Marty Singer Sending Legal Threats, California Appeals Court Singer Crossed the Line to be an "Extortion" Attempt

Singer sent the letter July 25, 2011, on behalf of Top Chef Canada judge Shereene Arazm to Big Brother contestant and VH1 Famous Food host Mike Malin.

Arazm and Malin were business partners in a restaurant group until Arazm said he discovered that Malin had embezzled and mismanaged more than $1 million in assets. In his letter, Singer demanded a full forensic accounting and the return of funds. He attached a draft of a lawsuit that he said would be filed in court if the dispute wasn't resolved. Perhaps most intimidating was the part of the letter that stated, "I have deliberately left blank spaces in portions of the complaint dealing with your using company resources to arrange sexual liaisons with ------------------.  When the complaint is filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court, there will be no blanks in the pleading.”

Read Letter Here.... http://www.scribd.com/doc/141257673/Arazm-v-Malin-Malin-Letter

 "The allegations of sexual misconduct contained in the demand letter in this case are very tangential," wrote Los Angeles judge Mary Strobel, adding that the "letter is best read as extortion as a matter of law [because] [i]t threatens to reveal the names of sexual partners."

On Thursday, Singer will take his case on appeal — and he's being supported by several lawyer associations as well as the ACLU. At stake might be how aggressive Hollywood attorneys can be in messages to would-be defendants. Singer's own attorney Jeremy Rosen tells THR, "We remain confident in prevailing in this litigation because, under the trial court’s analysis, virtually all pre-litigation demand letters routinely sent by attorneys throughout the state would constitute extortion."

Singer believes that the judge should have stricken Malin's claim as an impingement of his client's First Amendment rights. The reason why the claim survived an anti-SLAPP challenge was because the judge determined that the pre-litigation communication was not protected due to it falling into an exception for illegal activity.

On appeal, Singer challenges this assessment.

Rosen tells California's 2nd Appellate District that in Flatley v. Mauro, the California Supreme Court articulated a "narrow exception" to the anti-SLAPP statute in instances where "either the defendant concedes, or the evidence conclusively establishes, that the assertedly protected speech or petition activity was illegal as a matter of law."

According to Singer's appellate brief, "Indeed, the actual evidence demonstrates that the demand letter was not the type of rare and highly egregious letter that could satisfy the narrow definition of extortion. As an initial matter, the demand letter simply stated the factual bases of the anticipated lawsuit detailing the wide range of financial wrongdoing Malin engaged in, including using restaurant group assets to pay his sexual partners."

The appeal brief contains many other arguments and can be read in full here.... http://www.scribd.com/doc/141257870/Respondent-Brief

In response, Malin's attorneys say that Singer is attempting to "hide behind the litigation privilege" by contending that "anything that an attorney puts into a 'demand letter' constitutes 'protected speech' ... no matter how egregious, or how unrelated the statement (threat) may be to the actual basis of the dispute."

Read the full respondent's brief here.... http://www.scribd.com/doc/141257870/Respondent-Brief

Read More.... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/hollywood-lawyer-marty-singer-appeals-521725

CBS "Glass House" at War with ABC "Big Brother"

Last year, CBS went to war against ABC over the latter's strangers-living-together reality TV series Glass House, alleged to be a copycat of Big Brother.

A judge won't stop the network from pursuing claims that ex-'Big Brother' producers violated trade secrets by creating an alleged copycat show on ABC.

After a federal judge denied a request for a temporary restraining order that would have barred ABC from airing Glass House, the lawsuit was dropped. The fact that the series hadn't performed particularly well in the ratings likely contributed to CBS' decision to retreat.

But that doesn't mean the legal battle is over.

Even as CBS announced it was dropping its claim against ABC, the network said it would continue to fight Glass House producers alleged to have stolen trade secrets. Now, thanks a decision from a federal judge last week, Glass House executive producer Kenny Rosen, ABC vp alternative programming Corie Henson and Glass House producer Michael O'Sullivan could be in danger of having to pay a lot of money to CBS.

Although much of the attention paid to last year's CBS-vs.-ABC skirmish focused on the issue of copyright -- and formed the basis for U.S. District Judge Gary Allen Feess' denial of a restraining order -- the trade secrets aspect of the case arguably was more provocative, a rare instance in Hollywood where the flight of producers from one network to another instigated a battle over duties of secrecy.
After CBS dropped its case against ABC, the network announced it would proceed in arbitration, which caused Rosen, Henson and O'Sullivan to file a lawsuit against CBS, alleging that CBS was "using the 'litigation equivalent of war' " and has brought arbitration against them "as part of its campaign to prevent or, at the very least, disrupt and harass the production of "Glass House."
The producers demanded that CBS be ordered to cease the harassment. The producers argued that the network had given up its right to arbitration by suing them.
But on March 18, Feess rejected the producers' attempt to stop CBS, allowing the network to go ahead with arbitration.

Read the full ruling here... http://www.scribd.com/doc/132292027/Glasshouse

The judge analyzed the contract between the parties, in particular the provision that states “any effort by any party to enforce, interpret, construe, rescind, terminate or annul this Agreement, or any provision thereof” is to be resolved by binding arbitration.

Feess concludes that "challenges to its enforceability and its interpretation should be arbitrated," meaning it will be up to an arbitrator to decide whether the dispute is arbitrable (as funny as that might sound).

But Feess also provided the reason why the dispute likely will stick in arbitration, saying that even if this particular decision wasn't up to the arbitrator, "the result would not change."

"The dispute in the initial litigation was complex and involved not only Rosen but also ABC, which was not a party to the Arbitration Clause and could not have been forced into arbitration," the judge wrote. "Moreover, the suit included non-arbitrable claims, most notably the CBS claim that ABC’s Glass House infringed on CBS’ claimed copyright in its Big Brother reality series."

The judge concluded that the "relative brief" lawsuit brought by CBS last year didn't prejudice Rosen nor waive CBS' right to arbitrate.

Read More... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/cbs-allowed-pursue-glass-house-430672