Blog« back to blog homeSubscribe to RSS feed
Devin McRae Quoted in Los Angeles Times on Disney, Redbox Lawsuit
Category: News | Tuesday, January 23rd, 2018 | Comments Off on Devin McRae Quoted in Los Angeles Times on Disney, Redbox Lawsuit
Devin McRae was recently quoted in Ryan Faughnder’s Los Angeles Times article “Redbox’s copyright fight with Disney over digital movie sales escalates long-running feud,” which discusses Disney’s claim that the movie rental company has been selling digital versions of its films without permission. According to Devin, the case is major in that it’s testing the boundaries for copyright law as technology in the entertainment industry develops.
“What’s at the heart of this case is another emerging technology,” said Devin. “The case does really come down to, what is the code? Should it be considered a copy of the work, or should it be considered a means to reproduce a copy?”
To read the full article with Devin’s comments, click here.
Devin McRae Quoted in IndieWire on Weinstein-Moore Dispute
Category: News | Friday, December 1st, 2017 | Comments Off on Devin McRae Quoted in IndieWire on Weinstein-Moore Dispute
Devin McRae was recently asked by IndieWire to comment on the dispute between the Weinstein brothers and filmmaker Michael Moore over the release of his sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11. According to Devin, Moore could potentially keep the $2 million that the brothers are attempting to recoup by arguing a “breach of contract” case against Harvey Weinstein, due to the countless sexual assault allegations made against the disgraced movie mogul.
To read the full article and the rest of Devin’s comments, click here.
Kevin Spacey And Harvey Weinstein Employment Agreements Say A Lot About Hollywood – Forbes
Category: Publications | Wednesday, November 15th, 2017 | Comments Off on Kevin Spacey And Harvey Weinstein Employment Agreements Say A Lot About Hollywood – Forbes
Bryan Sullivan’s article “Kevin Spacey And Harvey Weinstein Employment Agreements Say A Lot About Hollywood” was published in Forbes on November 15, 2017. In the article, Bryan discusses how entertainment entities often draft purposefully broad contracts in order to benefit the company in the event that an individual engages in immoral conduct.
To read the full article, click here.
Devin McRae Quoted in The Hollywood Reporter, IndieWire and The Wrap on Harvey Weinstein Scandal
Category: News, Press | Thursday, November 9th, 2017 | Comments Off on Devin McRae Quoted in The Hollywood Reporter, IndieWire and The Wrap on Harvey Weinstein Scandal
Devin McRae was quoted in The Hollywood Reporter, IndieWire and The Wrap regarding Harvey Weinstein’s potential lawsuit against the New York Times, his employment contract with The Weinstein Company, and the use of Hollywood NDAs in cases of felony sex crime allegations.
Devin told The Hollywood Reporter “If he brings a defamation claim, he’s going to have to identify the specific facts reported in the article that are not true,”and “Everyone is going to assume that everything he doesn’t take issue with was, in fact, true.”
Devin told IndieWire “The provision demonstrates that the company was well aware of his propensities,” “And so much so that it came into the negotiation of the contract, in which it was, ‘You could keep your job if you keep doing this.’”
Devin told The Wrap “Attorneys have to tread carefully in these confidentiality provisions, because if they don’t, they could open themselves up to professional discipline and in some cases criminal prosecution.”
The Hollywood Reporter article can be found here.
IndieWire article can be found here.
The Wrap article can be found here.
Early Sullivan Named A “Best Law Firm” By U.S. News & World Report
Category: Awards, News | Monday, November 6th, 2017 | Comments Off on Early Sullivan Named A “Best Law Firm” By U.S. News & World Report
Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae has been named a “Best Law Firm” by the prestigious ranking guide U.S. News & World Report. The firm received national and regional rankings in the practice areas of “Litigation – Intellectual Property” and “Real Estate” (regional).
The U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process.
Ninth Circuit Rejects En Banc Review Bid in Risinger v. SOC
Category: News, Press, Results | Wednesday, October 18th, 2017 | Comments Off on Ninth Circuit Rejects En Banc Review Bid in Risinger v. SOC
9th Circ. Won’t Rethink Class Cert. For Private Iraq Guards
By Vin Gurrieri
Law360, New York (October 17, 2017, 9:15 PM EDT)
The full Ninth Circuit on Tuesday let stand its decision that thousands of armed guards at U.S. military bases in Iraq can collectively pursue claims that the private security contractor they worked for forced them to work far in excess of the hourly limits imposed by the federal government.
A three judge panel issued a one page order rejecting a bid by SOC LLC and its parent company Day & Zimmermann Inc. for an en banc review of a September decision that upheld a ruling by U.S. District Judge Miranda M. Du to certify a class of armed guards represented by plaintiff Karl Risinger.
Judge Du had held that the guards could collectively pursue claims that SOC uniformly misrepresented the amount of time they were required to work at no more than six days per week and up to 12 hours per day — a ruling the Ninth Circuit affirmed in its September decision.
But in a Sept. 15 petition for en banc review, SOC said the Ninth Circuit essentially used an approach to class certification that existed before the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Dukes decision in 2011 that decertified 1.5 million female Walmart employees. The decision was widely perceived as raising the bar for plaintiffs bringing classwide discrimination claims.
Plaintiffs’ counsel Scott E. Gizer of Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP told Law360 Tuesday that “we are pleased the Ninth Circuit correctly and unanimously denied SOC’s petition, moving us one step closer to justice for these brave plaintiffs.”
Representatives for SOC were not immediately available for comment Tuesday.
The dispute stems from a $485 million contract awarded to SOC in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Defense. Under the terms of that deal, SOC had to staff 16 military bases in Iraq and had to limit guards at 72 hours per week, according to court filings by the plaintiffs. Those parameters were communicated to potential employees by SOC recruiters, who used call scripts, and outlined in the workers’ employment contracts, according to court documents.
Risinger, a U.S. Army veteran who worked for SOC in Iraq for a period, alleged in a 2012 lawsuit that the company intentionally understaffed bases and that those manpower shortages meant that guards at the 16 bases in Iraq were forced in practical terms to work seven days a week for more than 14 hours per day, with some going months before having a day off.
The lawsuit, which sought to represent all individuals employed as armed guards by SOC in Iraq from 2006 through 2012, included allegations of promissory fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract related to the company’s alleged misrepresentation of guards’ anticipated work schedule before they went to Iraq and breach of its employment contract after they arrived. The class could potentially include in excess of 4,000 people, according to court filings.
In appealing the class certification ruling, SOC had challenged Judge Du’s conclusion that the guards met the predominance prong for certification, which requires that questions of law or fact that are common to class members predominate over any questions that affect only individual class members.
But the Ninth Circuit in its September ruling said that Judge Du had “permissibly found” that SOC recruiters made nearly identical representations concerning guards’ anticipated work schedule in scripts used by recruiters.
Additionally, SOC employees and several recruits described a similar understanding of the work schedule limits, according to the Ninth Circuit ruling.
“Because the district court’s finding renders the misrepresentation element of Risinger’s fraud claims amenable to classwide proof, the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that common issues would predominate,” the panel said, adding that the lower court also correctly decided that a common question of contract interpretation predominates for Risinger’s breach of contract claim.
Day & Zimmermann is also named as a defendant.
Circuit Judges Susan P. Graber and Mary H. Murguia as well as U.S. District Judge Edward Davila sat on the panel for the Ninth Circuit.
Risinger is represented by Scott E. Gizer and Devin A. McRae of Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP.
SOC is represented by Theodore J. Boutrous, Theane Evangelis and Bradley J. Hamburger of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and Kimberly J. Gost, Matthew J. Hank and Rick D. Roskelley of Littler Mendelson PC.
The case is Karl Risinger v. SOC LLC, case number 1615120 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
–Editing by Kelly Duncan.
California Court of Appeal Affirms Summary Judgment Victory Obtained by Eric Early and William Wright on Behalf of First American Title Insurance Company
Category: News, Press | Tuesday, October 17th, 2017 | Comments Off on California Court of Appeal Affirms Summary Judgment Victory Obtained by Eric Early and William Wright on Behalf of First American Title Insurance Company
In 1500 Viewsite Terrace, LLC v. Pickford Escrow, Inc., et al., the California Court of Appeal has affirmed the summary judgment victory obtained by Early Sullivan for its client First American Title Insurance Company.
In the Viewsite action, the plaintiff/appellant had sued First American for breach of title policy and bad faith relating to multimillion-dollar residential property in the Hollywood Hills. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Viewsite involves issues that are important to the title insurance industry, including regarding the interpretation of certain key title insurance policy forms, provisions and exceptions.
The decision is the first in California interpreting a binder of title insurance. And, the decision confirms that a policy of title insurance issued pursuant to such a binder does not provide more coverage than that offered in the binder. The decision is also important insofar as there is relatively little California case law interpreting exceptions to coverage in title insurance policies, particularly since the California Legislature made certain amendments to the Insurance Code in 1981 which eliminated any duty of disclosure on the part of title insurers and confirmed that preliminary reports are not representations of the condition of title.
In the decision, the Court found that an exception for a recorded lis pendens, and a separate exception for a recorded judgment, were neither vague nor ambiguous. The decision is the first in California to interpret the legal effect of an exception for a lis pendens and an exception for a recorded judgment in a title insurance policy. The decision also interprets Condition 3 of the CLTA standard coverage policy of title insurance. The CLTA standard coverage policy of title insurance is one of the commonly used form policies of title insurance in California, and identical or nearly identical provisions to Condition 3 are found in many other form policies of title insurance policies issued in this state and around the country. Despite the ubiquitous nature of this policy provision, there is a dearth of case law interpreting Condition 3 (which obligates the insured to provide prompt notice of any potential claim and that, if prompt notice is not given and such lack of prompt notice prejudices the insurer, that all liability of the insurer shall terminate).
The decision confirms that this form policy language means what it says. The decision also found that the title policy in question was not illusory. This is the first California opinion addressing the doctrine of illusory contracts in the specific context of a title insurance policy.
Click on Download PDF to see the judgment.
Bryan Sullivan Speaks at Vancouver International Film Festival Industry Exchange
Category: Events, News | Monday, October 16th, 2017 | Comments Off on Bryan Sullivan Speaks at Vancouver International Film Festival Industry Exchange
Bryan Sullivan spoke at the Vancouver International Film Festival (VIFF) Industry Exchange on October 5, 2017. The presentation, entitled “Demand Your Independence,” covered the ins and outs of funding independent film and TV projects. Bryan brought his expertise as a legal strategist and an expert negotiator to help filmmakers successfully navigate the ever-changing environment of independent filmmaking.
The VIFF Industry Exchange is the perfect opportunity for executives and content creators to learn about the latest trends and developments in digital entertainment and join industry leaders as they discuss the global environment and the opportunities it presents.
Eight Early Sullivan Attorneys Named Best Lawyers in America
Category: Awards | Friday, September 1st, 2017 | Comments Off on Eight Early Sullivan Attorneys Named Best Lawyers in America
Early Sullivan attorneys Eric Early, Bryan Sullivan, Scott Gizer, Devin McRae, Stephen Ma, Christopher Ritter, Sophia Lau and Mary Kaufman have been recognized among the top lawyers in the nation in the 2018 edition of The Best Lawyers in America, one of the oldest and most distinguished guides to the legal profession.
The following attorneys earned a spot in the 2018 edition for their work in the following practice areas:
Eric Early: Commercial Litigation; Real Estate Litigation; Entertainment Law – Motion Pictures and Television; Entertainment Law – Music
Bryan Sullivan: Commercial Transactions/UCC Law; Entertainment Law
Scott Gizer: Commercial Litigation
Devin McRae: Litigation – Intellectual Property
Stephen Ma: Entertainment Law – Music
Christopher Ritter: Litigation – Intellectual Property; Entertainment Law – Motion Pictures and Television
Sophia Lau: Commercial Litigation; Litigation – Intellectual Property; Entertainment Law – Music
Mary Kaufman: Litigation – Intellectual Property
“Best Lawyers” is one of the oldest and most respected guides to the legal industry. The selection process is based on a comprehensive peer-review process designed to capture the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within common legal practices and geographical areas. Corporate Counsel magazine has called “The Best Lawyers in America” “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.”
Scott Gizer and Mary Kaufman Obtain Summary Judgment on Behalf of Sun West
Category: News, Results | Tuesday, August 15th, 2017 | Comments Off on Scott Gizer and Mary Kaufman Obtain Summary Judgment on Behalf of Sun West
Scott Gizer and Mary Kaufman obtained summary judgment on behalf of client Sun West Mortgage Company in Causey v. Sun West Mortgage Company Inc. The MSJ victory came on Willie J. Causey Jr.’s complaint for declaratory relief and violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). Sun West denied claims that the company had violated TILA, moving for summary judgment on the grounds that any purported failure to disclose was either not required by law or fell within the safe harbor tolerances of TILA, and that because no TILA violation occurred, Causey’s rescission demands were properly rejected. The Court agreed with Sun West and granted Sun West’s motion in its entirety. The ruling was significant in that the Court clarified that the safe harbor provisions of TILA and Regulation Z apply to both the finance charge and the amount financed, which has been an area of dispute.