Courthouse Steps

CASE CAPTION: VC HMBW Inc. v. Big Wedding LLC, L.A. Superior Court # BC341353.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Fraud and breach of written contract.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff is an Orange County, CA, company that agreed to arrange “certain production services” for the film “My Big Fat Greek Wedding.” Defen-dant Big Wedding in return agreed to pay the plaintiff under a complex formula: A fixed fee equal to 76.71% of production expenses as defined in the agreement; a fee equal to 100% of adjusted net receipts as defined in the agreement less the fixed fee until such time as the plaintiff received $2,150,969; after that, 10% of net receipts and an annual fee of 100% of gross from all productions of any kind produced by Big Wedding or any of its affiliates in excess of $23 million. Accounting statements have been inadequate and, although the film was highly profitable, the defendants have paid plaintiff nothing.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Marc Marmaro, Jeffrey K. Riffer and Jessica C. Bromall of L.A.'s Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro (310-203-8080).

CASE CAPTION: Richard Pryor v. Universal Music Group Inc., L.A. Superior Court # BC341334.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Violation of Calif. Civil Code Sec. 3344; intentional interference with prospective advantage; unfair competition; conversion; accounting; declaratory relief; money had and received; unjust enrichment; and injunctive relief.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Universal, through its acquired PolyGram Records Inc., purported to gain rights to certain Richard Pryor recordings via a contract with Found Money Inc. (FM); Found Money purported to acquire the rights from MB Music Inc. Under the PolyGram contract, if the recordings weren't marketed/released within a defined period, the rights reverted back to FM. After the reversion, Universal purported to retain the rights. FM and MB admit that they didn't pass any rights in the recordings to any division of Universal, but Universal has continued to markets the recordings. Universal has wrongfully asserted rights while plaintiff's representatives have conferred with various record companies about compiling a DVD set.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages and an order against further marketing of the recordings.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Brian Colligan of Irvine, CA's Croudace & Dietrich (949-794-9900).

CASE CAPTION: John W. Coleman Jr. and John Rhodes v. Damon Dash; Beth Melillo; Damon Dash Music Group LLC; Dash Films Inc.; Black Entertainment Television Inc.; Huck Films LLC and Datari Turner, L.A. Superior Court #BC341229.

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

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: In Jan. 2004, the plaintiffs developed a reality TV show titled “Mogul” in which contestants competed in a high-paced, urban, hip-hop environment for an executive position at a hip-hop record label or artist management company. The plaintiffs' agent, Tiaka Hurst, distributed their treatment and 10-episode sketch beginning March 2004. Hurst met with Dash representatives, including Melillo, a vice president of Dash's production company. The reality show “Ultimate Hustler,” using plaintiffs' ideas, was announced in April 2005 and first aired on Oct. 4, 2005.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.

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

CASE CAPTION: Executive Risk Indemnity Inc. v. Warner Bros. Pictures; Warner Bros. Entertainment; Warner Bros. Television Productions Inc.; Time Warner Inc.; Hazardous Productions LLC; Village Roadshow Pictures Entertainment Inc.; and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, L.A. Superior Court # BC340904.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Declaratory relief for rescission or that no coverage exists or that a settlement was unreasonable.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff issued a multimedia liability insurance policy to Warner Bros Pictures effective Oct. 2004. Hazardous Productions, as agent for Warner, completed the application for the insurance. Before the policy was issued, Gy Waldron and his lawyer had already contacted Warner about his rights in the “Dukes of Hazzard” film. Hazardous, however, responded “no” to questions on the application about whether the applicant had been threatened with suit or knew anything that might give rise to a claim, and responded “yes” to a question about whether all licenses and consents had been obtained for the film. Waldron and his company subsequently sued over the film rights. There was a settlement last June made without the underwriter's prior written consent. The amount was excessive and unreasonable.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Rescission or a declaration that the policy provides no coverage for the “Dukes” litigation.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: David Simantob, and Rina Carmel of L.A.'s Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess (310-203-4800).

CASE CAPTION: Jim Preminger Agency and Kaplan Stahler Gumer Braun Agency v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, L.A. Superior Court # BC340588.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract; and an accounting.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiffs are talent agencies that represented the individuals who created the TV series “Frasier.” Paramount granted the plaintiffs and also the Broder Kurland Webb Uffner Agency (which represented individuals who created the Frasier character) package commissions that included: 5% of license fees for the NBC broadcasts (escalating to 6% in the fourth season); 5% of network fees for “stripping and late night plays”; and deferred commissions of 5% of network license fees payable out of net profits and 10% of adjusted gross receipts. Paramount has collected more than $1.5 billion in gross revenues from “Frasier,” almost $830 million of that from network license fees. However, Paramount has taken the position that the series never produced “net profits” and has actually lost more than $200 million. In 2000, Paramount began deducting third-party profit participations from gross receipts. Otherwise, Frasier would have shown a profit under Paramount's accounting for the first time. To date, plaintiffs haven't received a copy of Paramount's standard definition of net profits and Paramount has withheld key documents. Paramount has also overstated certain costs and improperly deducted commissions, and underpaid the upfront part of the package commission.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Sheldon Eisenberg, Adam J. Thurston and Melissa B. Bonfiglio of Santa Monica, CA's Bryan Cave (310-576-2100).

CASE CAPTION: William Richert v. Writers Guild of America West Inc. (WGA), L.A. Superior Court # BC339972.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Class action for conversion, unjust enrichment, accounting, fraud and violation of Calif. Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff is a director and screenwriter. Since at least 1991, the WGA has been collecting money due authors from various foreign countries on behalf of both WGA members and non-members. These monies include foreign statutory levies for such things as private copying, cable and video rentals. The foreign levies are attributed to the authors whether or not they have transferred copyrights. The WGA has falsely informed third party payers that it has the right to collect the money and will pay the proper share to authors even if they are non-members. But the WGA is not authorized to do this; it hasn't paid non-members. Additionally, the WGA has a policy of retaining 5% of the all the foreign levies.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages and an injunction barring the WGA from infringing the rights of non-members and not paying them their shares of the levies.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Neville L. Johnson, Brian Rishwain, James T. Ryan and Nicholas A. Kurtz of L.A.'s Johnson & Rishwain (310-826-2410)

CASE CAPTION: VC HMBW Inc. v. Big Wedding LLC, L.A. Superior Court # BC341353.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Fraud and breach of written contract.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff is an Orange County, CA, company that agreed to arrange “certain production services” for the film “My Big Fat Greek Wedding.” Defen-dant Big Wedding in return agreed to pay the plaintiff under a complex formula: A fixed fee equal to 76.71% of production expenses as defined in the agreement; a fee equal to 100% of adjusted net receipts as defined in the agreement less the fixed fee until such time as the plaintiff received $2,150,969; after that, 10% of net receipts and an annual fee of 100% of gross from all productions of any kind produced by Big Wedding or any of its affiliates in excess of $23 million. Accounting statements have been inadequate and, although the film was highly profitable, the defendants have paid plaintiff nothing.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Marc Marmaro, Jeffrey K. Riffer and Jessica C. Bromall of L.A.'s Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro (310-203-8080).

CASE CAPTION: Richard Pryor v. Universal Music Group Inc., L.A. Superior Court # BC341334.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Violation of Calif. Civil Code Sec. 3344; intentional interference with prospective advantage; unfair competition; conversion; accounting; declaratory relief; money had and received; unjust enrichment; and injunctive relief.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Universal, through its acquired PolyGram Records Inc., purported to gain rights to certain Richard Pryor recordings via a contract with Found Money Inc. (FM); Found Money purported to acquire the rights from MB Music Inc. Under the PolyGram contract, if the recordings weren't marketed/released within a defined period, the rights reverted back to FM. After the reversion, Universal purported to retain the rights. FM and MB admit that they didn't pass any rights in the recordings to any division of Universal, but Universal has continued to markets the recordings. Universal has wrongfully asserted rights while plaintiff's representatives have conferred with various record companies about compiling a DVD set.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages and an order against further marketing of the recordings.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Brian Colligan of Irvine, CA's Croudace & Dietrich (949-794-9900).

CASE CAPTION: John W. Coleman Jr. and John Rhodes v. Damon Dash; Beth Melillo; Damon Dash Music Group LLC; Dash Films Inc.; Black Entertainment Television Inc.; Huck Films LLC and Datari Turner, L.A. Superior Court #BC341229.

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

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: In Jan. 2004, the plaintiffs developed a reality TV show titled “Mogul” in which contestants competed in a high-paced, urban, hip-hop environment for an executive position at a hip-hop record label or artist management company. The plaintiffs' agent, Tiaka Hurst, distributed their treatment and 10-episode sketch beginning March 2004. Hurst met with Dash representatives, including Melillo, a vice president of Dash's production company. The reality show “Ultimate Hustler,” using plaintiffs' ideas, was announced in April 2005 and first aired on Oct. 4, 2005.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.

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

CASE CAPTION: Executive Risk Indemnity Inc. v. Warner Bros. Pictures; Warner Bros. Entertainment; Warner Bros. Television Productions Inc.; Time Warner Inc.; Hazardous Productions LLC; Village Roadshow Pictures Entertainment Inc.; and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, L.A. Superior Court # BC340904.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Declaratory relief for rescission or that no coverage exists or that a settlement was unreasonable.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff issued a multimedia liability insurance policy to Warner Bros Pictures effective Oct. 2004. Hazardous Productions, as agent for Warner, completed the application for the insurance. Before the policy was issued, Gy Waldron and his lawyer had already contacted Warner about his rights in the “Dukes of Hazzard” film. Hazardous, however, responded “no” to questions on the application about whether the applicant had been threatened with suit or knew anything that might give rise to a claim, and responded “yes” to a question about whether all licenses and consents had been obtained for the film. Waldron and his company subsequently sued over the film rights. There was a settlement last June made without the underwriter's prior written consent. The amount was excessive and unreasonable.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Rescission or a declaration that the policy provides no coverage for the “Dukes” litigation.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: David Simantob, and Rina Carmel of L.A.'s Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess (310-203-4800).

CASE CAPTION: Jim Preminger Agency and Kaplan Stahler Gumer Braun Agency v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, L.A. Superior Court # BC340588.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract; and an accounting.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiffs are talent agencies that represented the individuals who created the TV series “Frasier.” Paramount granted the plaintiffs and also the Broder Kurland Webb Uffner Agency (which represented individuals who created the Frasier character) package commissions that included: 5% of license fees for the NBC broadcasts (escalating to 6% in the fourth season); 5% of network fees for “stripping and late night plays”; and deferred commissions of 5% of network license fees payable out of net profits and 10% of adjusted gross receipts. Paramount has collected more than $1.5 billion in gross revenues from “Frasier,” almost $830 million of that from network license fees. However, Paramount has taken the position that the series never produced “net profits” and has actually lost more than $200 million. In 2000, Paramount began deducting third-party profit participations from gross receipts. Otherwise, Frasier would have shown a profit under Paramount's accounting for the first time. To date, plaintiffs haven't received a copy of Paramount's standard definition of net profits and Paramount has withheld key documents. Paramount has also overstated certain costs and improperly deducted commissions, and underpaid the upfront part of the package commission.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Sheldon Eisenberg, Adam J. Thurston and Melissa B. Bonfiglio of Santa Monica, CA's Bryan Cave (310-576-2100).

CASE CAPTION: William Richert v. Writers Guild of America West Inc. (WGA), L.A. Superior Court # BC339972.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Class action for conversion, unjust enrichment, accounting, fraud and violation of Calif. Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff is a director and screenwriter. Since at least 1991, the WGA has been collecting money due authors from various foreign countries on behalf of both WGA members and non-members. These monies include foreign statutory levies for such things as private copying, cable and video rentals. The foreign levies are attributed to the authors whether or not they have transferred copyrights. The WGA has falsely informed third party payers that it has the right to collect the money and will pay the proper share to authors even if they are non-members. But the WGA is not authorized to do this; it hasn't paid non-members. Additionally, the WGA has a policy of retaining 5% of the all the foreign levies.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages and an injunction barring the WGA from infringing the rights of non-members and not paying them their shares of the levies.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Neville L. Johnson, Brian Rishwain, James T. Ryan and Nicholas A. Kurtz of L.A.'s Johnson & Rishwain (310-826-2410)