This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
Libel
Defamation

Andrew Greene v. Paramount Pictures Corp., Red Granite Pictures Inc., Appian Way LLC, and John and Jane Does 1 through 10

Published: Jan. 25, 2019 | Result Date: Dec. 13, 2018 | Filing Date: Feb. 18, 2014 |

Case number: USDC New York: 2:14-cv-01044-JS-SIL Bench Decision –  Defense

Judge

Joanna Seybert


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Aaron M. Goldsmith
(Law Office of Aaron M. Goldsmith)

Stephanie G. Ovadia
(Law Office of Stephanie G. Ovadia)

Alexander M. Dudelson
(Law Offices of Alexander M. Dudelson)

Louis R. Rosenthal
(Law Offices of Alexander M. Dudelson)


Defendant

Louis P. Petrich
(Ballard Spahr)

Vincent Cox
(Ballard Spahr)

Katherine M. Bolger
(Davis Wright Tremaine)

Rachel F. Strom
(Davis, Wright & Tremaine LLP)


Facts

Andrew Greene, former general counsel for the brokerage house Stratton Oakmont, filed a defamation suit against various film production companies in relation to the depiction of a character in the film "Wolf of Wall Street."

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Greene contended that the fictionalized character, Nicky "Rugrat" Koskoff, was actually based upon him and the characters lewd portrayal defamed him. Greene contended that the film depicted Koskoff's character engaged in drug use, criminal activity, sexual intercourse with prostitutes, and other outlandish and unprofessional behavior.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that Greene could not recover under the claim of defamation and moved for summary judgment. Specifically, the defendants argued that the Kostoff character was not of, and concerning of, Greene and was not created with actual malice. Defendants claimed that no special damages were suffered, and even if it was a depiction of Greene it was a substantially true depiction.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found that Kostoff was determined to be the fictionalized composite of three different persons and a disclaimer expressly stated that all characters had been fictionalized for dramatization. Furthermore, no evidence was presented that defendants acted with knowledge or recklessness in its portrayal of Greene.


#130938

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390