Alana H. Rotter

Foxcroft Productions, Inc. v. Universal City Studios, LLC (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1119

On behalf of Columbo creators, GMSR persuaded the Court of Appeal to reinstate a fraud claim and keep alive a breach of contract claim involving Universal Studios’ failure to pay tens of millions in royalties

The creators of the 1970s hit television series Columbo were contractually entitled to a share of the show’s net profits—but the studio failed to pay them anything for decades, representing that the show had no net profits.  Eventually, the studio sent an accounting statement revealing that it had kept $160 million in “distribution fees” for itself.  The creators sued the studio for fraud and breach of contract.

The trial court ruled that the fraud claim was time-barred, but let the contract claim to go to trial.  The jury found in the creators’ favor and awarded them $70 million.  The trial court then granted the studio’s motion for a new trial, finding that it had erred in allowing the jury to interpret a key term in the parties’ contract—the definition of “photoplays”—and that the verdict may have improperly rested on a contract misinterpretation.  The court denied the studio’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).

Both sides appealed.  Representing the creators, GMSR argued among other things that the trial court erred in dismissing the fraud claim and that the studio’s JNOV argument lacked merit.  The Court of Appeal agreed:  It affirmed the denial of JNOV, and ordered that the new trial include the creators’ erroneously-dismissed fraud claim.  This appellate victory ensures that the creators will have another opportunity to vindicate their royalty rights at trial.

Read Full Case Details

Ferra v. Gilmore (Aug. 20, 2021, B303592) 2021 WL 3700420 [nonpublished opinion]

The Court of Appeal reinstated GMSR’s client’s claims seeking return of $1.6 million

The Court of Appeal held that GMSR’s client had a concrete and actual interest in recovering $1.6 million that she did not believe she owed.  She did not lose standing simply because she sold the property.  It further held that GMSR’s client stated claims for conversion, Penal Code section 496 extortion, and Civil Code section 1712 unlawful exaction, and revived those claims for further proceedings.

Read Full Case Details

Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 307

Court of Appeal ordered confirmation of an arbitration award for GMSR’s client, finding the respondent missed a jurisdictional deadline to seek to vacate it

Litigation funder Law Finance Group turned to GMSR after the trial court vacated an arbitration award enforcing LFG’s loan agreement with a borrower.  On appeal, GMSR argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the award because the borrower failed to seek vacatur within 100 days of service of the arbitration award, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1288.2.  The Court of Appeal agreed.  In a published opinion, it held that section 1288.2 imposes a jurisdictional deadline for seeking vacatur in response to a petition to confirm, and rejected the borrower’s waiver and estoppel arguments.  Based on that holding, the Court of Appeal reversed the order vacating the arbitration award, and directed that the award be confirmed.

Read Full Case Details

Quincy Jones v. MJJ Productions, Inc. (May 5, 2020, B285986) 2020 WL 2140759 [nonpublished opinion]

The Court of Appeal reversed adverse jury verdict in dispute between Quincy Jones and MJJ Productions, reducing the judgment by $6.8 million

Quincy Jones sued MJJ Productions, claiming it owed him money related to three Michael Jackson albums he produced in the 1970s and 1980s.  A jury awarded Jones $9.4 million.  As co-counsel for MJJ on appeal, GMSR challenged $6.8 million of the award, arguing they were unsupported by Jones’s producer agreements. The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that, as a matter of law, the contracts were not susceptible to Jones’s interpretation.  The Court of Appeal also rejected Jones’ cross-appeal, holding that the trial court properly denied leave to add a financial elder abuse claim and that Jones was not entitled to prejudgment interest.

Read Full Case Details

Estate of Jackson (May 16, 2019, B282375) 2019 WL 2136114 [nonpublished opinion]

The Court of Appeal rejected the claim that Michael Jackson gave away 15% of his business at a middle-of-the-night meeting

Four people claimed that Michael Jackson promised them 15% of The Michael Jackson Company in a middle-of-the-night meeting in 2006.  After a long bench trial, the probate court rejected those claims on multiple grounds and confirmed that Jackson wholly owned the company.   The Court of Appeal affirmed.  Agreeing with GMSR’s arguments on behalf of the Jackson estate, the court held that the claimants forfeited their factual arguments by failing to accurately describe the evidence in their opening brief; that the claimants forfeited all arguments raised for the first time in their reply brief; and that the probate court correctly found that Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2’s statute of limitations for claims against a decedent barred the ownership claims.

Read Full Case Details

Pacific Western Bank v. Far Out Productions, Inc. v. Audio Visual Entertainment, Inc. (Dec. 31, 2018, B278076, B278122) 2018 WL 6839451 [nonpublished opinion]

The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment entitling bank to collect on defaulted loans

GMSR’s client, a bank, sued borrowers and a guarantor to collect on long-outstanding loans. The borrowers and guarantor attempted to avoid liability by challenging the admissibility of the bank’s evidence of the loans, chain of title, and outstanding balance.  The trial court granted summary judgment for the bank, and awarded it attorney’s fees.  The Court of Appeal affirmed in full.  Adopting GMSR’s arguments, it held that the borrowers and guarantor had forfeited their evidentiary objections by failing to adequately brief them on appeal, that in any event the trial court was well within its discretion in overruling the objections, and that the bank had proved its case.

Read Full Case Details

Wind Dancer Production Group v. Walt Disney Pictures (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 56

The Court of Appeal revived profit participation claims by television show creators and producers

GMSR’s clients, the creators and producers of the hit television show Home Improvement, sued Disney for underpaying their profit participation.  Disney obtained summary judgment on the basis of an “incontestability clause” in its contract with plaintiffs that, Disney claimed and the trial court found, absolutely barred claims filed more than two years after Disney sent a profit participation statement.  This, despite the plaintiffs’ factual showing that it was impossible for them to determine whether they had a claim under a particular participation statement without conducting an audit—and that Disney routinely delayed audits for many months or even years, so that it was impossible for plaintiffs to discover a claim within the two-year incontestability period.

The Court of Appeal reversed.  It found triable fact issues as to whether Disney had agreed to toll the two-year incontestability period and as to whether, because of its consistent delays of plaintiffs’ audits, Disney waived or was estopped to assert the two-year period.

Read Full Case Details

Breeden v. Superior Court (Oct. 10, 2014, E061553) 2014 WL 5090571 [nonpublished opinion]

Reversed erroneous denials of summary judgment

Summary judgment is a double win for defendants:  Not only does it dispose of the case, it also saves the time and expense of a trial.  Alana has successfully petitioned the Court of Appeal to reverse erroneous denials of summary judgment and to order the entry of judgment in her clients’ favor—in Breeden, based on the occupational assumption of risk doctrine, and in Coffee House, based on a lack of evidence on causation.

Read Full Case Details

Celador Internat., Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. (9th Cir. 2012) 499 Fed.Appx. 721

Protected $269 million damages award

Obtained affirmance of $269 million damages award for the creators of the hit television show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, successfully arguing that the creator was contractually entitled to 50% of net profits and that substantial evidence supported the award.

Read Full Case Details