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.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Fraudulent Concealment

Ivy Street Productions Inc. v. Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., Columbia Pictures Television Inc., ELP Communications, Embassy Communications Inc.

Published: Oct. 14, 2003 | Result Date: Jan. 24, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC258346 Verdict –  $0

Judge

Elihu M. Berle

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Joan Steinmann

Jeffrey K. Riffer
(Elkins, Kalt, Weintraub, Reuben & Gartside LLP)


Defendant

Steven S. Davis

Barry G. West


Experts

Plaintiff

Elaine Douglas
(technical)

Edward Gradinger
(technical)

Larry Gerbrandt
(technical)

Defendant

Valerie Cavanaugh
(technical)

John Zabel
(technical)

Mike Filonczuck
(technical)

Franklin R. Johnson
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff Ivy Street Productions Inc. had a profit participation interest in the television show "Married . . . With Children." Its principal was a co-creator and co-executive producer. The defendants are the studio and related entities that produced the show.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $27 million. The defendants' offer was confidential.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed that the defendants owed it over $20 million as its additional share of the show's profits.

Result

The jury returned a defense verdict. The plaintiff noted that, in response to special verdicts, the jury found that the defendants owed a fiduciary duty and made a material misrepresentation of fact to the plaintiff.

Other Information

The plaintiff filed an appeal, asserting the special verdicts are inconsistent with another verdict that there was no breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff contended that insufficient or no evidence supported the jury's finding that the defendants did not breach the contract. It also argued that the court erroneously declined to order the defense counsel to refrain from soliciting the representation of numerous third-party witnesses.

Length

13 days


#83642

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

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