Cameo Clips

ACTOR EMPLOYMENT TIME/
CONTRACT TERMINATION

The City Court of Rochester, New York, held that a cabaret theatre breached a guaranteed contract term for actors by firing them when a production closed. Misek v. Downstairs Cabaret Theatre Inc., 2009-SC-20623. Plaintiffs Benjamin Misek, Todd Durham and Lia Menaker were hired by the Downstairs Cabaret Theatre in 2009 to perform in the stage show Country Roads: The Songs of John Denver and in later to-be-specified productions. Justice Ellen Yacknin found that “it is evident that the contract[s] did not provide for the termination of plaintiffs' employment prior to the expiration of their specified minimum employment periods solely because of the closure of Country Roads.”

Downstairs Cabaret argued that the minimum employment term stipulated how long the actors were required to perform, rather than entitled to work. From a public policy perspective, Justice Yacknin found: “As construed by Downstairs Cabaret, the contract obligated the actors to perform in any production for as long as required by Downstairs Cabaret, subject to the actors' four weeks written notice, but simultaneously provided for the immediate termination of the actors' employment before the end of their minimum employment periods, with no advance notice whatsoever, upon the closure of a single production. Such an inequitable interpretation of the contract cannot be countenanced, particularly in light of a more reasonable and equitable interpretation of the contract that provides both parties a guaranteed minimum period of employment.”

The city judge also decided that the theatre owed the actors contractual bonuses for the weeks worked by emphasizing that “as defined by the contract, the bonus is a withheld portion of each plaintiff's earned salary.”

TV-SHOW CREATION DISPUTE/DECLARATORY BID DENIED

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a declaratory suit by A & E Television Networks (A&E) over a dispute involving creation of the TV series Steven Seagal: Lawman. A & E Television Networks v. Genuine Entertainment Inc., 09 Civ. 7422. Genuine Entertainment and its agents claim they pitched the show to A&E, which instead worked directly with Seagal. A&E filed a declaratory action immediately after receiving a letter from Genuine Entertainment stating that the production company would sue in Los Angeles Superior Court if the dispute wasn't resolved within ten days. Genuine filed its California complaint one day after A&E filed the federal suit in New York.

Southern District Judge Richard J. Howell found: “First, and perhaps foremost, plaintiff has clearly engaged in forum-shopping. A&E filed this suit only after it learned that defendants were on the brink of bringing suit in California. In other cases involving such blatantly anticipatory declaratory suits, courts have frequently exercised their discretion to abstain.”

Judge Howell added that A&E “knew that defendants would bring their dispute to a California court within [10] days, so the purpose of its declaratory action could not have been to resolve uncertainty over defendants' interests in Lawman. Instead, the action's purpose was, quite obviously, to shift adjudication of defendants' claims from California state court to New York federal court.”

The district judge also noted: “The California action encompasses every issue raised and every party named in this case, as well as claims against additional parties that emanate from the same nucleus of facts. Because the California court declined to stay the proceedings there (based on its finding that A&E had initiated this suit in bad faith), that action has already progressed deep into discovery.”

Judge Howell did acknowledge “it may be true that a federal court in New York is better equipped to apply New York law than a state court in California.” But he added “this consideration is easily overwhelmed by the factors cutting the other way: the need to deter a blatant case of forum-shopping, and the fact that litigation here will duplicate litigation in California.”

ACTOR EMPLOYMENT TIME/
CONTRACT TERMINATION

The City Court of Rochester, New York, held that a cabaret theatre breached a guaranteed contract term for actors by firing them when a production closed. Misek v. Downstairs Cabaret Theatre Inc., 2009-SC-20623. Plaintiffs Benjamin Misek, Todd Durham and Lia Menaker were hired by the Downstairs Cabaret Theatre in 2009 to perform in the stage show Country Roads: The Songs of John Denver and in later to-be-specified productions. Justice Ellen Yacknin found that “it is evident that the contract[s] did not provide for the termination of plaintiffs' employment prior to the expiration of their specified minimum employment periods solely because of the closure of Country Roads.”

Downstairs Cabaret argued that the minimum employment term stipulated how long the actors were required to perform, rather than entitled to work. From a public policy perspective, Justice Yacknin found: “As construed by Downstairs Cabaret, the contract obligated the actors to perform in any production for as long as required by Downstairs Cabaret, subject to the actors' four weeks written notice, but simultaneously provided for the immediate termination of the actors' employment before the end of their minimum employment periods, with no advance notice whatsoever, upon the closure of a single production. Such an inequitable interpretation of the contract cannot be countenanced, particularly in light of a more reasonable and equitable interpretation of the contract that provides both parties a guaranteed minimum period of employment.”

The city judge also decided that the theatre owed the actors contractual bonuses for the weeks worked by emphasizing that “as defined by the contract, the bonus is a withheld portion of each plaintiff's earned salary.”

TV-SHOW CREATION DISPUTE/DECLARATORY BID DENIED

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a declaratory suit by A & E Television Networks (A&E) over a dispute involving creation of the TV series Steven Seagal: Lawman. A & E Television Networks v. Genuine Entertainment Inc., 09 Civ. 7422. Genuine Entertainment and its agents claim they pitched the show to A&E, which instead worked directly with Seagal. A&E filed a declaratory action immediately after receiving a letter from Genuine Entertainment stating that the production company would sue in Los Angeles Superior Court if the dispute wasn't resolved within ten days. Genuine filed its California complaint one day after A&E filed the federal suit in New York.

Southern District Judge Richard J. Howell found: “First, and perhaps foremost, plaintiff has clearly engaged in forum-shopping. A&E filed this suit only after it learned that defendants were on the brink of bringing suit in California. In other cases involving such blatantly anticipatory declaratory suits, courts have frequently exercised their discretion to abstain.”

Judge Howell added that A&E “knew that defendants would bring their dispute to a California court within [10] days, so the purpose of its declaratory action could not have been to resolve uncertainty over defendants' interests in Lawman. Instead, the action's purpose was, quite obviously, to shift adjudication of defendants' claims from California state court to New York federal court.”

The district judge also noted: “The California action encompasses every issue raised and every party named in this case, as well as claims against additional parties that emanate from the same nucleus of facts. Because the California court declined to stay the proceedings there (based on its finding that A&E had initiated this suit in bad faith), that action has already progressed deep into discovery.”

Judge Howell did acknowledge “it may be true that a federal court in New York is better equipped to apply New York law than a state court in California.” But he added “this consideration is easily overwhelmed by the factors cutting the other way: the need to deter a blatant case of forum-shopping, and the fact that litigation here will duplicate litigation in California.”