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 |
January 28, 2005

CASE CAPTION: Kaye Switzer and Sandi Spreckman v. Big Ticket Pictures Inc., Big Ticket Television Inc., Paramount Pictures Corp. and Paramount Television Group, L.A. Superior Court #BC327050.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of written contract, constructive fraud and an accounting.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiffs are producers who worked on “The People's Court” TV series for 10 and 12 years, respectively. In September 1994, they conceived and developed a concept for a new courtroom series featuring Judge Judy Scheindlin. In August 1995, they entered into a written agreement with Doug Llewelyn and Big Ticket Pictures, then a subsidiary of Spelling Entertainment, relating to the production of the series. The plaintiffs were hired as producers and were entitled to back-end compensation of 10% of the show proceeds, minus costs, when they actively worked as producers, and 5% otherwise. The plaintiffs were abruptly terminated during the first season after the defendants obtained the plaintiffs' substantial knowledge and expertise in producing such a show. Paramount acquired Big Ticket and Spelling in 1999. The plaintiffs haven't been paid their share of the profits. The plaintiffs sued Spelling and Big Ticket in 1997 to get their share. Since then, the defendants have again manipulated accountings for the series and have refused to properly account for profits. An independent audit report dated Jan. 15, 2004 confirmed that defendants changed their accounting methods to double the amount of deductions attributable to losses during the show's first season. The defendants have also consistently deducted improper fees and costs.

RELIEF SOUGHT: At least $3 million.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Martin D. Singer and Charles J. Harder of L.A.'s Lavely & Singer (310-556-3501).


CASE CAPTION: Jamie Jones, Delious Kennedy, Alfred Nevarez and Anthony Borowiak, individually, and dba All-4-One v. Tim O'Brien dba Brookhill Records Corp. dba Blitzz Records dba Blitz/Atlantic Records dba CKC dba Songcase Music; Christine O'Brien; and Atlantic Recording Corp., L.A. Superior Court # BC326889.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy to induce breach of fiduciary duty; breach of contract; unjust enrichment; quantum meruit; and an accounting.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiffs are a Grammy-winning quartet. The group, then ranging in age from 19 to 22, signed with O'Brien and Brookhill Records in 1993, and became very successful. Accountings, however, were infrequent and hopelessly inaccurate. O'Brien and his daughter, Christine, managed the group despite not having a contract to do so and O'Brien paid himself a 10% fee for touring and merchandise. The plaintiffs didn't become aware of O'Brien's thievery until January 2002, when they learned of their record sales from a Recording Industry Association of America website. O'Brien now lives on an 80-acre estate in Kentucky paid for by the group's earnings, while the plaintiffs, who have sold more than 15 million units, are in some cases forced to hold down second jobs.

RELIEF SOUGHT: At least $4 million.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: David Berke of Beverly Hills (310-788-9001).

CASE CAPTION: Kaye Switzer and Sandi Spreckman v. Big Ticket Pictures Inc., Big Ticket Television Inc., Paramount Pictures Corp. and Paramount Television Group, L.A. Superior Court #BC327050.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of written contract, constructive fraud and an accounting.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiffs are producers who worked on “The People's Court” TV series for 10 and 12 years, respectively. In September 1994, they conceived and developed a concept for a new courtroom series featuring Judge Judy Scheindlin. In August 1995, they entered into a written agreement with Doug Llewelyn and Big Ticket Pictures, then a subsidiary of Spelling Entertainment, relating to the production of the series. The plaintiffs were hired as producers and were entitled to back-end compensation of 10% of the show proceeds, minus costs, when they actively worked as producers, and 5% otherwise. The plaintiffs were abruptly terminated during the first season after the defendants obtained the plaintiffs' substantial knowledge and expertise in producing such a show. Paramount acquired Big Ticket and Spelling in 1999. The plaintiffs haven't been paid their share of the profits. The plaintiffs sued Spelling and Big Ticket in 1997 to get their share. Since then, the defendants have again manipulated accountings for the series and have refused to properly account for profits. An independent audit report dated Jan. 15, 2004 confirmed that defendants changed their accounting methods to double the amount of deductions attributable to losses during the show's first season. The defendants have also consistently deducted improper fees and costs.

RELIEF SOUGHT: At least $3 million.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Martin D. Singer and Charles J. Harder of L.A.'s Lavely & Singer (310-556-3501).


CASE CAPTION: Jamie Jones, Delious Kennedy, Alfred Nevarez and Anthony Borowiak, individually, and dba All-4-One v. Tim O'Brien dba Brookhill Records Corp. dba Blitzz Records dba Blitz/Atlantic Records dba CKC dba Songcase Music; Christine O'Brien; and Atlantic Recording Corp., L.A. Superior Court # BC326889.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy to induce breach of fiduciary duty; breach of contract; unjust enrichment; quantum meruit; and an accounting.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiffs are a Grammy-winning quartet. The group, then ranging in age from 19 to 22, signed with O'Brien and Brookhill Records in 1993, and became very successful. Accountings, however, were infrequent and hopelessly inaccurate. O'Brien and his daughter, Christine, managed the group despite not having a contract to do so and O'Brien paid himself a 10% fee for touring and merchandise. The plaintiffs didn't become aware of O'Brien's thievery until January 2002, when they learned of their record sales from a Recording Industry Association of America website. O'Brien now lives on an 80-acre estate in Kentucky paid for by the group's earnings, while the plaintiffs, who have sold more than 15 million units, are in some cases forced to hold down second jobs.

RELIEF SOUGHT: At least $4 million.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: David Berke of Beverly Hills (310-788-9001).

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.