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 |
October 03, 2005

CASE CAPTION: Deleese Williams, individually and as guardian of minors Karalee McGee and Sean McGee and as personal representative of the Estate of Kellie McGee v. American Broadcasting Companies Inc.; New Screen Entertainment Inc.; New Screen Concepts Inc.; Greengrass Productions Inc.; Lighthearted Entertainment Inc.; The Walt Disney Co.; and Howard Schultz, L.A. Superior Court # BC339581

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract; breach of convenant of good faith and fair dealing; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligence; unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices; and wrongful death.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff and her two sisters, Patty and Kellie, applied to be on the TV show “Extreme Makeover.” After an interview, Deleese was chosen to meet with the producers in Los Angeles. She had to go through a series of painful interviews and meetings with doctors, and was then presented with a contract granting rights to use her likeness and to use film of her in order to be considered for the show. The plaintiff also released any claims for injuries. She was invited to a taping of a show called “Life After Extreme Makeover.” During a Dec. 2003 segment, the host announced that Deleese was going to get a makeover. When the defendants came to film the plaintiff's family, their goal was to create extreme emotional turmoil, asking questions that would cause such. The interviewer attacked and shamed Kellie for her sometimes cruel past treatment of Deleese. At one point, the defendants physically restrained the plaintiff from comforting her 9-year-old daughter so that they could tape the daughter crying. Deleese then went back to Los Angeles for 2 weeks to see dentists and doctors. In late January, she was told she that wouldn't get the makeover after all. Her family relationships all deteriorated because defendants elicited statements from them saying Deleese was ugly. Kellie suffered overwhelming guilt and killed herself.

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.

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.

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.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?