Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Investment Firm Can Proceed Against Artist in Litigation Funding Dispute
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied Danish recording artist Aura Dione's motion to dismiss a suit against her that alleges failure to reimburse an investment firm for funding Dione's litigation against her manager. Europlay Capital Advisors LLC v. Joensen, 2:17-cv-02377. Dione (Maria Louis Joensen) battled her manager Khalid Schroeder over intellectual property rights in her music. Europlay Capital agreed to retain the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom to represent Dione in the Schroeder case and says Dione orally agreed to reimburse Europlay within 12 months of the end of the management litigation. Dion won $1.689 million from Schroeder and the ownership rights to her music. Europlay later sued Dione alleging breach of contract and fraud for non-payment of any of the more than $2 million in legal fees that Europlay paid Skadden. Dione filed a motion to dismiss Europlay's complaint under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state viable claims. Dione argued Europlay couldn't proceed on the breach of contract claim because, by offering to be Dion's “legal consultants” regarding Schroeder, the investment firm had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in California. District Judge Christina A. Snyder noted, however, that Dione's “contention that Europlay engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and therefore should be estopped from enforcing the alleged oral agreement, has no bearing upon whether Europlay has properly stated a claim for relief for breach of oral contract pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Instead, accepting plaintiff's allegations as true, the Court cannot make the inference at this stage that Europlay is estopped from stating this claim.” District Judge Snyder then decided about Europlay's fraud claim: “Here, plaintiff alleges more than a mere failure to pay in order to support its claim of fraud in the inducement. Europlay alleges that [Dione] gave repeated assurances to it that payment would be made as it continued to advance funds to pay for her lawsuit, and that she absconded from this jurisdiction [back to Europe] to avoid repayment that she knew would come due in the following months. In light of these allegations, Europlay sufficiently alleges a claim for fraudulent promising at the pleading stage of this case.”
*****
Stan Soocher is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance and a tenured Associate Professor of Music & Entertainment Studies at the University of Colorado's Denver Campus. He is author of the book Baby You're a Rich Man: Suing the Beatles for Fun & Profit (ForeEdge/University Press of New England). For more, visit www.stansoocher.com.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?