Alana H. Rotter

Branca v. El-Amin (Cal.Ct.App., May 16, 2019, No. B282375) 2019 WL 2136114

Court of Appeal rejects claim that Michael Jackson gave away 10% of his business at a middle-of-the-night meeting

Four people claimed that Michael Jackson promised them 10% 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. Audio-Visual Entertainment, Inc. et al., No. B278122, and Pacific Western Bank v. Far Out Productions Inc., et al., No. B278076

Court of Appeal affirms 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

Court of Appeal revives 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, 2014 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 7216

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