Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bit Parts
Breach-of-Contract Claim Can Continue Over Refusal to Exercise Option to Retain Anti-Vaccination Actress
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied a TV series producer's motion to dismiss a breach-of-contract claim by an actress for whom it refused to exercise an option for her to appear in a second season of Run the World after she asked for a religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Bordeaux v. Lions Gate Entertainment Inc., 2:22-cv-04244. World Productions Inc. (WPI) had engaged actress Andrea Bordeaux for Run the World's initial season. The one-year agreement gave WPI an option to re-hire Bordeaux for up to six additional seasons. Soon after WPI exercised the option for the show's second season, New York City instituted a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for workers in the city. Bordeaux filed suit after series co-producer Lionsgate turned down her request for a religious exemption. Central District Judge Steven V. Wilson first dismissed Bordeaux's religious discrimination claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by finding her "beliefs only focus [on] maintaining the sanctity of her body and not harming others," rather than on a formal religious structure. But District Judge Wilson allowed her federal claim to proceed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by noting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission "defines a religious practice to 'include moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.' C.F.R. §1605.1" Then, in allowing Bordeaux's breach-of-contract claim against WPI to continue (Lionsgate wasn't a signatory to the first season agreement with Bordeaux) Judge Wilson observed: "Here, the distinction between a contract renewal and a contract extension is important. … [A] contract renewal creates a new contract, whose terms may vary compared to the initial contract, while a contract extension carries forward the terms of a previous contract. … If the option was a contract renewal, then Defendants were free to renegotiate and introduce a new term to the contract — i.e., compliance with the vaccination policy. By contrast, if the option was a contract extension, then the terms of the Season 1 agreement, which omitted compliance with the vaccination policy, would control." The district court concluded, "Without additional evidence, such as custom or practice, the Court is unable to discern at this stage whether the option is a renewal or extension."
*****
California Court Rules on Intersection Between Anti-SLAPP Law and Movie Trailer
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that Universal City Studios properly raised a motion under California's anti-SLAPP statute, Calif. Code Civ. Proc. §425.16, in a bid to strike a lawsuit that claims a movie trailer mispresented the contents of the 2019 film Yesterday, about a world where the Beatles never existed. Woulfe v. Universal City Studios LLC, 2:22-cv-00459. The plaintiffs sued over the appearance in the trailer of actress Ana De Armas in a scene cut from Yesterday, which they rented from Amazon after viewing the trailer. District Judge Steven V. Wilson began his opinion by noting: "The current case presents a novel application of false advertising laws to movie trailers." District Judge Wilson then found: "Defendant's creation and release of Yesterday is an exercise of free speech. … [T]he trailer furthers this exercise of free speech by increasing public engagement with the movie — drumming up public interest in the movie." But as to the anti-SLAPP statute's consideration of whether the plaintiffs had "established a likelihood of success on their claims," the district judge allowed the plaintiffs' California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law and unjust enrichment claims to continue, "given the allegations that viewers of movie trailers expect to see the featured actors in the movie, that De Armas was a relatively 'famous' actress, the way De Armas was portrayed in the trailer, and that Plaintiffs and others expected to see De Armas and the Segment in the movie …" Judge Wilson later added that, "because Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the trailer is false, commercial speech, Plaintiffs may proceed with their claims without offending the First Amendment."
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?