Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • Russell vs. HFPA

    Caricato da

    The Wrap
    4K visualizzazioni35 pagine
    The court may deeid& agalnst you without your bEiing heard unless you respond within 30 aiiys. If you do not respond, the court will file a default judgment against you.

    Descrizione originale:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formati disponibili

    PDF o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    The court may deeid& agalnst you without your bEiing heard unless you respond within 30 aiiys. If you do not respond, the court will file a default judgment against you.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    4K visualizzazioni35 pagine

    Russell vs. HFPA

    Caricato da

    The Wrap
    The court may deeid& agalnst you without your bEiing heard unless you respond within 30 aiiys. If you do not respond, the court will file a default judgment against you.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 35
    SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL) \ [NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: CONOR! (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): 2 "THE HOLLYWOOD FOREIGN PRESS ASSOICIATION,aCaifomie Nope Coportin, PHILIP BERK nd, nd Doe os 20, chive. JAN 13 201 | ‘YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: [LO ESTA DEMANDANDO &1 DEMANDANTE) cme beets Oe ‘EINEFORTT PRODUCTIONS, NC «Calon Caruotn,THE MICHA RUSSELL ey ROU ELC i ly cng MICHAEL ROSSEAL ‘Rind aed STEPAEN CCAS, a EE ae TT ES AT] athe cus You ay wreck 3 Rae awa. dot a a ay ww ee ns ays eon era Jou ay estan np tare ors arg ng sams par Yorn eam ‘Los Angeles Superioe Cous-Contal Division, 111 Norte Hill Steet, [Eas Angeles, CA 90012 arene Sata (Far bed ape ta ttn oo omar Pt of Seca Surman POSE), (Col cemnmavant adore | 2 [ES Se pomon acura nar of pect: 1. ona t peat wees cP 416 10 eaperaton) 3 see a com ateze etre soperatcn) (CCP 41670 (areata) ce 416 aescton pers) [=] OP 616.90 prsn) B ste ——— ‘SONMONS aE coven care 1 | tiny baton, 5, Sater Ne 1579 Panay a 233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 dad 12.2011 Sens Ca (G10) 478-7110 (Telephone) ‘stn Cas ect Oteatat (G10) 260-9700 Facsimile) 2. eon Attomeys for Plaintiffs 2 3 4 5 CINEPOINT PRODUCTIONS, INC., THE MICHAEL RUSSELL. © | GROUP, LLC, MICHAEL RUSSELL, and STEPHEN LOCASCIO 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ae BC 453017 12 | CINEPOINT PRODUCTIONS, INC, = Cis No, 13. California Crporation, THE MICHAEL | RUSSELL GROUP, LLC, alimited liability | COMPLAINT FOR 14 | company, MICHAEL RUSSELL, an individual, |) and STEPHEN LOCASCIO, an ndividul, (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT IMPLIED- : | eact; _@) PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL; | |G) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE | Paints, WITH CONTRACT; if (8) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE 18 | v ‘THE HOLLYWOOD FOREIGN PRESS ASSOICIATION, a California Nonprofit Corporation, PHILIP BERK, an individual, 21 | and Does! though 200, inclusive, 2 Defendants u | I BRR \WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, (5) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE ‘WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE; (6) DEFAMATION PER SE; (7) FRAUD: (8) FAILURE To PAY WAGES IN VIOLATION OF L4#08 CODE g201; (9) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN ‘VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY: (10) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 ET SEQ. Plants Cinepoint Productions, Ine. (“Cinepoint”), The Michast Russell Group, LLC (CMRG"), Micnacl Russell Russell”) and Stephen Locassio (“Locaseio") (clletively ~Plaintifs") complain and allege as follows Allegations Common To All Causes Of Action 1. Plaintiff Cinepoint sa California comporation with its eurent prinsple place of ‘business in Manhattan Beach, California 2. Plaintiff MRG isu CalitoriaKimite ibility corporation with ts current principle placeof busines in Manhattan Beach, California. Cinepoint and MRG are affiliated companies. 3. Plain? Russell isan individual who a al ies pertinent herein has resided in Manhattan Beach, California, The acts alleged herein ocurred within the County of Los Angeles Sate of Calforsia, Russell is a publicist with Plants Cinepoint and MRG. 4. Plain Locascio isan individual who a al times pertinent herein has resided in Manhattan Beach, Califonia, The acts alleged herein occurred within the County of Los Angeles, Stateof California. Locaseio isa publicist with Plaintiffs MRG and inepoint 5. Plains are intorme and believe and thereon allege that Defendant The Hollywood Foreign Press Associaton HEPA"), isa California not for profit corporation with its cuentprinsiple place of business in West Hollywood, Califia, Defendant i the owner ‘ofthe Golden Globe Awards Show (Golden Globes 6. Plans are informe and btieve and theron allege that Defendant Philip Berk Berk") san individual who a all mes pertinent herein has resided in Los Angeles County in Lake Balboa, California, Berk isthe President of HEPA and is also a member ofthe Comp 7. Plinifs donot know the true names, identities, and capacies ofthe defendants named as Does | through 200, inclusive, Plaintiffs ar informed and believe and thereon allege at each defendant isthe agent, atorey, parte, law im associate, com ‘venturer, employee, employee, executor trustee, guardian ad litem, conservator, ailiat, subsidiary, or storey inlaw or: ind was omey in fat for each and every other defendant, acting within the course and scope of that relationship. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that each defendant gave consent to, ratified, and authorized the acts alleged herein to each of the remaining defendants, such that each defendant is Hable for the acts, omissions and breaches alleged herein, Plants will pray leave of this cour to amend the compa ‘allege the tue names, identities, and capacities ofthe Doe defendants when ascertained 8 Defendant TFPA isa nonprofit organization composed of approximately eighty ‘members, purportedly jouralists fom foreign nation, who write and report on Hollywood and the entertainment industry for thet various foreign media outlets. HEPA is work-renowned as the owner and host of the Golden Gilabes, which is currently one ofthe top three entertainment awards shows nthe world. Every year, the membership of HFPA nominates feature films and television shows in various categories, and hosts an awards show where i presets the winners ineach category which is presently televised on NBC and worldwide in most foreign counties 9. tn 1982, HEPA lost its network television contact forthe Golden Globes, which ‘was then with CBS, following a seandl involving alleged kickbacks to members in exchange for particular voting result ona best neweomer award 10, Commencing in about 1993, Russell started to work asa public relations employee forthe HEPA, aswell s for the Golden Globes, whic i produced by Dick Clark Productions, Ie. jolden Globes was sill without a nenwork DCP"), Atthat dime, the 10 u 2 6B 4 15 16 wv 18 1” a 2 B Py B 26 v 28 television contact and its credibility remained low. Si that time, over the past 17 years, Plains have worked diligently to repair HFPAs image and buildup the show's eed. Among othe things, Plants have encouraged and publicized the philanthropic efforts of HEPA. In 1995, the Golden Globes was finaly picked up again, this ime by NBC. Seven years later, Plaintiffs had made significant progress in repairing the credibility of the show, and HEPA was able to negotiate a ten-year network television deal with NBC. fr the 2002 through 2011 Golden Globes. Plants ae informed and believe and thereon allege that the network license fc is in excess of $12,000,000 per year. The contrat has now expired and HEPA, negotiated a new agreement, As a result of Paints diligence and hard work, dhe eeibility and ratings of e Golden Globes are at an all ime high, and HFPA obtained a significantly higher license ee wf $26,000,000 per year 11, Russell and Locascio were aware that many HEPA members abuse their positions and engage in unethical and potentially unlawful deals and arrangements whieh amount toa “payola” scheme, potentially violate California Penal Code section 641.3, could ‘threaten HEPA tax-exempt status, and which threaten the credibility ofthe Golden Globes by allowing its members to improperly profit from their association with HFPA and the Golden Globes. ‘These deals and arrangements include, but are not limited to: Accepting money/per diem, lavish vacations, unk lodging, gifts and ‘other perks, each yeur provided by studios and producers in exchange for support ‘or votes in nominating or awarding a particular films b. Selling media credentials for profit, inthe form of space on the red ‘carpet, to low-profile or unknown “media” entities, to cover the Golden Globes, and selling iekets and other membership privileges forthe show, HEPA members’ media outlets were always the first 0 be approved fora space on the red carpet, no matter how relatively insignificant those media outlets were in the context ofthe Golden Globes broadcast: and = Accepting payment from studios and producers for representing films and lobbying other HEPA n snes foe Golden Globe nominations and awards for these fli 12, Such policies and practices allow members to illegally profit from thee sociation in he nonprofit corporation and violate federal communication law prohibiting hidden “payols schemes, Most of HEPA's members are not full-time journalists, and rely on ‘income generate from these questionable practices each year. 13. Russell and Locascio consistently brought these unethical and potently illegal activites to Bak’s attention, wo convince Berk to end these practices by HEPA members HEPA constanly directed Russell and Locascio to “bury” stores in the press eganding HEPA's ‘unethical practices. Berk expressly acknowledged to Russel tha these activites were problematic and that HEPA was a comupt organization that its members ar only eu to use the ‘organization to rate income for themselves, and that many conflicts of interest exist with regard tothe shove-spcifed activities of HEPA and is members, 14, Intheir constant efforts to improve the standing and reputation of HEPA within the entertainment industry, Russell and Locascio als atempted to convince Berk to open up ‘membership inthe HEPA to journalists from more important and well-known mea entities and internationally known publications instead of Kiniting membership to individuals who were not legitimate journalists. Berk ese to do so, hesause he and the HEPA weee profiting from the exiting arangements 15, On or about February 1, 2007, Plaintiff MRG signed a writen agreement with HEPA to work as public relations person fr thre consecutive nine-month periods 10 a 2 8B 4 16 "7 18 9 0 a 2 mw oy 7 28 ‘commencing Fsbruary 1, 2007 to October 1, 2007, February’. 2008 to October 31,2008, and February 1, 2009 October 31,2009. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Eshibit“A" isa true and correct copy of the Public Relations Contact between MRG and HEPA (hereater refered to as “HEPA Agreement) 16. Onorabout November 7, 2008, Plinti Cinepoint signed written agreement with DCP (the“DCP Agreement”), EPA's partner in producing the Golden Globes, to provide promotional ard publicity work forthe 2008, 2010, and 2011 Golden Globes. That work was to be provided fram November I dough the subsequent January’ 31 for each respective awards show. Attached beret and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit “Bs true and correct copy ofthe DCP Agreement. The DCP Agreement contains a condition precedent ‘which provides in pertinent part as follows “This Agreement and any anda of dep's obligations hereunder ae expressly contingent upon the execution of a writen agreement between Group [CinepoiavMRG) and [HEPA] for the rendition of publicity services forthe HEPA during 008 and for subsequent years, a8 applicable tis understood and agred that in the event such written sgreement between [Cinepoint] andthe HEPA is fly executed but is subsequently terminate by HEPA, then this Agreement shal fkewise atom: ly terminate” 17, Over the years, Russell andl Locascio were repeatedly assured by the HFPA, and specifically Ber, that they were part ofthe HEPA fabric, and thatthe relationship would not bo terminated without good cause. Herk also promised Russell and Locascio on multiple cceasions thatthe HEPA Agreement, which expired in October 201, would be ronewed again (2s ithad boon for he prior 16 years), and hat a writen agreement would be signed after the ‘ n 2 8 4 15 16 v 18 19 20 a 2 B 4 6 26 z 28 2010 Golden Globes wrapped. Berk futher repesented that Russell and Locaseio would receive an increase in compensation based on HEPA now network agreement and license fee Based on these representations, Russel and Locasco continued to work far HEPA from November 2009 through February 2010, well aller the HEPA Agreement expired at the end of ‘October 2009, This work was relate tothe intemal functions of HEPA. and had very ile or nothing to do wth the 2010 Golden Globes 18. During the three-month period from November to January, Russell and Locascio ‘were compensited fr thee work by DCP out of the Golden Globes network licensing fee received fom NBC. During that same three-month period, Russell and Locascio also performed necessary work for HFPA which did not relate to the Golden Globes, 19. During Plaintiffs’ 17-year relationship with HFPA, Russell (and later Russell and Locascio) worked year-round at HEP A's direction to publicize the HFPA's activities. ‘These elforts included philanthropic initiatives, writing and distributing press releases, and publicizing LHEPA’s special events and screenings 20. While Russell and Locaseio were paid hy DCP during the three-month period from November to January, Russell and Locascio remained employees of HEPA during that time, because they continued to perform work necessary tothe daily operations ofthe HEPA. 21. Throughout their long relationship with HFPA, Russell and Lacascio were employees of HEPA, 22. Following the conclusion of the HEPA Agreement in October 2008, Plaintifis continued to work for HEPA from November 2009 through February 2010, based entirely upon Berk’s promise and assurance that the HEPA Agreement would be renewed forthe fll three year period, and thatthe new three-year contract would be signed after the 2010 Golden Gilobes wrapped 23. As part oftheir philanthropic efforts, forthe past four years, Russell and Locascio encouraged HEPA to form a relationship with Stars fora Cause (“Stars”), Stars isa '501(@)(3) non-profit which organizes charity campaigns with various sponsors during the Hollywood awards show season, hamessing celebrity “sae power" during the awands season to raise money fo: charitable organizations. George Braunstein and current Stars President Laura Braunstein co-founded Stars. Braunstein isa well-respected member of the film and television ‘community, having developed close tes with many’ in the industry’ through his work as a successful entertainment attorney, judge atthe International Court of Arbitration in Paris, France, film producer, and member ofthe Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, For the past four years, Stars in association with the Golden Globes and other awards shows has raised and donated over $300,000 for charity, ncluing such well-nown organization a Prince Charles The Prince's Trust, the American Red Cross and the United Nations World Food Programme. 24. In November 2009, DCP told Russel and Locasso that Chrysler was looking for ution charitable promotional opportunities in association with the Golden Globes. DCP asked Russell nd Locascio to contact Stars, with whom DCP was aware MRG also worked, and arrange a charitable eampaign for the Golden Globes, sponsored by Cheysler. Russell and Locascio brought S us on board to organize a campaign involving a charity auetion of Chrysler auiomobiles h were signed and sponsored by various celebrities 25. In December 2009, Chrysler agreed to donate six specially designed, eco Iiendly Chrysler 300 vehicles to be associated with top celebrities. Chrysler wanted a presence at the Golden Globes, ind paid DCP an advertising fee. Chrysler also provided a $100,000 sponsorship feo Stars to launeh the campaign. On or about January 11, 2010, invitation packages tothe first round of clebritcs to invite them to join the campaign and sponsor one ofthe vehicles 26. Then, when the H {Earthquake struck on January 13,2010, Chrysler agreed to donate a seventh vehicle specifically’ for Haitian relief. Chrysler consulted with Berk, and Berk and HEPA placed the car on the Red Carpet tthe Golden Globes, which was held on Fanuary 17,2010, Thecar was signed by celebrities, Stars and the other sponsors then organized a public tour br the Vehicle. This included a press conference in Washington D.C. withthe head of Chrysler and an appearance on the Oprah Winey Show 27. Berk suddenly became opposed to Stars" and Braunsten’s involvement with the Chrysler charity campaign, which MRG, Ressll and Locasio had been instrumental in arranging, Beak was upset as he wanted to reeive benefits directly from Cheysler, and Stars ‘vas only giving the proceeds fom the charity campaign to charity and not o Berk, For example, on January 27,2010, Berk reused to approve a press release which identi Stars and Braunsteinas sponsors ofthe Chrysler charity campaign, even though Stars had worked ‘with the HPPA and the Golden Globes, raising money for charity fromthe pas four years 28. Prior othe 2010 Golden Globes, Russell and Locascio continued to bing the above-describal serious problems conceming HEPA members" actions to Berks attention. Because Berk snd other HEPA members ben od rom the unethical and wnat economic tivities, Berk hada serous Financial stake in maintaining the status quo, However, Russel and Locascio were eancemed that HEPA would continue to sue serious publi ations problems, and also potential esminal lability, if Berk and HEPA did not work to retfy these problems 29. Berk refused to make the changes to HFPA that Rosell and Locasco had continuously recommended, Instead, Berk and HFPA Board member rances Shoenberget a 0 2 8 1“ 15 6 7 18 0 20 a 4 25 26 u embarked on adefamatory emi and phone campaign which targeted Russell, Locasco, Braunstein, and Stars. Berk did so in large part cause he wanted o terminate Russell's and Locasio’s longstanding nd in‘Tucnil relationship with HEPA and take fll ert for the Chrysler charity campaign. ‘This desire is evidenced bya phone cll fom Berk to NBC ‘marketing in New York, demanding that Berk be paid a commission for eoferting Chrysler 10 NC (who had paid DCP a $2,000,000 advertising fee for the promotion with Chrysler as part ‘ofthe Golden Globes aftershow), and that Chrysler provide him witha car and driver for the rmonth of January 2010, These requests were denied. 30. Berk and HIFPA Board member Frances Shoenbergs crtied out their defamatory phone and emi campaign by contacting representatives of Chrysler, NBC, DCP, Enverainment Tonight Stars" media partner) and Access Hollywood. Berk and Shoenbergee ‘made false claims about Stars, and claimed that Stars had been sued by the Cunard Line. This swasa fle statement, as Sars was not sued by the Conard Line, and had an excellent relationship with them. Berk and Shoenberger also told the head of Chrysler and other executives that if Chrysler continued to work with Stars, then Berk would ensure that Chrysler didnot work withthe HEPA. Berk also personaly attacked Braunstein’ reputation and character with alse statements 51. Berks conduct has caused grcat harm tothe professional reputations of Russel and Locasio 32. On February 19, 2010, HPPA’s legal counsel faxed Plains a letter stating, “without explanation, that HFPA's Board had decided not to renew its contract with MRG. A true and correct copy of the February [9, 2010 leer ftom HFPA’s legal counsel to Michael Russel is attached hereto as Exhibit “C." Berk had told Plant that the HEPA. Agreement ‘would be renewed, and Plaintiffs were not given any prior indication from the Board tha the 0 u 2 13 “4 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 B 26 27 28 agreement would not be renewed, Plaintiffs flly expected to continue ther ongoing 17-year employment relationship with HEPA so long as there was not any good eause fr their temination 33. On February 24, 2010, Pais were advised by DCP that, pursuant wo the foregoing constion precedent in the DCP Agreement with Cinepoint, the DCP Agrocment had automatically terminated upon the termination ofthe HEPA Agreement, and no longer had any force oreffet, true and corect copy of the February 24, 2010 letter from Michael Kohn, sg. to Cinepoint Panletion, In. is attached hereto as Exhibit “D> FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract Implied-In-Fact, By MRG, Russell and Locascio, Against HEPA) 34, Plait re-allege and incorporate by reference al fats set forth above. 35, HPA had an ongoing, 17-year relationship with Plaintiffs. That reli ship ‘encompassed work that Plaintiffs did for HPA in connection withthe Golden Gilobes, and in ‘conneetion withthe day to day operations of HFPA. Even though Plains were paid by DCP ‘during the bre, dhece-month period immediately preceding the Golden Globes, the work they id during thattme benefited the HEPA, and was pu by DCP only because DCP was HEPA‘ parte in producing the Golden Globes. 36, Alle the conclusion ofthe HEPA Agreement in October 2009, HEPA and Berk sssured Plant thatthe Agreement would once again he renewed. 37, Inrelianee on those assurances, Russell and Locascio continued to do the same type of work fer HEPA that they had done throughout thei long-term relationship with HEPA. Russell and Locascio also provided consideration by agreing not to work for any movie studios. 1" 2 B 4 15 16 v 8 » 2 an n B u 7 28 38. APA's promises and Plaintiffs" performance created a contrat implied in fat 39, Without good cause, the HEPA breached its contract with Plaintiffs, refusing to renew the contrat, and terminating its ongoing busi ess relationship with Plaintiff, 40. HEPA’s decision to breach its implied contract caused Plaintiffs damage, in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $2,000,000, SECOND Cat OF ACTION (Promissory Estoppeh By MRG, Russell and Locasci, Against HEPA) 441, Plaintis e-allege and incorporate by relerence ll facts et fot above 42. HEPA, through Berk, repeatedly promised and assured Plaintiffs thatthe HEPA Agrooment would be renewed afer the 2010 Golden Globes. 43, Ineliance on those promises and assurances, Russel and Locascio continued to ‘work for HEPA from November 2009 through February 2010, and also age not to work for any studios 4 its promise and filing to renew the HEPA Agreement, HEPA caused Plantfis substantial detriment, inthe form of lst income and profits 45, Plaimiffs have suffered damages in an amount tobe determined at ial, but not less than $2,000,000, HIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Interference with Contract, By Cinepoint Against All Defendants) 46, Platts resallege and incomporate by reference all ets set forth above. 47. Cinepoint had a valid and binding contract with DCP to do promotional and publ 48. The DCP Agreement contained a condition pre pursuant to whieh the DCP Agreement was contingent upon the existence ofa writen agreement between Cincpoin’MRG and HEPA, 49, Defendants were aware of the DCP Agreement and its eatin precedent. 50. Defendants’ decision not to renew MRG's contract with HFPA was intended 0 isrupt Cinepo.nt’s contract with DC and did infact cause DCP to terminate its conteact with Cinepoint. S51. Defendants’ actions caused Cinepoit to sue lost income and profits in an amount to be determined at wal but not fess than $2,000,000, FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage By MRG, Russell, and Locascio, Against Berk 52. Plains allege and incorporate by reference al facts set forth above 53, An ongoing economic lationship existed between MRG. Russell and Locascio, ‘and HEPA. Bese on the 17-year history of consistent employment between Plaintiffs and the HEPA, there was sing probability of future economie benefit to MRG, Rassll and Locasio 4, Berk knew about the ongoing 17-year economic relationship between MRG, Russell and Lecascio, and HEPA. 55, Berk’s defamatory email and phone campaign directed to DCP. NBC, Chrysler, Entertainment Tonight, and Access Hollywood were intended to disrupt HEPAs ongoing 17- yearrelatonshp with MG, Russell and Locassio, 56, Berks delamatory email and phone eampaign against Plants di in fact

    Potrebbero piacerti anche