Pacific Family Entertainment v. Philip A. Putman
Published: Sep. 18, 1999 | Result Date: Jul. 22, 1999 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 787755 – $28,350
Judge
Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Jess E. Dines
(technical)
Defendant
Michael Gryzik
(technical)
Facts
FACTS ACCORDING TO THE PLAINTIFF: Plaintiff Pacific Family Entertainment is a television studio. In 1993, defendant hired plaintiff to produce and air a television commercial. The commercial involved religious audio tapes and books that defendant was trying to sell to the public. Plaintiff produced and aired the commercial and presented defendant with a bill for $28,350. Defendant failed to pay the bill. FACTS ACCORDING TO THE DEFENDANT: Tim Cook claimed to be the owner of the Pacific Family Entertainment Company as well as the predecessor company, TLC Communications, Inc. However, the Orange County Recorders Office shows that Tim Cook's father was the owner of Pacific Family Entertainment Company. Years ago, Philip Putman, an attorney, represented Tim Cook and a company owned and/or operated by the Cook family, TLC Communications, Inc. Putman is a very religious man and sings and writes gospel songs and writes books related to religious matters. In 1993, TLC Communications, Inc. was in the business of filming commercials. In May 1993, Putman and TLC Communications, Inc., contracted to air commercials for the selling some of the religious material written by Putman. Cook, on behalf of TLC Communications, Inc., told Putman that he would be willing to air the commercials and would take a percentage of the profit from the material sold. Cook told Putman that he could do that since he had barter arrangements with the stations and that it would thus not cost anyone any initial money except for the production of the commercial. The commercial was produced. Putman paid for the production of the commercial. No notice was ever given to Putman that the commercial was ever aired. In January 1995, Putman was negotiating with a famous Hollywood director to do some business related to the airing of a religious program. Cook wanted to be involved with that business. Initially, Putman had no objections with Cook's involvement until the Hollywood director nixed the whole deal and he wanted nothing to do with the entire project. Putman told Cook that he wanted nothing further to do with him and commenced terminating all relationships with Cook. At that point, Cook began a campaign to collect a bogus debt from Putman. A promissory note purportedly signed by Putman and dated of November 1994 first surfaced 1995. Cook testified that on Nov. 11, 1994, Putman came to his office and took the blank, unsigned promissory note prepared by Cook and left the office and came back the next day with a signature on the note. Cook did not dispute that the signature on the promissory note was not an authentic signature, yet contended Putman photocopied his signature onto that promissory note from another document. Yet the handwriting expert, Michael Gryzik, testified that the document from which the signature was lifted came from a March 1, 1995, letter to the telephone company. So the signature which gave rise to the signature on the promissory note did not surface for five months after the date on the promissory note which was the basis for the litigation. An employee from Pacific Family Entertainment Company testified that he saw Putman come to the office, take the unsigned note on Nov. 14, 1994, and return the following day with a signed copy on Nov. 15, 1994. This employee testified with the assistance of a Spanish interpreter. He spoke no English on the stand. He testified that he never got closer than 30.5 feet to the promissory note and yet was able to read and understand the language on the promissory note despite the fact it was in English and in 10 or 12 point font. Cook's brother testified that he was present when Putman came into the office on Nov. 14, 1994, and he actually saw Putman sign the note. * * *
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. settlement demand for $ _____. The defendant made a C.C.P. 998 offer of compromise for $ ______.
Result
* * * (CONTINUATION OF FACTS) The court later struck Cook's brother's testimony and refused to allow any comment regarding that testimony during closing arguments after testimony from a registered nurse as to a mental illness of Cook's brother. Putman testified that the original contract entered into in May 1993 was not the contract submitted by plaintiff, that the first page was different. Putman did not have a copy of the original contract because of a dispute with his former law partners who retained his records and files. Putman attempted to show by judicial notice that there were lawsuits related to the withholding of those records as an explanation of why Putman did not have a copy of the first page of the original contract. The court refused to allow that evidence and even refused to look at the files showing an arbitrator's award and findings that the former partners did withhold documents and files. The jury never heard that evidence. The May 1993, contract would be barred by the four-year statute of limitations for contracts since the complaint was not filed until December 1997, but for the existence of this promissory note. If the promissory note was valid, then the statute of limitations would have been extended four years from the November 1994 promissory note. According to the defendant, the jury found that the promissory note was not valid since it found the note was not signed by or authorized by Putman. A judgment notwithstanding the verdict has been filed and is scheduled to be heard on Oct. 15, 1999, before Judge Monarch. At that time the court should grant judgment in favor of Putman since the May 1993 contract would be barred by the statute of limitations. Cook attached to the complaint a death threat letter ostensibly from Putman in May 1996. Cook testified that his attorney had the letter. According to the plaintiff, the jury answered "No" to the following question in the special verdict form: "Did defendant knowingly place his signature on the purported Nov. 11, 1994, promissory note?" Also, according to the plaintiff, judgment notwithstanding the verdict filed by defendant is frivolous.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately one year and seven months after the case was filed. According to the defendant, Cook's attorney, Vladimir Khiterer, was forced to admit that he did not recall ever seeing the original of this death threat letter. Cook made a complaint to the State Bar. The State Bar did not take any action on this complaint. In October 1997, Cook testified that he had the original of the death threat letter and would not release it because he wanted to keep it in his hands for safekeeping. The complaint was filed in December 1997 and Khiterer stipulated he did not have the original of the death threat letter, nor did he recall even seeing the letter. An invoice dated in September 1993, was never produced in discovery and was first produced a few days before trial. The first production demand included invoices but did not include the September 1993 invoice. Khiterer, plaintiff's counsel, itemized the items produced. The September 1993, invoice was not included in either the production of the material nor with the itemization of the produced material. Khiterer made representations to the court that in that case, it was produced in a second production. Putman's counsel pointed out to the court that there was no request for invoices in that production demand and no other invoices were produced. The court elected to believe Khiterer. That invoice which was introduced into evidence, will clearly take the matter outside the statute of limitations since it has a net-30 demand and at most, the breach of the contract would have been October 1993, more than four years prior to the filing of the complaint in this matter.
Deliberation
45 minutes
Poll
11-1 (liability), 11-1 (damages)
Length
four days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390