Bit Parts

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that a production company could proceed with its breach of directing services claim against actor/director Michael Keaton over the movie The Merry Gentleman. Merry Gentleman LLC v. George and Leona Productions Inc., 13 C 2690. The production company asserted that Keaton's behavior, including on film editing, “delayed the film's release, increased costs, and harmed the film's prospects for commercial success.” Keaton argued that a claims release the parties signed stipulating the showing of Keaton's edit of the movie at the Sundance Film Festival barred the production company's suit. But District Judge Gary Feinerman agreed with the plaintiff that the release had been signed under duress: “Keaton's threat to not appear at Sundance unless Merry Gentleman agreed to allow his second cut to be shown ' an agreement memorialized in the Release ' could be found opportunistic within the meaning of the [Illinois] duress doctrine in light of Merry Gentleman's allegations.”

J. Geils Loses Bid to Disqualify Attorney for Band Members That Geils Has Sued

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied a motion by musician J. Geils to disqualify a defense attorney for members of the J. Geils Band who Geils has sued over trademarks right to the group's name. Francesca Records v. Geils Unlimited Research LLC, 12-11419. J. Geils and his label Francesca Records moved to disqualify Thomas J. Butters and his firm from representing the defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs noted that Butters represents the band's original corporation, T&A Research & Development (whose shareholders are on opposite sides of the trademark litigation), had helped the defendant members in forming a new company, Geils Unlimited LLC, and was a “necessary witness” to the current case. On the present record, District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV noted in part, the “plaintiffs have cited to no authority holding that counsel here owes a fiduciary duty to the minority shareholders [i.e., J. Geils in T&A Research & Development Corp.], or that such a duty would survive the filing of a claim against the corporation by a minority shareholder. ' Under the circumstances, it does not appear that Butters owes a fiduciary duty to Geils, and, even if such a duty once existed, it may have terminated when his interests become adverse to the corporation.”

Oregon Federal Court Has Personal Jurisdiction over California Lawyer Sued for Malpractice by Radio Show Producers