Courthouse Steps

CASE CAPTION: Archie Worldwide Inc. and CJ Worldwide Inc. (affiliates of Mark Burnett Productions Inc. and JMBP Inc.) v. Madison Road Entertainment LLC (MRE) and Does One Through Fifty, L.A. Superior Court #SC084728.

CAUSES OF ACTION: False advertising under the Lanham Act; violation of California Business and Professions Code Secs. 17200 and 17500; tortuous interference with prospective economic advantage; fraud; and constructive trust.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The Burnett Affiliates are the production companies directly responsible for the production of the TV series “The Apprentice.” This lawsuit concerns the fraudulent attempts of defendant MRE and other unknown parties who may be acting with or through MRE to usurp and extract unjustified and exorbitant fees from real and potential relationships between the Burnett Affiliates and companies who wish to sponsor “Apprentice” tasks. MRE falsely represented to these sponsors, and to media and advertising agencies, that it was “hired” by the Burnett Affiliates to find task sponsors for “The Apprentice,” and/or that it owns exclusive rights to branding opportunities on “The Apprentice.” Having made potential sponsors believe that only by dealing with MRE can they participate in “The Apprentice,” MRE then demanded that these sponsors enter into agreements calling for them to pay exorbitant sums in the event that a task is successfully produced on “The Apprentice.” In fact, the Burnett Affiliates never hired MRE, nor did they ever authorize MRE to solicit sponsors for “The Apprentice.” Moreover, the terms of the development agreements MRE is seeking to induce sponsors to sign bear no relation to the Burnett Affiliates' customary or desired methods of doing business. Yet because of MRE's false representations, sponsors, media agencies, and advertising agencies are attributing these egregious demands to the Burnett Affiliates, thus destroying goodwill both for “The Apprentice” and for all the Burnett Affiliates' productions.

RELIEF SOUGHT: An injunction; a sworn statement from the defendants stating, among other things, the identities of parties contacted with regard to “The Apprentice” or any other MBP productions and the terms of any resulting contracts; damages to be proved at trial based on defendants' fraud and tortuous-interference conduct; monies received by the defendants; and punitive damages.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Steven A. Marenberg and Christopher M. Newman of L.A.'s Irell & Manella LLP (310-277-1010).

CASE CAPTION: Robert Relyea v. Chad McQueen, L. A. Superior Court #BC330554.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of fiduciary dealing; and request for an equitable accounting.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: In the early 1960s, the plaintiff and actor Steve McQueen formed a production partnership in which they would split the profits. Chad, Steve's son, and his late sister Terry, assumed Steve's interest in Solar Productions after he died in 1980. Chad secretly dissolved Solar in 1981 and now refuses to pay Relyea his share of the profits from the films that the partnership produced (including “Bullitt”). Relyea had a written agreement with Solar to receive 15% of all net profits from films starring McQueen and 25% from films not starring McQueen. Relyea has not received a payment since 1996, even though “Bullitt” has been released on DVD.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages and an accounting.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: George R. Hedges and Tania M. Krebs of L.A.'s Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges (213-624-7707).

CASE CAPTION: Mark Bethea and Velocity Entertainment Group v. Mark Burnett, Mark Burnett Productions Inc. and JMBP Inc., L. A. Superior Court # BC330265.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of implied-in-fact contract and breach of confidence.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiffs came up with a PowerPoint presentation of their idea for a TV reality series entitled “C.E.O.” to be hosted by Donald Trump and set in a corporate environment. The winning contestant would become CEO of a real corporation and receive a six-figure salary. Bethea first met Conrad Riggs, a production partner of defendant Burnett in June 2001, and presented three TV-series ideas, including “C.E.O.” Riggs said the defendants were not interested. The defendants then stole the plaintiffs' idea for “C.E.O” and used it for the TV show “The Apprentice.” (Riggs and Burnett formed the JMBP partnership to license “The Apprentice” and related products.)

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Ronald W. Makarem and Marni B. Folinsky of L.A.'s Makarem & Associates (310-312-0299).

CASE CAPTION: Christy Bono, Chastity Bono, Mary Bono-Baxley, individually and as guardian ad litem for Chianna Bono and Cesare Bono, and Cher v. Warner/Chappell Music Inc., L. A. Superior Court # BC329720.

CAUSE OF ACTION: Breach of contract.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Salvatore Bono, aka Sonny Bono, died on Jan. 5, 1998. The well-known music duo Sonny and Cher divorced in 1977, with each party getting half the benefits of their recording, etc., agreements. Mary, Sonny's widow, got 1/3 of Sonny's rights, with Sonny's children Cesare, Chianna, Christy and Chastity (by his three wives) each getting 1/6. Defendant Warner/Chappell has breached Sonny & Cher's 1965 recording and 1966 performance and publishing agreements with York Records and Atlantic Recording Corp. by failing to account for and pay for royalties.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages and an accounting.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Henry N. Jannol and Paul H. Levine of the Law Offices of Henry N. Jannol in Los Angeles (310-552-7500).

CASE CAPTION: Archie Worldwide Inc. and CJ Worldwide Inc. (affiliates of Mark Burnett Productions Inc. and JMBP Inc.) v. Madison Road Entertainment LLC (MRE) and Does One Through Fifty, L.A. Superior Court #SC084728.

CAUSES OF ACTION: False advertising under the Lanham Act; violation of California Business and Professions Code Secs. 17200 and 17500; tortuous interference with prospective economic advantage; fraud; and constructive trust.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The Burnett Affiliates are the production companies directly responsible for the production of the TV series “The Apprentice.” This lawsuit concerns the fraudulent attempts of defendant MRE and other unknown parties who may be acting with or through MRE to usurp and extract unjustified and exorbitant fees from real and potential relationships between the Burnett Affiliates and companies who wish to sponsor “Apprentice” tasks. MRE falsely represented to these sponsors, and to media and advertising agencies, that it was “hired” by the Burnett Affiliates to find task sponsors for “The Apprentice,” and/or that it owns exclusive rights to branding opportunities on “The Apprentice.” Having made potential sponsors believe that only by dealing with MRE can they participate in “The Apprentice,” MRE then demanded that these sponsors enter into agreements calling for them to pay exorbitant sums in the event that a task is successfully produced on “The Apprentice.” In fact, the Burnett Affiliates never hired MRE, nor did they ever authorize MRE to solicit sponsors for “The Apprentice.” Moreover, the terms of the development agreements MRE is seeking to induce sponsors to sign bear no relation to the Burnett Affiliates' customary or desired methods of doing business. Yet because of MRE's false representations, sponsors, media agencies, and advertising agencies are attributing these egregious demands to the Burnett Affiliates, thus destroying goodwill both for “The Apprentice” and for all the Burnett Affiliates' productions.

RELIEF SOUGHT: An injunction; a sworn statement from the defendants stating, among other things, the identities of parties contacted with regard to “The Apprentice” or any other MBP productions and the terms of any resulting contracts; damages to be proved at trial based on defendants' fraud and tortuous-interference conduct; monies received by the defendants; and punitive damages.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Steven A. Marenberg and Christopher M. Newman of L.A.'s Irell & Manella LLP (310-277-1010).

CASE CAPTION: Robert Relyea v. Chad McQueen, L. A. Superior Court #BC330554.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of fiduciary dealing; and request for an equitable accounting.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: In the early 1960s, the plaintiff and actor Steve McQueen formed a production partnership in which they would split the profits. Chad, Steve's son, and his late sister Terry, assumed Steve's interest in Solar Productions after he died in 1980. Chad secretly dissolved Solar in 1981 and now refuses to pay Relyea his share of the profits from the films that the partnership produced (including “Bullitt”). Relyea had a written agreement with Solar to receive 15% of all net profits from films starring McQueen and 25% from films not starring McQueen. Relyea has not received a payment since 1996, even though “Bullitt” has been released on DVD.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages and an accounting.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: George R. Hedges and Tania M. Krebs of L.A.'s Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges (213-624-7707).

CASE CAPTION: Mark Bethea and Velocity Entertainment Group v. Mark Burnett, Mark Burnett Productions Inc. and JMBP Inc., L. A. Superior Court # BC330265.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of implied-in-fact contract and breach of confidence.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiffs came up with a PowerPoint presentation of their idea for a TV reality series entitled “C.E.O.” to be hosted by Donald Trump and set in a corporate environment. The winning contestant would become CEO of a real corporation and receive a six-figure salary. Bethea first met Conrad Riggs, a production partner of defendant Burnett in June 2001, and presented three TV-series ideas, including “C.E.O.” Riggs said the defendants were not interested. The defendants then stole the plaintiffs' idea for “C.E.O” and used it for the TV show “The Apprentice.” (Riggs and Burnett formed the JMBP partnership to license “The Apprentice” and related products.)

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Ronald W. Makarem and Marni B. Folinsky of L.A.'s Makarem & Associates (310-312-0299).

CASE CAPTION: Christy Bono, Chastity Bono, Mary Bono-Baxley, individually and as guardian ad litem for Chianna Bono and Cesare Bono, and Cher v. Warner/Chappell Music Inc., L. A. Superior Court # BC329720.

CAUSE OF ACTION: Breach of contract.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Salvatore Bono, aka Sonny Bono, died on Jan. 5, 1998. The well-known music duo Sonny and Cher divorced in 1977, with each party getting half the benefits of their recording, etc., agreements. Mary, Sonny's widow, got 1/3 of Sonny's rights, with Sonny's children Cesare, Chianna, Christy and Chastity (by his three wives) each getting 1/6. Defendant Warner/Chappell has breached Sonny & Cher's 1965 recording and 1966 performance and publishing agreements with York Records and Atlantic Recording Corp. by failing to account for and pay for royalties.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages and an accounting.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Henry N. Jannol and Paul H. Levine of the Law Offices of Henry N. Jannol in Los Angeles (310-552-7500).