.jpg)
FILE - In this July 10, 2009 file photo, Paris Hilton arrives at federal court in Miami. (AP Photo/Alan Diaz, file)
Related Articles
A U.S. District Court judge has ruled against the receiver for a moribund production company in a breach of contract action against celebrity heiress Paris Hilton and her production company, Paris Hilton Entertainment, Inc. The lawsuit sought $8.3 million for losses suffered in connection with the 2006 National Lampoon film “Pledge This!”
Last month in a two-day Miami trial, the receiver for Worldwide Entertainment Group, Michael Goldberg, argued Hilton breached her contractual obligations by refusing to properly promote the film abroad and its DVD release. The contract did not specify what “promotion” entailed, allowing Hilton to counter that she constantly plugged the film and otherwise fulfilled her contract obligations, but producers made unreasonable demands in light of her full schedule. This included failing to arrange back-to-back interviews and requiring her to appear in exclusive locales subject to other endorsement agreements.
''Any time I was on a red carpet, any time I was at an event, I was promoting it the whole time,'' Hilton testified. “Any project I'm involved with, I want to give it my all. The scheduling was insane. I didn’t even have time to go shopping.” Hilton also testified about her one-woman image branding empire, lending credence to lingering rumors that she ignored her obligations because the film was box office poison.
''I want to protect my brand,'' Hilton said. “My brand is my business.''
For his part, Goldberg hammered away at Hilton's refusal of nine requests to do overseas promotions and as “Pledge This!” DVDs hit shelves.
''She had time to drive on a suspended license, and come out of nightclubs, but she didn't have time to promote our movie?'' Goldberg asked rhetorically. He pleaded with Hilton's staff for even a minor “Pledge This!” boost so he could tell investors “this spoiled brat didn't take your money."
“Pledge This!” netted less than $3 million and had bigger problems than its dispute with Hilton. Back in April 2006, a full eight months before it opened, federal regulators shut down the production company for running a Ponzi scheme bilking over 3,000 investors.
In issuing his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Federico Moreno found compelling evidence that the movie lost money "because the film's inexperienced producers hastily cobbled together a wholly inadequate marketing plan." The Judge refused to find Hilton liable, writing in an opinion, "Any causal connection between Ms. Hilton's alleged breaches and the financial ruin of the film are wholly speculative."
However, Judge Moreno was willing to hear arguments concerning whether Hilton should give back at least a portion of her $1 million earnings for acting and production services.
With respect to her role as executive producer, Hilton testified in a deposition before trial, "I'm not sure what a producer does, but—I don't know, help get cool people in the cast."
That ought to be good enough for return of at least a quarter mil. Judge Moreno gave Goldberg until August 26th to submit the proper paperwork.
I whole-heartedly agree with the judge’s ruling. Causality sinks this case. Proximate cause is a key element of breach of contract. If there are intervening circumstances, such as a movie being gawd awful or inept promoters who don’t know enough about marketing to create sufficient buzz, then a defendant cannot be held liable for any ensuing damage.
Additionally, the contract was not specific enough in defining “promotion.” In the context of Hilton’s other obligations, it could have meant exactly what she did. Right there, I think producers sunk themselves by leaving such a crucial component of the agreement open to interpretation.
Comments