The Private Movie Company, Inc., a California Corp. v. Pamela Anderson, an individual; Pamela Anderson Productions, Inc., a California Corp.
Published: Aug. 9, 1997 | Result Date: May 27, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC136805 Bench Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Dixon Q. Dern
(technical)
Defendant
Gordon Stulberg
(technical)
Facts
In October 1994, a script was presented to Pamela Anderson Lee's personal manager, Dennis Brody by attorney Michael Blaha, who at the time was representing Pamela Anderson Lee, a 25-year-old actress in several litigation matters. At that time, unbeknowst to her, Blaha was representing Ben Efraim and the Private Movie Company, Inc., in other litigation matters. Pamela Anderson Lee expressed an interest in the character and a "creative meeting" was set up, at which time she made it known that she liked the character but did not want to have any simulated sex or extensive nudity in the script or in the movie. It was agreed upon that the script would be rewritten, and she would be provided with the rewritten script. On Nov. 18, 1994, Dennis Brody and Brandt Joel an agent for United Talent Agency began negotiating with Michael Blaha and Ben Efraim and allegedly made a deal for Pamela Anderson Lee's services. It was not until after this date that Michael Blaha allegedly orally informed Pamela Anderson Lee of his conflict of interest. There was never a written conflit waiver from any party. Blaha eventually prepared a long form contract which provided for simulated sex in the contract and never prepared a nudity side letter, which according to the defendant's attorney had been required by Pamela Anderson Lee's representatives. The Private Movie Company began pre-production, however, the final script was not furnished to Pamela Anderson Lee until after December 27, 1994. Upon review of the script, she quickly determined that the simulated sex scenes had not changed and she notified her manager that she would not do the project. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based on a breach of contract theory of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $1,000,000. The defendant made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $10,000.
Injuries
The plaintiff contended that it lost it's ability to market a Pamela Anderson Lee film and suffered other lost business damages in the sum of $5.2 million.
Other Information
The judgment was reached approximately 1+ years after the case was filed. The defendant has filed a memorandum of costs for expert witness fees under C.C.P. º998.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390