Regardless of a studio's influence they must fall under better business laws, and would be separate from any particular civil claims.solicitr wrote:In California?
Studios have way too much influence in Sacramento for CA ever to pass legislation reforming the whole sorry business of Hollywood Accounting, much less the AG's office getting involved. Moreover the prospect of prosecutorial involvement would *not* be welcome to the plaintiffs, as then the principal defendants could take the Fifth and dummy up.
Tolkien Estate Sues New Line, The Hobbit Not Yet Threatened
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46300
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
They're good questions.Holbytla wrote:Ok I'll ask a few specific questions.
That's really the essence of the problem that I have. The contracts should be attached to the Complaint, or at the very least, quoted at length. Instead, they include these brief, self-serving statements about what these complicated contracts say. I find that very suspicious. Obviously, the various parties have copies of the contracts, but I am not aware of any place where they are publicly available.Tolkien sold the movie rights to LOTR long ago to UA. Obviously when New Line acquired the rights, they were bound to the original contract. Where, if anywhere, are the details of the original contract listed?
Under California law, the statute of limitations for breach of a written contract is four years. However, the contract apparently specifies that New York law applies, and a quick google search reveals that the SOL for breach of contracts in New York is six years. Plus, if there really has been settlement negotiations going on, the plaintiffs could argue that the statute of limitations has been "tolled" during the time that has been happening.What are the statute of limitations of a breach of contract suit? Seems this is kind of long in the tooth no? Certainly the Tolkien Estate made a discovery of not getting their money and the clock must have started ticking a while ago.
I agree that the timing is suspect. But what we don't know is to what extent either side has been negotiating in good faith. It could be that the plaintiff have truly been trying to resolve this, couldn't get it done, and had to file because the statute of limitations was going to run.Can it be construed the the Estate is using this late filing date to their advantage, and is putting New Line in an unfair disadvantage? The timing of this is failrly suspect.
My understanding (soli will correct me if I am wrong) is that they were sold together in the same contracts.The movie rights to the Hobbit are different than those from LOTR. Where, if anywhere, are the details of the this contract listed?
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
- solicitr
- Posts: 3728
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat
That's correct. It appears that originally there was going to be a single contract covering both Tolkien and his publishers, but they wound up dividing it into two interlocked agreements. Both covered all four books (except there is something odd going on WRT The Two Towers).
And so far, Holby, the contracts are not publicly available. Perhaps New Line will include them, or pertinent excerpts, with its Response.
BTW, Vor, the SoL angle is probably spot-on. Since FR was released in December 2001, the Estate probably received its first "Balance due: Zilch" statement in February or March the following year- just about six years ago.
And so far, Holby, the contracts are not publicly available. Perhaps New Line will include them, or pertinent excerpts, with its Response.
BTW, Vor, the SoL angle is probably spot-on. Since FR was released in December 2001, the Estate probably received its first "Balance due: Zilch" statement in February or March the following year- just about six years ago.
- solicitr
- Posts: 3728
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat
You know, Vor, it occurs to me that we've been complete dummies on the question of the rights and who gets them if New Line loses them: Zaentz and United Artists aren't named as defendants.
Basic Civil Procedure 101- no civil judgment can dispose of the interests of persons not party to the suit. If Zaentz and UA aren't defendants, the court simply does not have the power to take anything away from them at all. UA never sold the Hobbit distribution rights, and Zaentz 'never sold' his reversionary interest in the rights when NL's license expires.
Although I suppose in theory the Estate could try to hold Zaentz to primary responsibility for seeing to it they got paid, they have made no such claim.
Basic Civil Procedure 101- no civil judgment can dispose of the interests of persons not party to the suit. If Zaentz and UA aren't defendants, the court simply does not have the power to take anything away from them at all. UA never sold the Hobbit distribution rights, and Zaentz 'never sold' his reversionary interest in the rights when NL's license expires.
Although I suppose in theory the Estate could try to hold Zaentz to primary responsibility for seeing to it they got paid, they have made no such claim.
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46300
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
In fact, as you pointed out earlier (I think here, but I'm too lazy to check if it was here, or TORC, or TORN, or the MythSoc), they seemed to have gone out of their way to make clear that they have no interest in hurting "third parties".
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
In the past week or so I have seen the films discussed as a done deal, something that is going to happen, on several commercial entertainment-related sites. Obviously there's been no announcement, but the gossip at least doesn't demonstrate much concern that this will be unsolveable.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46300
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
More importantly, it's been more than 30 days since Proof of Service of the Summons and Complaint was filed (on 2/14). There is no Answer on file, nor is there any hearing date listed for a Demurrer (yes, we still call them Demurrers in California). But it is not unusual for an extension of time to file responsive pleadings to be requested and granted, so I'm sure that is the case here, since there is also no Default on file, either.solicitr wrote:It's been over 30 days since the Complaint was filed.... no word of an Answer or Motion to Dismiss?
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46300
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
But things still might happen—it isn't over, just delayed. Is that right?
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Although there are good rea$on$ for both sides to want it to be settled sooner than that.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
- solicitr
- Posts: 3728
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat
Not exactly. So long as there is a risk of the plug being pulled, it will be difficult if not impossible for Time-Warner to get financing, nor would they want to risk much $$$ of their own.
T-W's best move, if they can't reach a settlement fairly quickly, might be to sell the whole deal to MGM/UA, who wouldn't have the sword of Damocles hanging over their head.
Also there is a clock ticking: if production hasn't started by the end of 2008 Warners lose the rights back to Saul Zaentz anyway.
T-W's best move, if they can't reach a settlement fairly quickly, might be to sell the whole deal to MGM/UA, who wouldn't have the sword of Damocles hanging over their head.
Also there is a clock ticking: if production hasn't started by the end of 2008 Warners lose the rights back to Saul Zaentz anyway.
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46300
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Sorry to engage in lawyer-speak. It does tend to come naturally. Let me clarify. Under California law, a defendant in a civil action has 30 days from the date they are "served" with a Summons and Complaint to file a responsive pleading, which usually would be an Answer to the Complaint, or a Demurrer to the Complaint. Generally, the Answer just denies everything that the Complaint says, and asserts a series of what is called Affirmative Defenses, which are additional reasons why they should not be held liable (and usually are mostly bogus). A Demurrer is essentially a motion to dismiss the action (or some parts of the action, on the argument that even if everything that the Complaint states is true, the plaintiff still can't prevail on some or all of the causes of action asserted in the Complaint.
If the defendant does not file some kind of responsive pleading within 30 days, than the plaintiff can file a "Default" and then move to get a "Default Judgment". However, the parties can agree to extend the time to file a responsive pleading up to 15 days (and in practice, for longer than that). It is generally common courtesy for a plaintiff's attorney to grant a request for such an extension of time, so it is likely that is doesn't mean anything. However, it is possible that it is an indication that there are serious settlement negotiations going on. If more than 15 days passes and no responsive pleading has been filed, it is good bet that that is the case.
I hope that helps.
If the defendant does not file some kind of responsive pleading within 30 days, than the plaintiff can file a "Default" and then move to get a "Default Judgment". However, the parties can agree to extend the time to file a responsive pleading up to 15 days (and in practice, for longer than that). It is generally common courtesy for a plaintiff's attorney to grant a request for such an extension of time, so it is likely that is doesn't mean anything. However, it is possible that it is an indication that there are serious settlement negotiations going on. If more than 15 days passes and no responsive pleading has been filed, it is good bet that that is the case.
I hope that helps.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
That helps very much—thanks, Voronwë!
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
I sat on a jury for a civil case that was 12 years old.Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:Sorry to engage in lawyer-speak. It does tend to come naturally. Let me clarify. Under California law, a defendant in a civil action has 30 days from the date they are "served" with a Summons and Complaint to file a responsive pleading, which usually would be an Answer to the Complaint, or a Demurrer to the Complaint. Generally, the Answer just denies everything that the Complaint says, and asserts a series of what is called Affirmative Defenses, which are additional reasons why they should not be held liable (and usually are mostly bogus). A Demurrer is essentially a motion to dismiss the action (or some parts of the action, on the argument that even if everything that the Complaint states is true, the plaintiff still can't prevail on some or all of the causes of action asserted in the Complaint.
If the defendant does not file some kind of responsive pleading within 30 days, than the plaintiff can file a "Default" and then move to get a "Default Judgment". However, the parties can agree to extend the time to file a responsive pleading up to 15 days (and in practice, for longer than that). It is generally common courtesy for a plaintiff's attorney to grant a request for such an extension of time, so it is likely that is doesn't mean anything. However, it is possible that it is an indication that there are serious settlement negotiations going on. If more than 15 days passes and no responsive pleading has been filed, it is good bet that that is the case.
I hope that helps.
They were negotiating right up until the last second.
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46300
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact: