California Business Litigation Blog

What does the writers strike, the success or failure of the movie “State of Play” and contract law all have in common? They will all factor in to Universal’s decision about suing Brad Pitt in the future.

Pitt pulled out of the movie last month. It is believed that Pitt was unhappy with script rewrites and due to the writers strike and shooting schedule, further changes could not be made.

Universal issued this statement: "Brad Pitt has left the Universal Pictures production of State of Play. We remain committed to this project and to the filmmakers, cast members, crew and others who are also involved in making the movie. We reserve all rights in this matter."

There are an almost infinite number of factors involved in assessing any breach of contract lawsuit.

A few of the common ones in business contracts include: Which party drafted the contract? Are the terms clear and concise or subject to interpretation? Was there a “meeting of the minds”? Was there an exchange of value? Was there full disclosure or possible fraud?

Not being a mind reader (and not having seen the contract), I won’t try to predict whether Universal will file suit. But the last sentence in their statement “We reserve all rights in this matter." literally shouts that they are giving it serious consideration.

And the latest news? Russell Crowe has stepped in to take the lead in “State of Play”.

Continue reading "Will Brad Pitt be Sued by Universal?" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation , Contract Litigation

Bookmark:

The Walt Disney Co., the world's largest theme-park operator, has been sued by three people who allege that the company's ban on Segway personal transporters at its theme parks is in violation of federal disability laws.

No one seems to be claiming that they were denied access to Walt Disney World or any other Disney Theme Park. The allegations seem to be that they (disabled guests who can stand but not walk long distances) could not use their Segways.

While not commenting on the lawsuit, Disney Spokesperson Jacquee Polak stated "Our primary concern is the safety of all our guests and our cast members. We have a long history of being a leader in creating accessible experiences for our guests with disabilities."

Depending on model and equipment, most Segways weigh between 110 and 120 pounds. Add the weight of a small rider at 140 pounds and you have a total weight of 250 pounds and above.

Imagine the injuries to Disney guests if a Segway traveling at a speed 10 to 12 mph accidently hit one or more guests.

Disney welcomes the use of manual and electric wheelchairs and 4 wheel power chairs by disabled guests. Disney even has them available for rental.

With the utmost respect for all people with disabilities, I agree with Disney on this issue. The safety of Disney guests is more important than the wishes of a few who want to see Disneyland on a Segway. Wheelchairs and powerchairs are far more safe in crowded venues.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation , Employment Law , Real Estate

Bookmark:

AT&T Mobility (formerly Cingular) will no longer charge their customers for any calls made after their phones are lost or stolen. In the complaint, Attorney General Jerry Brown alleged that the company violated California law, including Public Utilities Code section 2890, which bars phone companies from charging customers for unauthorized services.

“No cell phone company should profit from calls made by thieves or unauthorized users,” Brown said.

The agreement, a stipulated judgment, requires AT&T Mobility to inform each of their customers of their legal rights regarding lost or stolen phones. Under the agreement, AT&T must either credit the disputed charges or inform customers of their legal rights.

AT&T must notify customers--in writing--of these new requirements and assist customers to obtain credit for amounts already paid on lost or stolen phones, back to year 2003. AT&T will also pay the Attorney General's Office $500,000 for costs of the investigation and for the Unfair Competition Law Fund, administered by the California District Attorneys Association.

“This groundbreaking settlement makes AT&T the first cell phone company that has agreed to protect its customers from cell phone rip-offs and other unauthorized uses,” Brown said. “It is now time for the rest of the cell phone industry to step forward and follow AT&T’s example,” Brown added.

What will happen if the rest of the cell phone industry doesn’t follow AT&T's "example"? Well, the California Attorney General has never been known for his “wait & see” attitude.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation

Bookmark:

If you have ever wondered why so many employees at your bank carry the title of Vice President, the decision in Ramanathan v. Bank of America could shed some light. The California Court of Appeals reversed a trial court decision, which will allow Padmanabhan Ramanathan to move forward with his wrongful termination suit against Bank of America.

The banks position was that the National Banking Act Sec. 24(Fifth) of the bank act bestows the power “[t]o elect or appoint directors, and by its board of directors to appoint a president, vice president, cashier, and other officers, define their duties, require bonds of them and fix the penalty thereof, dismiss such officers or any of them at pleasure, and appoint others to fill their places.”

The most entertaining part of the decision was found in the footnotes…… At oral argument, the Bank’s counsel argued that if the Bank chose to designate all of its employees, “including janitors, maintenance workers, everyone” as “vice presidents,” then they too would all be covered by the provisions of the NBA. The judge labeled this a “startling assertion”.

In spite of such a sound “legal” argument, Superior Court Judge Jeffrey W. Horner, writing on assignment for the Court of Appeal gave more weight to Ramanathan’s declaration that he had no employees working under his supervision, had no control over anyone else’s employment, was primarily involved in the design and development of software applications, and had nothing to do with banking operations or customer service.

Continue reading "Court of Appeals to Bank of America: When is a Vice President not a Vice President?" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation , Employment Law

Bookmark: