Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin: September 2013

Monday, September 30, 2013

Is Driving Under The Influence a Felony?

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

Like many things related to the law, misdemeanors and felonies are a complicated matter. So, is driving under the influence a felony? Well, that depends. Under the current laws of California (and subject to change at any time by the legislature), a fourth DUI within ten years of the first conviction is considered an automatic felony, no matter what your blood alcohol level tested.

However, it’s important to keep in mind that there may be additional circumstances to the DUI charge that would make it a felony even if it’s an earlier charge. For example, you may be involved with a hit and run situation, even if you don’t know it at the time. Many drunk drivers really aren’t paying attention and have no idea if they hit things, so the news that they might have struck a person can come as a huge shock later that evening or, potentially, the next day.

You might also encounter situations like excessive property damage that could bring the idea of a felony up. On the whole, though, you can usually work with the idea that a DUI charge isn’t a felony until your fourth charge in ten years as long as there are no additional circumstances making it worse. However, laws can change, so you’ll probably want to double-check with a lawyer if you are charged with a DUI just to be certain of where you’re at.

More Information... http://duidaily.com/is-driving-under-the-influence-a-felony/

Stay Safe Out There - If You Need Help just Give Me a Call!

To schedule a free consultation and learn how we can help you, contact Beverly Hills DUI Attorney Jonathan Franklin today.

http://lawofficesofjonathanfranklin.blogspot.com/

Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600
http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com

"High In The Clouds" Heading for Big Screen by Paul McCartney

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

The film will be released in 3D in 2015. The book — which centers on a squirrel’s quest to find a fabled animal sanctuary called Animalia — is written by McCartney, Geoff Dunbar and Philip Ardagh.

McCartney will compose several original songs for the film. Tony Bancroft, whose credits include “Mulan,” will direct the feature from a screenplay by Josh Klausner (“Shrek Forever After”). Evolution will spearhead the global licensing and merchandising campaign for the film.

Lynne said, “We know how special this project is for Sir Paul and how excited he is to be a part of this wonderful, creative collaboration.”

RGH’s Randa Ayoubi and David Corbett are serving as executive producers.

“’High in the Clouds’ is a passion project for me,” McCartney said in a statement. “I am thrilled to be working in partnership with Randa Ayoubi and David Corbett at RGH, and David Michael Lynne and Bob Shaye of Unique Features. Working with the highly creative talent at these companies together with Josh Klausner and Tony Bancroft, we will be able to create a warm, funny and moving animated film that will resonate with worldwide audiences.”

Source.... http://variety.com/2013/film/news/paul-mccartneys-high-in-the-clouds-heading-for-big-screen-1200682182/?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breakingnewsalert

Lawsuit: The Future of #FoxNews

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

The lawsuit alleges that TVEyes is running a service making "verbatim reproduction" of Fox News' programming and participating in a "massive ongoing pattern and practice of infringement."

Now, the defendant is seeking to have a New York judge throw out several of Fox News' claims. The company has hired Andrew Schapiro at Quinn Emanuel who was also Google's attorney in the billion dollar fight with Viacom. Earlier this month, he filed a motion to dismiss that describes TVEyes as recording and indexing over 1,600 television and radio stations around the world, and whose customers include the United States Department of Defense, the United Nations, several members of Congress, The New York Times, Time Warner Cable, professional sports teams and leagues and other political organizations.

Some of its customers presumably use the service as a form of egosurfing. Others for PR and marketing purposes. And perhaps some news organizations are using it to quickly check out how some of Fox News' conservative commentators are treating the day's most topical news. Whatever those motivations, Fox News sees TVEyes as a form of unfair competition: It's alleged that users of the service would otherwise be watching Fox News telecasts, going to Fox News websites, or bolstering ITN Source, Fox News' licensed clip service.

Fox News' lawsuit against TVEyes is primed to address an area of tort law -- "hot news misappropriation" -- that has been around for nearly a century, but largely fell out of favor until very recently when some publishers wondered whether the threat of online content aggregation required some legal response. Now, a new ruling on the topic could be imminent.

Some background...
The hot news doctrine dates back to a 1918 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court involving The Associated Press going up against a competitor wire service. Justice Mahlon Pitney wrote that news was "quasi property," and that there should be some consideration of a news organization's expenditure of labor, skill, and money in gathering tips and producing content.

Throughout the years, the "hot news" doctrine has suffered some legal blows, most recently in a 2011 decision by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. In that case, a website called Theflyonthewall.com successfully fought an injunction that was issued after it kept posting leaked stock market buy and sell recommendations from Barclays Capital. A 2nd Circuit judge wrote, "We conclude that in this case, a Firm's ability to make news -- by issuing a Recommendation that is likely to affect the market price of a security -- does not give rise to a right for it to control who breaks that news and how."

Some in the tech community were relieved at the ruling, but the case left possible openings for future courts to draw the line on "scoop" free-riding. Notably, this past March, the Associated Press with support from some news organizations (including TVEyes customer New York Times) prevailed in a ruling against Norway-based news monitoring service Meltwater, whose software enables users to track in real-time when their company is mentioned in breaking news, scraping headlines and article snippets in its reports. The judge in the Meltwater case rejected the defendant's fair use defense, writing, "the public interest in the existence of such commercial enterprise does not... justify allowing Meltwater to free ride on the costly news gathering and coverage work performed by organizations."

That's where Fox News steps in.
In its lawsuit alleging copyright and hot news misappropriation claims (read here) against TVEyes, the cable network points to the expense of producing its news programming and its time sensitive nature, and says, "If TVEyes is allowed to continue its willful free-riding on Fox News's programming, it will substantially reduce Fox News's incentive and ability to produce new content, jeopardizing both the quality and the quantity of premium news reporting available to consumers."

Now comes the motion to dismiss ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/171542472/tveyes ), which says the cable network's "skeletal allegations" don't sufficiently support its claims because among other things, the plaintiff doesn't identify "which particular time-sensitive facts purportedly were... taken."

More interestingly, TVEyes addresses a news future where digital technologies and bots play a role in the delivery of factual information.

"TVEyes captures the content of thousands of television and radio broadcasts and, using its own proprietary technology, indexes the content and delivers small, relevant excerpts to its customers in response to user-selected keywords," it says. "All of this indexing, organizing, and delivering occurs at solely at TVEyes’ expense, and Fox does not allege otherwise."

The company attempts to draw a distinction between what it does and what Fox News does.

"More importantly, in delivering its keyword results to customers, TVEyes merely reports the fact that a particular keyword was mentioned in a particular Fox broadcast," it says. "This, by definition, is not the same underlying news reported by Fox; it is a new fact, and therefore cannot constitute free-riding."

Source.... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/how-a-fox-news-lawsuit-638315

Friday, September 27, 2013

California DMV Suspended License

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

In the State of California, both the officials of the courts and the Department of Motor Vehicles can suspend your driver’s license. A license can be suspended for anywhere from 30 days to an indefinite period of time depending on the seriousness of the offense. Sometimes, if your license is suspended in states such as California, you can receive a restricted license. For instance, if you were convicted of a first-offense DUI, you may be eligible for a restricted license that allows you to drive to your job and back.

Your license could be suspend in California for reasons such as accumulating too many points on your driver’s license in a specific period of time or getting involved in a car accident and not having proper insurance. For those individuals who drink and drive, a DUI can certainly mean the suspension of driving privileges. Even a first conviction can result in a suspension of at least 4 months. A second or third DUI can cause you to lose your license for a period of years.

The state has a Zero Tolerance Policy for persons under the age of 21. If the driver tests with a blood alcohol content of .01 percent or higher, his license is taken immediately and he will lose it for up to one year. People who refuse to take a breathalyzer or a blood or urine test if they are pulled over for a DUI will automatically have their license suspended under the state’s implied consent laws.

More Information... http://duidaily.com/category/dmv-suspended-license-2/

Retailer Sues West Hollywood Over Turn the Ban on Fur Apparel - Your Thoughts?

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

A West Hollywood retailer filed suit Thursday against the city over its first-in-the-nation ban on fur apparel.

In the filing, Mayfair House, a specialty clothing and accessory store on Beverly Boulevard, said that the city overstepped its authority in banning fur apparel sales and that such trade should be regulated by state authorities.

The ban, Mayfair House said in the five-count complaint, violates the state and U.S. constitutions.

“It is crystal clear that California’s constitution grants the state Legislature the only authority to enact legislation relating to the protection of wildlife, including the exclusive power to pass laws regulating the market for products of wildlife, such as fur,” Michael O’Connor, an attorney for the store, said in a statement.

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in downtown Los Angeles, seeks to have the city stop enforcing or threatening to enforce the ban.

After two years of debate, the ban on fur apparel took effect Saturday, to the chagrin of numerous retailers.

The ban applies only to “wearing apparel.” It applies to shoes, hats and gloves but not pocketbooks or purses. It also includes shearling, a sheepskin or lambskin pelt that has gone through limited shearing. Popular Ugg boots that contain shearling are banned. Fur blankets are not banned. But sleeved blankets containing fur -- and meant to be worn -- are.

Leather is not banned, and secondhand stores selling used fur products are not affected. Though the city is home to numerous interior-design businesses as well as the Pacific Design Center, the ban does not apply to the sale of fur furniture or other non-wearable items.

Mayor Pro Tem John D’Amico, who introduced the ban, told The Times last week that he was confident the ordinance would hold up against a lawsuit.

“I still maintain that it’s an exceptional ordinance that the city attorney wrote knowing there was a threat of lawsuit,” D’Amico said. He added that the ordinance was “defensible and the city will stand behind it.”

City Atty. Michael Jenkins is still reviewing the lawsuit, West Hollywood officials said.

Some merchants, including the Goldsmith & Klein fashion boutique, cited the ban as a reason for closing their shops or relocating. Other shops with multiple locations simply moved their fur items to their other stores outside city limits.

“The ordinance is an ill-considered and illegal law that is harmful to the city, its consumer citizens and business residents,” Johanna Judah, owner of Mayfair House, said in a statement.

The ordinance, Judah said, “was passed by city councilmen who have the political support of national animal rights activist groups who wish to impose their will over others despite the unconstitutional nature of the ordinance.”

Mayfair House has operated in West Hollywood since about 2007, according to the lawsuit. It has sold “and intends to continue to offer for sale and sell” products made in whole or part from fur, including parkas trimmed with coyote fur and Ugg boots containing shearling, according to the lawsuit.

Under the ordinance, a retailer caught selling fur can be charged with a misdemeanor if it receives more than three citations within a year.

Source..... http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-west-hollywood-sued-over-fur-ban-20130926,0,3994194.story

Recycling Fraud Found in California-Nevada 5 Arrested

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

California authorities have arrested five people who allegedly bought bottles and cans from recycling centers in Nevada and then redeemed them for cash in California, the California Department of Justice said Thursday.

The suspects were charged with conspiracy, grand theft and recycling fraud as part of the scheme valued at more than $300,000, officials said.

The five arrested - Gerardo Gomez-Vasquez, Magdalena Hernandez-Sebastian, Luis Aguirre-Alacon, Ludin Rosales-Valladares and Elfego Gonzalez-Ramos - are Nevada residents. Authorities say a sixth man, Argelio Hernandez-Torres, remains at large.

Authorities say the group purchased large amounts of used aluminum and plastic beverage containers from Nevada recycling centers and took them to mini-storage units, where they were sorted, crushed and re-bagged. Group members then made multiple trips with 26-foot box trucks to California, where they redeemed the containers for cash at recycling centers in Sacramento and the San Joaquin Valley.

Agents seized about 10,000 pounds of aluminum and plastic beverage containers during the arrests.

California charges a fee on the sale of soft drinks and beer to encourage recycling and reduce littering. The money goes into a state fund unless consumers redeem their beverage containers to get the fee back. Nevada does not charge such a fee.

The state estimates that redemption of out-of-state containers costs California up to $50 million annually.

Source.... http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/sep/26/5-arrested-in-california-nevada-recycling-fraud/

Creative Efforts to Drug Smuggling Found at LAX

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

Crime never pays. Unless of course you get away with it. And it appears criminals at Los Angeles International Airport are becoming more creative in their efforts to smuggle drugs past the watchful eyes and sophisticated equipment of law enforcement and the TSA. Outsmarting the systems in place to prevent smugglers from doing what they do has become more difficult over the years. But it hasn't deterred diehard crooks convinced they'll succeed. And apparently, all too often, they do.

The most recent misadventure involved one hundred pounds of pot discovered at LAX yesterday. The marijuana is worth about $300,000 and was found in four checked suitcases. But here's the thing. The pot was gift wrapped, disguised as birthday gifts. Officials say the wrapping paper had a cupcake print. Cute. But apparently not cute enough to escape detection.The luggage was scheduled for a flight bound for Atlanta but whoever checked the bags never actually boarded the plane. Needless to say, authorities are now looking for the bags' owners.

This effort is just the latest in a string of attempts to transport illegal drugs through LAX. One woman was recently caught trying to smuggle methamphetamine taped under one of her breasts. All it took in that case was a simple old fashioned pat down. But authorities have to be ever alert as criminals continue to come up with "interesting" ways to circumvent the law. A couple of months ago, a man from Tanzania pleaded guilty to trying to smuggle nearly two pounds of heroin into the U.S. through LAX in a nonworking laptop computer.

But things get a lot more tricky and complicated when the criminal activity involves the TSA. Last year, four current and former TSA screeners at LAX were charged with knowingly allowing luggage filled with cocaine, methamphetamine or marijuana to pass through checkpoints from January to July, 2011 in exchange for cash from drug couriers. TSA employees in Florida and New York have also been charged in similar schemes. While recruiting the very people who are supposed to prevent such criminal activity is probably the most effective tool drug traffickers can employ, even that isn't foolproof.

Still, the fact of the matter is, smuggling drugs, when successful, is a big bucks business. The Office of National Drug Control Policy estimates that Americans spend approximately $65 billion a year on illegal drugs with only about $1 billion seized by all Federal agencies combined. And even though the risk of being caught may be higher in some cases than the prospect of getting rich, just the mere possibility of the latter seems to be enough incentive for people to try it in increasingly creative ways.

Source.... http://www.myfoxla.com/story/23538817/creative-drug-smuggling-at-lax#ixzz2g6qYMtwK

Stay Safe Out There - If You Need Help just Give Me a Call!

To schedule a free consultation and learn how we can help you, contact Beverly Hills DUI Attorney Jonathan Franklin today.

http://lawofficesofjonathanfranklin.blogspot.com/

Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600
http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Driving Under the Influence Consequences

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

Imagine that you are going out to celebrate your birthday or another special occasion. You may plan to meet friends, have dinner and then go to a club. Or maybe you are at a party in someone’s house watching a Monday Night Football game. You may decide to have a drink or two and feel like you are okay to drive. But on the way home, you are stopped at a DUI checkpoint. The officer suspects you have been drinking and your blood alcohol is tested and is over .08 percent. You are considered to be Driving Under the Influence.

Driving Under the Influence consequences are serious. Your license is suspended and you have to schedule an administrative hearing at the DMV to try to get your license reinstated, which may not even be possible. If you can’t drive, you may not be able to get to work. Some people end up getting fired from their job especially if having a clean driving record is a requirement.

People convicted of DUI have to pay heavy fines. They have to pay the courts, the DMV and they may also need to pay attorney fees. But having an attorney representing you at the DMV hearing or in court is a very good idea in many cases.

If this is your first DUI, you may not have to spend time in jail but that is not always the case. Some first offenders are sentenced to serve time. If you have more than one DUI on your record, the likelihood of you going to jail is higher.

More Information... http://duidaily.com/driving-under-the-influence-consequences/

Disney Suing Musicals that are Featuring "Spider-Man", "Mary Poppins", "Lion King"

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

A Pennsylvania theatre group draws the company's by showcasing its popular works.

The company is now drawing the line at a musical that attempts to showcase the glories of the genre with tributes to famous characters and songs. On Tuesday, in Pennsylvania federal court, Disney and some of its partners filed a lawsuit against Entertainment Theatre Group, doing business as American Music Theatre.

The defendants are staging Broadway: Now and Forever, which includes references to The Producers, Billy Elliot, Wicked, Jersey Boys and more. Disney is upset about the inclusion of Mary Poppins, The Lion King and Spider-Man.

The show is advertised as providing theater-goers with a "larger-than-life theatrical compilation of unforgettable music from the hottest new blockbusters to all-time favorite classics... Broadway: Now & Forever recreates the greatest moments ever on stage."

Disney won't stand for Broadway piracy. A movie that shows iconic Disney characters doing things like attempting to crush a child is one thing. More horrifying perhaps is a theatrical production that is described in the complaint as presenting six actor-dancers dressed in Spider-Man costumes performing a choreographed dance routine. This is said to be unfair competition. Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark is the most expensive production in Broadway history. This new show apparently shows off the more famous one on a video screen.

The appearance of Mary Poppins is no less concerning for Disney. In the complaint, Disney provides photographic proof that a woman portraying Ms. Poppins dances with children and flies above the stage with her umbrella open.

Read Full Complaint here.... http://www.scribd.com/doc/171196860/Poppins

Disney is suing for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair trade practices and more, seeking damages for willful infringement after saying the defendants have refused to stop the show even after being warned. Disney says this is an "exceptional case" under trademark law. The defendant hasn't yet responded to a request for comment.

Source.... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com

DUI checkpoints Coming

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

The California Highway Patrol Napa Area will conduct a Driving Under the Influence/Driver’s License Checkpoint on Sept. 27.

According to the CHP, the goal of the checkpoint is to ensure the safety of motorists by targeting roads where there is a high frequency of drunken driving.

Traffic volume permitting, all vehicles will be checked, and drivers who are under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs can expect to be arrested, the CHP said in a statement. Motorists without a valid driver’s license can expect to receive a citation and have their vehicle impounded.

The checkpoint will be conducted between the hours of 6 p.m. and midnight.

Source.... http://napavalleyregister.com/

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Is DUI Arrest A Crime?

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

A DUI is a serious crime. The repercussions can be devastating, even for first offenders. In certain circumstances they can be sentenced to jail time. If you have a felony DUI which could mean you may have driven drunk and injured a person with your car, you could spend years in state prison. It can be difficult to get hired for a job with DUI conviction on your record, and a felony conviction is even worse. Aggravated DUIs carry tougher penalties than conventional DUI crimes. When someone is charged with an aggravated DUI, they may have refused a breathalyzer test, or have taken a test and had a blood alcohol reading that is a .15 or higher. Children may have been present in the vehicle as well or the driver may have caused an accident where someone was injured.

If you’ve had multiple DUI convictions, you may end up serving time in jail. Most individuals charged and convicted of DUIs have to pay hefty fines and may lose their license for a period of time as well as facing other punishments, such as having to install an ignition interlock device which forces you to test alcohol free before you can start the vehicle.

Because a DUI arrest is a crime, you should consult with one of the knowledgeable DUI defense lawyers Hollywood has. You must also schedule a DMV hearing within 10 days from your arrest; if you do not do this your license will be revoked whether or not you are convicted in court. A lawyer is not necessary to this procedure, but they are used to dealing with the entire case and can make the process much easier and may be instrumental in getting your life back to normal.

More Information... http://duidaily.com/is-dui-arrest-a-crime-2/

Lowe's, Payless, PetSmart ZIP Code Class Action Lawsuits

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

Three retailers were hit with class action lawsuits accusing them of violating state privacy laws by requiring customers who pay with credit cards to provide their ZIP codes during their transactions.

All three class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of Massachusetts consumers who provided their ZIP code information during a credit card transaction at a Lowe’s Home Centers Inc., Payless Shoe Source Inc. and PetSmart Inc. stores. The plaintiffs allege that by requesting ZIP code information, these companies violated Massachusetts law.

In March, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that ZIP codes are personal information. This decision subjected retailers to the threat of class action lawsuits filed by consumers whose ZIP code information was collected during a transaction. According to the class action lawsuits, Massachusetts state law “addresses and prevents the misuse and improper collection of personal identification by retailers, and recognizes that there is no legitimate need to obtain such personal information from credit card customers except to the extent it is strictly necessary to complete the transaction.”

Plaintiffs Erin Alberts, Timothy Alberts and Michael Pietrantonio filed the class action lawsuits against Lowe’s and PetSmart. Erin Alberts filed the complaint against Payless. All plaintiffs are residents of Massachusetts. In all of these class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs claim that they used credit cards to pay for their purchases, but were not allowed to complete the transactions without providing their ZIP code.

The plaintiffs also accuse the retailers of storing this personal information and selling it to third-parties. Due to this alleged practice, the plaintiffs received unwanted marketing mailings. “Consumers’ personal data functions as a new form of currency that supports a $26 billion per year online advertising industry in the United States,” the class action lawsuits said.

In their class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs are accusing the retailers of violating the Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act, which states that: “No person, firm, partnership, corporation or other business entity that accepts a credit card for a business transaction shall write, cause to be written or require that a credit card holder write personal identification information, not required by the credit card issuer, on the credit card transaction form.”

The plaintiffs claim that they had contacted the retailers prior to filing the class action lawsuits and requested that they pay $25 to each potential Class Member and provide attorneys’ fees and costs. They also requested the companies to stop asking customers to provide their ZIP codes during credit card transactions. Because none of the retailers agreed to these terms, the plaintiffs are asking for treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and court costs.

Source.... http://www.topclassactions.com

Stay Safe Out There - If You Need Help just Give Me a Call!

To schedule a free consultation and learn how we can help you, contact Beverly Hills DUI Attorney Jonathan Franklin today.

http://lawofficesofjonathanfranklin.blogspot.com/

Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600
http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com

Angelina Jolie Stunt Double's Wiretapping Lawsuit

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

The company looks to stop the first claim brought in the United States by an alleged hacking victim and points to the activity happening in the U.K. in the ongoing hacking scandal.

The company has paid out a total of $382 million in settlement money, including $183 million in the past year.

At the same time that News Corp. was releasing this information, its lawyers were busy in an attempt to defeat the first lawsuit brought in a U.S. court by an alleged victim.

The company has now filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Eunice Huthart, who says she worked as a stunt double for Angelina Jolie. A California federal judge is being urged to dismiss the claims because lawyers for News Corp. say that the United Kingdom is the more convenient forum. In making such an argument, News Corp. reveals the full legal toll of the hacking scandal, the process set up to handle the many claims and the scores of settlements tied to alleged hacking by News of the World and its private investigator Glenn Mulcaire.

First, a recap of Huthart's allegations.

Huthart says that she is a resident of Liverpool, England, and first worked with Jolie in 2000 and on the movies Beyond Borders and Tomb Raiders 2. She says she developed a close relationship with the actress and is a godmother to Jolie's first biological child.

In 2004, after Huthart began living with Jolie in a Brentwood house while filming Mr. and Mrs. Smith, she says she noticed suspicious activity around missed messages left on her cell phone system. Others including Jolie, asked why she had not replied. Later, when her name, cell number, account number and PIN number surfaced in the notes of Mulcaire, she figured it out.

Her wiretapping lawsuit against News Corp. alleged that News of the World had printed certain stories, including that Jolie had threatened to quit making movies for good, on the basis of intercepted communications.

News Corp. has some numbers. This is what the company says has been the result of the hacking scandal:

"The compensation scheme has been extraordinarily successful at delivering satisfaction to applicants: it has received 611 inquiries from individuals alleging they were victims of voicemail interception, of whom 426 applied to join the scheme, resulting in 359 being invited to join the scheme, and 272 settling their claims thus far. Not a single applicant to date has seen fit to take his or her case to a hearing."

Other claims are happening in U.K. courtrooms under a judicial process that News Corp. says has provided for expedited access to police materials, early assessment of claims, enhanced case management to reduce attorneys' fees and means to obtain discovery beyond the subpoena powers of U.S. courts.

How many claims are going through this process? Here are more numbers from News Corp's attorneys:

"To date, 250 claims have been brought under the MTVIL procedures in the U.K. and further claims have been intimated on a pre-action basis; of those claims and pre-action notifications, there have been 276 settlements. There are currently 32 active claims. No claimant has to date pursued his or her case to trial."

News Corp. says that the conduct alleged by the Angelina Jolie stunt double isn't much different from the allegations in the hundreds of cases proceeding in the U.K., which includes the 32 active claims in U.K. court and the others proceeding throu

gh the compensation scheme.

Read More.... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com

Stay Safe Out There - If You Need Help just Give Me a Call!

To schedule a free consultation and learn how we can help you, contact Beverly Hills DUI Attorney Jonathan Franklin today.

http://lawofficesofjonathanfranklin.blogspot.com/

Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600

http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Causes of Drunk Driving - More Than You May Think!

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

Cause of Drunk DrivingWith so many anti-drunk driving campaigns in effect around the country, it is difficult to understand why people are still convicted of Driving Under the Influence of alcohol, illegal and/or some prescription drugs. Since drunk driving is preventable, why are people still being arrested?

One of the causes of drunk driving is that people do not intend to get drunk. They may only have a few drinks but the alcohol hits them much harder than expected. Some people drink alcohol on an empty stomach which can cause their blood alcohol content to exceed the legal limits.

Some people do not realize how intoxicated they actually are. They may think they are totally fine to drive and then get behind the wheel impaired. Some may have tried unsuccessfully to call a friend or family member to pick them up after a night of drinking.

Some people may be embarrassed to admit how much they’ve had to drink. They may feel like they don’t want to be a burden to others and try to get home on their own. Many people drink to excess and even though they know they are impaired, they do not believe they will get caught. According to the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers website, on average, someone who is caught drunk driving has driven drunk 80 times prior to their his first arrest.

Some people may try to drink coffee or otherwise sober up before driving. However, they may not realize it takes a human body one hour to metabolize one alcoholic drink. Drinking coffee or taking a cold shower does not sober up a human being.

More Information... http://duidaily.com/causes-of-drunk-driving-2/

Stay Safe Out There - If You Need Help just Give Me a Call!

To schedule a free consultation and learn how we can help you, contact Beverly Hills DUI Attorney Jonathan Franklin today.

http://lawofficesofjonathanfranklin.blogspot.com/

Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600
http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com

Disney Wins Over Stan Lee Media in Marvel Copyright Lawsuit

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

Turns out the Walt Disney Company really does own the rights to the Marvel characters created by Stan Lee, at least according to a federal judge today. U.S. District Judge William J. Martinez Thursday granted with prejudice Disney’s motion to dismiss Stan Lee Media’s multibillion-dollar lawsuit superhero copyright suit. In his 11-page order (read it here) Martinez did little to hide his annoyance with the litigious SLMI. “Plaintiff has tried time and again to claim ownership of those copyrights; the litigation history arising out of the 1998 Agreement stretches over more than a decade and at least six courts,” he wrote of the company’s many legal moves.

This latest attempt started in mid-October 2012 when SLMI filed a copyright infringement complaint seeking the profits from the $5.5 billion it said that Disney made from Marvel superhero movies and merchandise based on characters created by Lee. In its suit, SLMI claimed that Lee, who no longer has anything to do with the company with his name, signed over the rights to comic book characters like Iron Man, the Hulk, the Fantastic Four, the X-Men, Spider-Man and many more that he created or would create to its corporate predecessor in October 1998 for shares in the company. In November 1998, Lee signed an agreement with Marvel handing over the rights to the same characters. In late November 2012, Disney, who purchased Marvel for $4 billion in 2009, filed its motion to dismiss, calling the lawsuit is “completely frivolous.” The November 30 motion to dismiss, like the initial suit by SLMI, was filed in Colorado.

Judge Martinez obviously agreed with Disney and he wants to make sure that SLMI think twice before trying to use the courts in such a manner again. “Taking its cue from the Southern District of New York and the Central District of California, this Court holds that Plaintiff is precluded from re-litigating the issue of its ownership of copyrights based on the 1998 Agreement, which issue was decided against it,” he wrote today. Disney was represented by James Quinn, R. Bruce Rich and Randi W. Singer of New York’s Weil Gotshal & Manges and Frederick J. Baumann and Holly Ludwig of Denver firm Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons. Stan Lee Media was represented by John McDermott of the Denver office of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck and Robert Chapman and Jon Jamison Hill out of the LA’s Eisner Kahan Gorry Chapman Ross & Jaffe.

Source..... http://www.deadline.com

Financial Conspiracy on More than 24 Films Paramount to Sue JPMorgan

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

Paramount Pictures is primed to face off directly with JPMorgan with an allegation that the largest bank in the United States secretly conspired to interfere with the studio's rights on more than two dozen films.

The studio believes the banking giant made a secret deal in order to recover money on "risk free" loans on 25 films including "The Truman Show," "Face/Off" and "Runaway Bride."

The suggestion of "conspiracy" comes in the midst of a 3-year-old lawsuit between Paramount and Content Partners, a company that specializes in acquiring cash flows arising from intellectual property in film, television and music and whose investors included former Broadcast.com partners Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner. Paramount stands accused of cheating Content out of more than $100 million on 25 films including The Truman Show, Face/Off and Runaway Bride, but the studio is fighting back, saying that Content is a "scavenger" with "no interest whatsoever" in participation agreements and that its antagonist merely serves as a "plaintiff-for-hire."

In June, Paramount filed a cross-complaint against Content, blaming JPMorgan for much of what happened. At the time, the bank wasn't a direct party in the lawsuit. But that is about to change.

On Tuesday, a Los Angeles judge is scheduled to hold a hearing in the lawsuit and respond to arguments by Content's lawyers that Paramount's counterclaims came too late and insufficiently stated facts to support its allegations.

In advance of the hearing, the judge has tentatively ruled that the counterclaim is sufficient and not barred by the statute of limitations. But the judge does want more. He's allowing 20 days for Paramount to amend the complaint, recommending that JPMorgan be joined as a cross-defendant as an alleged co-conspirator. Sources tell THR that the studio is prepared to follow through on this. Viacom publicly states that no firm decision has been made.

The basis for Paramount's conspiracy charge dates back to the mid-1990s, when banks began lending to studios in exchange for a portion of a film's future proceeds. To hedge risk, banks also purchased insurance whereby insurers would repay any loan amounts that remained outstanding after a picture's release.

"Like many Wall Street schemes, JPMorgan's attempt to craft 'risk free' loans to finance motion picture production proved too good to be true," said Paramount in court papers filed in June. "Before the ink was dry on the Fifth [Revenue Participation Agreement], JPMorgan came to the realization that the insurers might not make good on their policies."

From 2000 to 2004, JPMorgan was involved in litigation in New York and the United Kingdom with insurers over insurance-backed loans. Around that time, the bank attempted to get Paramount to "buy out" the participation agreements, and in order to drive the price up, the bank allegedly conducted a financial audit that resulted in an attempt to show the studio was incorrectly calculating "crossing" amounts, which pertains to the amount of net receipts after Paramount had recouped its direct costs for the pictures.

JPMorgan and Paramount came to no deal. Instead, JPMorgan is said to have reached a secret arrangement with Content Partners.

"However, they were faced with a predicament," said the counterclaim. "JPMorgan and Content Partners knew that, under the express terms of the Revenue Participation Agreements, their transaction could not be consummated without Paramount's consent. But they also recognized that Paramount would never consent to an assignment of rights under the Revenue Participation Agreements to a 'scavenger' that was intent on pursuing baseless claims and bad faith litigation against Paramount."

"JPMorgan purported to substitute itself as 'debtor' under the Loan Agreements … and transferred the position as purported 'lender' under those Loan Agreements to Content Partners."

Having gained financial position into Paramount's films, Content Partners filed a lawsuit in 2010 and it alleges that on 25 of its films, Paramount failed to comply with cross-collateralization provisions of agreements.

Content's lawyer Marty Singer objected, asserting that the studio was making a move merely to frustrate his client's right to petition for its rights. Saying it was the "most absurd thing" he had ever seen, Singer filed a demurrer and motion to strike.

In a tentative ruling issued before Tuesday's ruling, the judge denies the statute of limitations defense, pointing to Paramount's argument that "it did not discover the facts giving rise to the concealment until months after this action was filed and it undertook discovery."

The tentative order gives Paramount 20 days to amend the counterclaim to include JPMorgan and says the motion to strike is moot. The judge notes, "The basis of the claim is concealment based upon a failure to disclose the alleged assignment of claims to Content when Content had an affirmative responsibility to notify Paramount, and, under the terms of the contracts, a responsibility to obtain permission prior to making assignments."

Source.... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com

Monday, September 23, 2013

You Can Be Charged with a DUI

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

Your evening may have started innocently enough. Perhaps you had dinner with your significant other and had a few glasses of wine or beer. Or you may have been out playing softball or touch football with friends and had a few beers during the game or afterwards. You may not realize it at the time but your blood alcohol could be above the legal limit and if you are pulled over by police, you can be charged with a DUI.

You do not have to be falling down to be considered a drunk driver. Many people are surprised to find that their blood alcohol content is over the legal limit but even two drinks can cause a person’s coordination to be impaired. Some people think that they cannot get drunk by drinking wine or beer. They may be shocked to find out that a 5 ounce glass of wine has the same amount of alcohol as a 1.5 ounce shot of liquor. That is because it is not what you drink that makes you drunk; it is the amount of alcohol you drink over a specific period of time, according to the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers website statistics.

If you plan to go out drinking, take precautions so you avoid a DUI charge. Appoint a designated driver or call a friend or family member to pick you up. If you cannot reach a loved one, call a taxi. Having a DUI on your record is extremely serious and the consequences are harsh.

More Information... http://duidaily.com/you-can-be-charged-with-a-dui-2/