Housewives Bring The Drama to Court

By, Phil Ingram

The Real Housewives, one of Bravo’s flagship brands, documents the lives of various divas around the country, and with the upcoming Vancouver spinoff – the world. The show has captured both the best and worst moments in the cast members’ lives, including private legal battles like Teresa Guidice’s bankruptcy and Shereé Whitfield’s child support drama with her ex Robert Whitfield. The series has also spawned legal controversies from the events of the show itself. Anyone who followed the latest season of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills knows that Taylor Armstrong’s late husband Russell Armstrong threatened defamation litigation against Lisa Vanderpump, for allegedly selling stories about other cast members to tabloids. Russell also targeted Camille Grammer, for her on-camera revelations about Taylor and Russell’s violent marriage. The show is all about gossip and conflict – but when exactly does the drama cross the line from snarky fun to legal liability?

Danielle Staub, the embattled former cast member of The Real Housewives of New Jersey, almost found out! Staub’s ex-husband, Kevin Maher, sued her in a California State Court for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on Staub’s statements from the 2009 Reunion Special. Ex-hubby further alleged that Danielle inflicted emotional distress by threatening him while she was a cast member on the show.  Specifically, Maher alleged that Danielle said that she “had fans and friends who would protect her” and that Kevin Maher was “going down.” Maher v. Staub (Cal. 2010).

Danielle Staub

In addition to the tort claim, the case raised interesting questions of jurisdiction and venue that are familiar to anyone learning the intricacies of civil procedure.

After removing the case to federal court, Danielle argued that California could not exercise jurisdiction over her. She also asserted that the proper venue for the lawsuit was New Jersey, but the court spent very little time to set this procedural issue aside. Substantively, she contended that her statements on the show could not meet the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress as a matter of law. This case gives us an idea as to the scope of potential liability that confronts the stars of reality TV for creating  “realness” that their audiences crave.

To exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant a court must have the authority to adjudicate claims that arise out of a defendant’s contacts within the state in which the plaintiff filed suit. The courts use the famous minimum contacts test from International Shoe v. Washington, which consists of two factors: whether the defendant has “minimum contacts” with the state in which the plaintiff filed suit, and whether those contacts would make it reasonable and fair for the court to exercise jurisdiction. Of course, the test is more complex to apply than it seems (and there are many Supreme Court cases where the justices struggle to come to a consensus on how to apply this test). However, the central piece in the test is whether the defendant purposefully availed herself of contact with the state in which she was sued such that she could reasonably anticipate being called into court there. See Burger King Corp v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985).

The Court found it had jurisdiction over Danielle because she gave an interview to People magazine and participated in the Real Housewives Reunion Special knowing that she was making comments about the plaintiffs who resided in California. From making statements directed at individuals living in California, the Court determined that Danielle had “purposefully availed herself” of contact with California. Further, because People and The Real Housewivesare media products are distributed nationally, including in California, Danielle could have reasonably anticipated being called into court there to answer for any harm caused to the people she knew to be in California. This suggests, essentially, that any time any reality star makes a statement that could cause harm to people they know to be in another state, they could be brought to court to defend themselves against claims in that state, even if it entails flying across country to do so.

Reality stars beware, trash talk is considered "minimum contact with the forum state."

As a matter of tort law, the Court did not feel, however, that Danielle’s statements on the Reunion Special met the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The basic elements of that claim in California are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard for the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) a legal and factual causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s distress. Maher, 2010 WL 325747, at *8 n.7.

Setting aside the issues of causation and distress, the Court found that saying someone was “going down” and that someone had “fans who would protect her” simply did not constitute sufficiently outrageous behavior. The threatening language was vague and could not reasonably be called “outrageous” or “extreme,” much less calculated to create, or recklessly indifferent to the creation of, emotional distress.

So what is the lesson to be taken from Maher v. Staub for the dramatic divas of reality TV? They may be dragged into court to answer for statements they make on the show – even if it takes a six-hour flight to commute to the forum state. They might also want to ask an attorney what things they can and cannot say on television about other people – even if they are basically being paid by a network to badmouth these exact people before a national audience.

What this doesn’t answer is whether the cast members might be able to file suits against one another for their behavior. After all, Danielle’s ex was not a cast member on the show. But if he had been, a court may have felt that he had “assumed the risk” of being harmed by the amped up dialogue and dramatic antics on the show by participating in a show known for such antics. Such a determination could bar a plaintiff either partly or totally (depending on local law) from recovering any damages no matter how outrageous or extreme the distressing behavior was. We just won’t know until another Bravolebrity drags one of her costars into court!

Hopefully, this gives some guidance to those of us who tune in to watch what happens, and to Camille Grammer the next time she gets the urge to badmouth Kelsey on air.

Why Alex Smith Needs Jerry Maguire.

By, Alex O’Sullivan-Pierce

"Show me the money!"

It is a well-established rule: everything you need to know about the world of sports agency can be found in Jerry Maguire. Even 16 years later, this rule holds true.  Take the recent story dominating sports headlines, the free agency of future hall of famer Peyton Williams Manning.

As I am sure you remember, Jerry Maguire had just one client (for most of the movie, anyway).

Winning: The Secret to Charlie Sheen’s Unique Contractual Advantage

By Clarke Rosenthal

Just when you thought Charlie Sheen could not possibly contribute more tabloid fodder to the cultural landscape, he is back in the public eye with his latest legal dispute.  Despite the fact that Warner Bros. fired Sheen from the hit sitcom Two and a Half Men last March and settled Sheen’s subsequent $100 million wrongful termination lawsuit in September, the parties have not, at least legally, seen the last of one another.  This month, lawyers for the Two and a Half Men studio, sent a cease and desist letter to Sheen, the FX network, and production company Debmar-Mercury, demanding that they stop using Warner-owned photos in connection with Sheen’s upcoming comedy Anger Management.

Andy Samberg Sued for Copyright Infringement

By Maria Cheung

Reviewed by Jennifer Williams

Comedian Andy Samberg is facing a copyright lawsuit over his Saturday Night Live (“SNL”) digital shorts “Shy Ronnie” and “Like A Boss.” The lawsuit was filed in a New York federal court in early November by St. Louis musicians and production team Aleric “Rick tha Ruler” Banks and Monique Hines against Samberg, The Lonely Island (Samberg’s comedy troup/band), SNL, Universal Republic Records and NBC Universal for willful copyright infringement and unjust enrichment. According to court documents, Banks and Hines claim they created and copyrighted the music that formed the basis for “Shy Ronnie” and “Like A Boss.”

Vera Wang’s Brand Impacted by Divorce?

By Kelli Coughlin

Reviewed by Jennifer Williams

It seems as if every news outlet is overindulged with the news of Kim Kardashian’s divorce from basketball player Kris Humphries.  We’ve all heard the rumors that it was a scam in which she made millions of dollars, but what about the other people who were also supposed to benefit from this Hollywood union?

The U.S. Supreme Court Denies Cert to Hollywood’s “Stolen Scripts” Case

By Maria Cheung

Reviewed by Jennifer Williams
 

The U.S. Supreme Court will not allow NBC Universal to appeal a decision in which two plaintiffs sued the studio and alleged that the idea behind the successful reality show Ghost Hunters was stolen from them. In rejecting the studio’s petition for a writ of certiorari, Hollywood will not get a chance to address an issue with the Supreme Court that has left the studios vulnerable to more lawsuits for stealing scripts.

Real World Alum Sues MTV

By Maria Cheung

Reviewed by Jennifer Williams              

Tonya Cooley, who viewers first met on “The Real World: Chicago”, is suing MTV and production company Bunim-Murray for alleged sexual harassment, discrimination, wrongful termination and sexual assault, among other claims. In a complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on October 27, Cooley claims that in 2009 when she was shooting “The Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Ruins,” in Phuket, Thailand, her fellow cast members Kenneth Santucci and Evan Starkman forcibly removed female cast members’ bathing suits, inappropriately touched female cast members without their consent and called the female cast members derogatory names, among other allegations. Cooley is also suing Santucci and Starkman.

DVD Copying Software Pulled Off Shelves

By Maria Cheung

Reviewed by Jennifer Williams

Real Networks, the company that manufactures RealDVD, a DVD copying software, has agreed to pay $ 4.5 million and to permanently stop selling the software as part of its settlement deal with six major Hollywood film studios. The lawsuit began in 2008, when the film studios sued Real Networks and accused the company of selling software that essentially helped consumers steal the content of various DVDs by enabling the public to copy the DVDs.  The studios probably sued the company for contributory infringement because Real Networks was distributing a device that could materially contribute to the infringement and the company probably had knowledge that the device could be used in an infringing way.

The Playboy Club: Doomed from the Start

By Maria Cheung

Reviewed by Jennifer Williams

The fate of NBC’s The Playboy Club may have been set in stone before the pilot even aired. The network pulled the controversial show off the air after only three episodes, although the cast and crew shot a total of seven episodes.  The cancellation is no surprise and was expected months before the show premiered. The drama attempted to attract a wide audience on a network with many content restrictions.  The show premiered to low ratings and then dropped for each of its three telecasts with the last night attracting only 3.4 million viewers and a 1.2 rating in the adult demographic.

The Many Hats of Sherlock Holmes

Reviewed by Kyu Hee Chu

What do Tony Shalhoub (an OCD-driven detective on Monk), James Roday (a “supernatural” detective on Psych), and Hugh Laurie (an inductive reasoning-driven doctor on House) all have in common?  Well, a lot, actually.  For starters, the three white males all star in shows with titles that are short and sweet.  Interestingly, they also all play similar character-roles—the unconventional problem-solver—on USA Network’s current television lineup.  Yet, the three characters were “conceived” by three different creators (Andy Breckman, Steve Franks, and David Shore, respectively).  Can any one of these writers secure a copyright for this so-called ‘character-type’?