Counsel Concerns

Consulting and Retainer Agreements/Suit for Payment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in part for Nevada-based entertainment attorney John Mason on his claim of breach of legal-services agreements by a film-production company. Mason v. Artwork Pictures LLC, 3:03-cv-00188-LRH (VPC). Florida-based Artworks Pictures had hired Mason as consulting counsel for the production of the movie 'Bolivar the Liberator' and for 36 months as counsel on other legal issues. In 2003, Mason filed suit in Nevada federal court against Artworks and its president Edgard Meinhardt-Iturbe to collect $1,050,019 Mason claimed he was still owed under the agreements.

When Mason filed for a summary-judgment ruling that the defendants breached the counsel agreements, Meinhardt-Iturbe moved for additional time to respond. But the district court noted that 'approximately six months have passed since Defendant's last filing and Defendant has yet to file a formal opposition to Plaintiff's motion. Further, despite Defendant's protestations concerning his ability to receive documents, there is no evidence presented that service was improper or failed to occur in regard to any of the documents in this matter. Rather, Defendant merely contends that it takes a good while for him to receive the documents. The court, therefore, finds no grounds upon which a further extension would be warranted and turns to determining whether summary judgment is appropriate.'

The court then found: 'Plaintiff has provided competent and undisputed evidence showing that Plaintiff and Defendant entered into both the Consulting Agreement and the Retainer Agreement. Further, Plaintiff has presented evidence that those agreements were, and continue to be, valid and enforceable contracts. Next, Plaintiff has provided evidence, and the court concluded in [a] prior motion for summary judgment, that Plaintiff performed his obligations under the contracts. Third, Plaintiff had demonstrated he was not paid for his work, demonstrating a breach by Defendant.'

But the court said it was 'unable to determine the exact amount of damages incurred. While Plaintiff's brief alleges a sum of $1,050,019, the citation to the record points to a paragraph of Plaintiff's declaration that was not filed with the court. With no evidence to support the alleged damages, the court cannot enter summary judgment on the damages element of these claims.'

On Mason's claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the court concluded: 'Plaintiff's evidence does not foreclose the possibility that Defendant was acting in good faith but was simply unable to pay. The evidence provided is ambiguous as to Defendant's intent. Thus, summary judgment is inappropriate on this claim as a factual issue exists as to whether Defendant's actions rise to the level of bad faith.'

Consulting and Retainer Agreements/Suit for Payment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in part for Nevada-based entertainment attorney John Mason on his claim of breach of legal-services agreements by a film-production company. Mason v. Artwork Pictures LLC, 3:03-cv-00188-LRH (VPC). Florida-based Artworks Pictures had hired Mason as consulting counsel for the production of the movie 'Bolivar the Liberator' and for 36 months as counsel on other legal issues. In 2003, Mason filed suit in Nevada federal court against Artworks and its president Edgard Meinhardt-Iturbe to collect $1,050,019 Mason claimed he was still owed under the agreements.

When Mason filed for a summary-judgment ruling that the defendants breached the counsel agreements, Meinhardt-Iturbe moved for additional time to respond. But the district court noted that 'approximately six months have passed since Defendant's last filing and Defendant has yet to file a formal opposition to Plaintiff's motion. Further, despite Defendant's protestations concerning his ability to receive documents, there is no evidence presented that service was improper or failed to occur in regard to any of the documents in this matter. Rather, Defendant merely contends that it takes a good while for him to receive the documents. The court, therefore, finds no grounds upon which a further extension would be warranted and turns to determining whether summary judgment is appropriate.'

The court then found: 'Plaintiff has provided competent and undisputed evidence showing that Plaintiff and Defendant entered into both the Consulting Agreement and the Retainer Agreement. Further, Plaintiff has presented evidence that those agreements were, and continue to be, valid and enforceable contracts. Next, Plaintiff has provided evidence, and the court concluded in [a] prior motion for summary judgment, that Plaintiff performed his obligations under the contracts. Third, Plaintiff had demonstrated he was not paid for his work, demonstrating a breach by Defendant.'

But the court said it was 'unable to determine the exact amount of damages incurred. While Plaintiff's brief alleges a sum of $1,050,019, the citation to the record points to a paragraph of Plaintiff's declaration that was not filed with the court. With no evidence to support the alleged damages, the court cannot enter summary judgment on the damages element of these claims.'

On Mason's claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the court concluded: 'Plaintiff's evidence does not foreclose the possibility that Defendant was acting in good faith but was simply unable to pay. The evidence provided is ambiguous as to Defendant's intent. Thus, summary judgment is inappropriate on this claim as a factual issue exists as to whether Defendant's actions rise to the level of bad faith.'