Courthouse Steps

CASE CAPTION: Radar Entertainment LLC and Vincent Dymon v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Telepictures Productions Inc., L.A. Superior Court # BC361954.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of implied contract; breach of confidence; intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; and unfair competition.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Plain-tiff Dymon created a treatment for a proposed reality TV series called 'Jury Duty.' The premise was that actual small claims court cases would be adjudicated by a jury comprised of celebrities in the entertainment industry. A pilot episode was produced in July 2004, and was pitched to Telepictures in Aug. 2004. A Telepictures representative said that Telepictures wasn't interested. About a year-and-a-half later, Telepictures and Warner began development of a series using the idea but didn't compensate or contact the plaintiff.

RELIEF SOUGHT: 'Tens of millions.'

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Stanton L. Stein, Daniel A. Fiore and Lauren Sudar of Santa Monica, CA's Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan (310-987-1000).

CASE CAPTION: Maverick Films LLC v. William J. Johnson, Inferno Distribution LLC and Adelstein/Parouse Productions, L.A. Superior Court # BC361071.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Misappropriation of trade secrets; unfair competition; preliminary and permanent injunctions; breach of oral contract; breach of implied contract; breach of confidence; and fraud.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: For the last 5 years, Maverick had been developing a film based on a true story of the infamous 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment. The rights came from Prof. Phillip Zimbardo, the Stanford psychology professor who conducted the experiment. The defendants ' under the guise that they were interested in co-producing, distributing and financing the film ' conned Maverick into disclosing details. The defendants lied about not being involved in a competing project and are attempting to misappropriate Maverick's business opportunities. The defendants have approached actors that Maverick wanted for the film and have promoted their film 'The Experiment' as the 'true' Stanford Prison Experiment movie. The defendants tried to sell their film before Maverick was ready to sell its film.

RELIEF SOUGHT: At least $50 million and an injunction against using the plaintiff's confidential information.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Gary S. Raskin and Joseph M. Gabriel of L.A.'s Raskin Peter Rubin & Simon (310-277-0010).

CASE CAPTION: Jesse James Hollywood v. Universal Studios Inc., U.S. District Court in Los Angeles #06-6849.

CAUSE OF ACTION: Injunctive relief.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: In 2000, a grand jury in Santa Barbara County, CA, issued an indictment charging the plaintiff and four others with the kidnapping and murder of Nicholas Markowitz. The other four individuals were convicted and sentenced. The plaintiff was later arrested in Brazil. He pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial. In March 2003, after getting convictions of the other four individuals, the prosecutor assigned to the case, Deputy District Attorney A. Ron Zonen, agreed to assist film-makers in creating a screenplay and film based on the Markowitz killing. Zonen, who knew that the plaintiff was still an outstanding, unprosecuted defendant, illegally provided the filmmakers all relevant materials in possession of the Santa Barbara D.A.'s office. He also provided his personal views and opinions. The film, 'Alpha Dog,' is now set to be released nationally in a few weeks, prior to the plaintiff's murder trial. The film is being marketed as a fictionalized account of a true-life story, and Zonen and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department are credited at the end of the film. The character in the film that represents the plaintiff is portrayed in a highly inflammatory manner without any redeeming character traits. In Oct. 2006, the Court of Appeal of California ordered Zonen recused from prosecuting the plaintiff due to Zonen's consultation on the film creating a conflict of interest. The film will irreparably harm the plaintiff's ability to receive a fair trial. This outweighs any potential infringement of the defendants' First Amendment rights.

RELIEF SOUGHT: An injunction against release of the film and the video of Zonen until after the plaintiff's trial.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: James E. Blatt and Michael G. Raab of the Law Offices of James E. Blatt in Encino, CA (818-986-4180), and Alex R. Kessel of Encino (818-995-1422).

CASE CAPTION: Radar Entertainment LLC and Vincent Dymon v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Telepictures Productions Inc., L.A. Superior Court # BC361954.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of implied contract; breach of confidence; intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; and unfair competition.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Plain-tiff Dymon created a treatment for a proposed reality TV series called 'Jury Duty.' The premise was that actual small claims court cases would be adjudicated by a jury comprised of celebrities in the entertainment industry. A pilot episode was produced in July 2004, and was pitched to Telepictures in Aug. 2004. A Telepictures representative said that Telepictures wasn't interested. About a year-and-a-half later, Telepictures and Warner began development of a series using the idea but didn't compensate or contact the plaintiff.

RELIEF SOUGHT: 'Tens of millions.'

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Stanton L. Stein, Daniel A. Fiore and Lauren Sudar of Santa Monica, CA's Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan (310-987-1000).

CASE CAPTION: Maverick Films LLC v. William J. Johnson, Inferno Distribution LLC and Adelstein/Parouse Productions, L.A. Superior Court # BC361071.

CAUSES OF ACTION: Misappropriation of trade secrets; unfair competition; preliminary and permanent injunctions; breach of oral contract; breach of implied contract; breach of confidence; and fraud.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: For the last 5 years, Maverick had been developing a film based on a true story of the infamous 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment. The rights came from Prof. Phillip Zimbardo, the Stanford psychology professor who conducted the experiment. The defendants ' under the guise that they were interested in co-producing, distributing and financing the film ' conned Maverick into disclosing details. The defendants lied about not being involved in a competing project and are attempting to misappropriate Maverick's business opportunities. The defendants have approached actors that Maverick wanted for the film and have promoted their film 'The Experiment' as the 'true' Stanford Prison Experiment movie. The defendants tried to sell their film before Maverick was ready to sell its film.

RELIEF SOUGHT: At least $50 million and an injunction against using the plaintiff's confidential information.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Gary S. Raskin and Joseph M. Gabriel of L.A.'s Raskin Peter Rubin & Simon (310-277-0010).

CASE CAPTION: Jesse James Hollywood v. Universal Studios Inc., U.S. District Court in Los Angeles #06-6849.

CAUSE OF ACTION: Injunctive relief.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: In 2000, a grand jury in Santa Barbara County, CA, issued an indictment charging the plaintiff and four others with the kidnapping and murder of Nicholas Markowitz. The other four individuals were convicted and sentenced. The plaintiff was later arrested in Brazil. He pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial. In March 2003, after getting convictions of the other four individuals, the prosecutor assigned to the case, Deputy District Attorney A. Ron Zonen, agreed to assist film-makers in creating a screenplay and film based on the Markowitz killing. Zonen, who knew that the plaintiff was still an outstanding, unprosecuted defendant, illegally provided the filmmakers all relevant materials in possession of the Santa Barbara D.A.'s office. He also provided his personal views and opinions. The film, 'Alpha Dog,' is now set to be released nationally in a few weeks, prior to the plaintiff's murder trial. The film is being marketed as a fictionalized account of a true-life story, and Zonen and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department are credited at the end of the film. The character in the film that represents the plaintiff is portrayed in a highly inflammatory manner without any redeeming character traits. In Oct. 2006, the Court of Appeal of California ordered Zonen recused from prosecuting the plaintiff due to Zonen's consultation on the film creating a conflict of interest. The film will irreparably harm the plaintiff's ability to receive a fair trial. This outweighs any potential infringement of the defendants' First Amendment rights.

RELIEF SOUGHT: An injunction against release of the film and the video of Zonen until after the plaintiff's trial.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: James E. Blatt and Michael G. Raab of the Law Offices of James E. Blatt in Encino, CA (818-986-4180), and Alex R. Kessel of Encino (818-995-1422).