a star. In “Don's Plum,” his character was unlikable and obnoxious. In addition, Maguire was advised that “Don's Plum,” would hurt his career chances for leading-man roles. So the defendants setout to block the film and claimed they never agreed to make it. Distribution offers dried up, especially after “Titanic” came out because no one wanted to alienate DiCaprio. David Stutman, one of the film's producers, sued over this but later settled. The plaintiff wasn't allowed to participate in the settlement and has been blacklisted because of his involvement with “Don's Plum.”

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.

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.

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.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.