James Best alleges that a lot of money was hidden from him three decades ago when he played "Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane" on what at the time was one of the most lucrative programs in TV history.
On February 11, Warner Bros. will be inside a federal courtroom, defending a lawsuit brought by James Best, a now 86-year-old actor who once played bumbling Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane in the series.
The trial will happen after U.S. District Judge Richard Voorhees made a summary judgment order on January 4 that dismissed most of Best's claims, but rather extraordinary, allowed to survive two claims over something that allegedly happened in 1981 -- when the series was the second-highest rated show on television and the franchise was raking in dollar after dollar in merchandising tie-ins.
Best brought this lawsuit in August, 2011.
The actor didn't get any royalty reports and payments from 1992 to 2009, and once he did, he was upset to learn that licensed products including beach towels, kitchen items, trash cans, electronics, timepieces, sleepwear, coloring books, shoes, bikes and cars incorporating his likeness amounted to less than $10 million. In his lawsuit, Best demanded a detailed accounting and also raised the issue of possible money due from spin-offs of the TV series. (The show was remade as a film in 2005.) He also asserted that Warner Bros. had misappropriated his name and image in its exploitation of the Dukes of Hazzard brand.
The litigation turned up Warners' annual report of 1981, which reported that "[p]roducts using a Dukes of Hazzard license achieved retail sales of $190 million in 1981, making the show one of the most valuable for licensing in television history."
On the other hand, in 1982, Best had his accountants conduct an audit of Best's merchandising royalties from the inception of the show until the end of 1981. The report indicated that during this period, "the total of all earned royalties for 'Dukes of Hazzard' related licensed products was $4,600,000."
"The Court will not presume Plaintiff's omniscience and finds that the alleged underreporting was sufficiently difficult to detect as to merit the application of the delayed discovery rule," rules Judge Voorhees. "Moreover, in light of Plaintiff's request for the 1982 audit, the Court is persuaded that reasonable minds could find as sufficient Plaintiff's diligence in discovering Defendants' breach of contract. Therefore, whether Plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence under the circumstances is a question of fact left for the jury."
According to Best's complaint, he was entitled to receive 5% of merchandising revenue from products that featured his identity, or 2.5% of total revenue for merchandise when other cast members were incorporated. If it's true that the series was responsible for $190 million in merchandise by 1981, that's potentially a big sum. The judge is also allowing Best to pursue a claim that Warners breached an implied promise of good faith and fair dealing by frustrating his attempts to gain what he was allegedly owed.
The jury trial was scheduled to begin last week upon the judge's decision on summary judgment, but at the last second, it was postponed after the mother of an important Warners executive scheduled to testify suffered a medical emergency. The Dukes of Hazzard trial is now set for February 11, 2013.
Read More: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/trial-alert-warner-bros-square-412127
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.