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
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Wind Dancer Production Group, Wind Dancer Entertainment Inc., Wind Dancer Productions Inc., Matt Williams, Whisper Entertainment Inc., Finestra Productions Inc., Carmen Finestra, Tam O'Shanter Productions Inc., McFadzean Productions Inc., David McFadzean v. Walt Disney Pictures dba Walt Disney Television, Buena Vista Television LLC, The Walt Disney

Published: Jan. 31, 2015 | Result Date: Jan. 6, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC501953 Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Marcia J. Harris

Mark D. Passin

Roman M. Silberfeld
(Robins Kaplan LLP)


Defendant

Daniel M. Petrocelli
(O'Melveny & Myers LLP)

Victor Hao-Jan Jih
(Irell & Manella LLP)

Cassandra Seto
(O'Melveny & Myers LLP)


Facts

Wind Dancer Production Group, Wind Dancer Entertainment Inc., Wind Dancer Productions Inc., Matt Williams, Whisper Entertainment Inc., Finestra Productions Inc., Carmen Finestra, Tam O'Shanter Productions Inc., McFadzean Productions Inc., and David McFadzean sued Walt Disney Pictures, Buena Vista Television LLC, and The Walt Disney Co. for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief, unfair competition, and accounting.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs alleged that they were involved in creating, writing, and producing the television series "Home Improvement." Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants sold syndication rights in the show below-market value. Plaintiff also contended that defendants failed to accurately account to plaintiffs for their share of profits from the show. Plaintiffs further contended that the "Incontestability Provision" in the pertinent agreements was not applicable because the transactions that are the subject of the lawsuit were not reflected on the participation statements as required by the pertinent agreements.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants argued that plaintiffs' claims were time barred by the Incontestability Provision in the parties' agreements, which stated that participation statements would become "conclusively correct and binding" 24 months after they were sent and that an action to resolve an objection to such statements was required to be brought within six months after the expiration of such 24 month period. Defendant contended that plaintiff's suit was barred because the statements at issue were sent between 2001 and 2006 and plaintiffs' suit was not filed until 2013.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion for summary adjudication, holding, in part, that the parties were sophisticated parties that were permitted to shorten the statute of limitations by their written contracts. The court held that the claims at issue were, therefore, time-barred.


#93026

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

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