Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
FILED
1\\\~v\~v- ~ZoY) /)~?
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
1
APR 30 2019
2 \D·~ ~ Sherri R. Cart.QF,j:~fficer/Cierk of Court
3 ~"V\. ~r~E' i \(}') (PI Cf-110 0 By · ~.... - Deputy
Wynette Parker
4 (ttl6J ·Yd-\- 7I(/
5
10
) Case No.: \qSMC)JG07)-.$'
)
11 Plaintiff, ~ Title: Le\,'¥v ~ "2J\)~~
12 vs. )
)
13 )
)
14 ) Date:
Defendant,
) Time:
15 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ) Dept.:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1:) 1
i})
'•,
i:)
·-'
.... J.
IJ)
OR\G
A L T S H ULE R BE R ZON LLP
Re: Writers Guild ofAmerica, West, Inc. et al. v. WME Entertainment, et a/. , Case
No. 19SMCV00725
Your Honor:
We write as counsel for the plaintiffs in the above-captioned action to bring to your
attention certain information that may be relevant in determining whether recusal is warranted
pursuant to C.C.P. §170.3.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are eight television writers and two unions that represent
television and film writers in collective bargaining. The defendants are four talent agencies that
have represented the individual plaintiffs and other members of the unions in procuring
employment and negotiating wages above the minimums established by the unions' collective
bargaining-agreement. The plaintiffs challenge the defendant agencies' practice of receiving
substantial "packaging fees" from the production companies that employ their clients. The
plaintiffs contend that the payment of these fees creates a conflict of interest between the
agencies and their writer clients in violation of the agencies' fiduciary duty to their clients, and
that the payment of such fees is an unfair business practice prohibited by California Business and
Professions Code § 17200 because accepting such payments violates the agencies ' fiduciary
obligations to their clients; because this practice deprives writers ofloyal, conflict-free
representation, diverts compensation away from the writers and other creative talent that are
responsible for creating valuable television and film properties, and tmdermines the market for
writers' creative endeavors; and because the agencies' receipt of such payments is prohibited by
§3 02 of the federal Labor-Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. §186.
Plaintiffs wish to inform the Court of two facts that may be relevant in considering
I I
IJl
1)
....
Q~
1() ...... -:. __•1
whether recusal is warranted here.
First, defendant WME Entertainment was formed in 2009 through the merger ofthe
William Morris Agency/WMA and Endeavor Talent Agency. Plaintiffs' understanding is that
the Court's spouse was formerly employed by Endeavor Talent Agency.
Second, one of the three independent and alternative bases for the plaintiffs' § 17200
claim is that the payment of packaging fees violates §302 ofthe LMRA. Section 302(a) makes it
a crime for an employer to make payments to any representative of any of his employees, whjle
Section 302(b) makes it a crime for any person to receive a payment prohibited by Section
302(a).
Although the plaintiffs' theory in this case is that the defendant agencies received
payments in violation of Section 302(b), a finding in plaintiffs' favor on that issue would
necessarily suggest that the production companies that paid those fees had violated Section
302(a). We bring this to the Court's attention because plaintiffs ' understanding is that, since
leaving Endeavor Talent Agency, the Court' s spouse has been employed by at least two different
production companies, Turner Network Television/TNT and GK-tv. If those companies paid
packaging fees to employee representatives, the payments would arguably constitute a violation
of Section 302 under plaintiffs' theory.
Thank you for considering this information. If this Court concludes that recusal is
warranted, it would be helpful for the Court to make that decision on or before Thursday, May 2,
2019. See C.C.P. § 170.6(a)(2) (providing parties with 15 days from notice of assignment to
challenge assignment).
Sincerely,
P. Casey Pitts
Counsel for Plaintiffs
I I
1'1
-'
t.() 2
..
PROOF OF SERVICE
Writers Guild ofAmerica, West, Inc., eta/. v. WME Entertainment, eta/.,
Los Angeles Sup. Ct. Case No. 19SMCV00725
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 510 South Marengo
A venue, Pasadena, California 91101.
Courtney Braun, Head of Legal Affairs Attorney for Defendant WME Entertainment
Endeavor
9601 Wilshire Blvd., 5th Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
E-mail: cbraun@endeavorco.com
Andrew Thau, General Counsel Attorney for Defendant United Talent Agency
United Talent Agency
9336 Civic Center Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 9021 0
E-mail: andrewthau@yahoo.com
··~·!·
l[l
3
-.
(By Mail)
I placed a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as listed above. T
am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing
correspondence for mailing. Under that practice I place all envelopes to be mailed in a
location in my office specifically designated for mail. The mail then would be
deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully
prepaid at Pasadena, California in the ordinary comse of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or
postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing affidavit.
* On April30, 2019, I sent a cowtesy copy by e-mail to the e-mail adch·esses listed above
from my e-mail address, vcohen@rsglabor.com.
(State Court)
I declare under penalty of perjwy under the Jaws of the State of California that the above
is true and conect. Executed on April30, 2019.
lj
l"'j
I
_.I
4
I~ I