This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/23/2021 at 03:22:01 (UTC).

PARK AVENUE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC VS MIRAMAX, LLC

Case Summary

On 02/14/2020 PARK AVENUE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MIRAMAX, LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Other.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0264

  • Filing Date:

    02/14/2020

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

PARK AVENUE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

Defendant

MIRAMAX LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

TESSER BRANDON

Defendant Attorney

GATTI JOHN

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ADR)

7/21/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ADR)

Case Management Statement

7/28/2020: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

8/7/2020: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

8/12/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER

4/7/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

4/5/2021: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

3/5/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE

3/5/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT INITIAL PLEADING) PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS

4/7/2020: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT INITIAL PLEADING) PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS

Request for Dismissal

8/10/2021: Request for Dismissal

Notice - NOTICE OF NEW HEARING DATE

7/21/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF NEW HEARING DATE

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF LAUREN J. FRIED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT MIRAMAX, LLCS DEMURRER TO THE FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION IN PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTIO

6/22/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF LAUREN J. FRIED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT MIRAMAX, LLCS DEMURRER TO THE FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION IN PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTIO

Request for Judicial Notice

6/22/2021: Request for Judicial Notice

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

6/22/2021: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

6/22/2021: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

7/28/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

8/14/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

Proof of Personal Service

2/20/2020: Proof of Personal Service

18 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/10/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Park Avenue Entertainment, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O; Status Conference (ReADR) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2021
  • DocketNotice (Of New Hearing Date); Filed by Miramax, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference Re: ADR)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2021
  • DocketDemurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10); Filed by Miramax, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Lauren J. Fried In Support of Defendant Miramax, Llcs Demurrer to The First, Second, and Third Causes of Action in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint); Filed by Miramax, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2021
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by Miramax, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2021
  • DocketMotion to Strike (not initial pleading); Filed by Miramax, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2021
  • DocketAmended Complaint ( (1st)); Filed by Park Avenue Entertainment, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2021
  • DocketStipulation and Order (Stipulation and Order to Further Extend Deadline for Plaintiff to File First Amended Complaint); Filed by Park Avenue Entertainment, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
14 More Docket Entries
  • 04/07/2020
  • DocketMotion to Strike (not initial pleading) (Punitive Damages Allegations); Filed by Miramax, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2020
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice (in Support of Demurrer); Filed by Miramax, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (OF MOLLY K. WYLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT MIRAMAX, LLC'S DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT); Filed by Miramax, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2020
  • DocketDemurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) (to First and Second Causes of Action); Filed by Miramax, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Park Avenue Entertainment, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Park Avenue Entertainment, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Park Avenue Entertainment, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Park Avenue Entertainment, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******0264    Hearing Date: March 18, 2021    Dept: O

Case Name: Park Avenue Entertainment, LLC v. Miramax, LLC, et al.

Case No.: *******0264

Complaint Filed: 2-14-20

Hearing Date: 3-18-21

Discovery C/O: 1-7-22

Calendar No.: 2

Discover Motion C/O: 1-24-22

POS: OK

Trial Date: 2-7-22

SUBJECT: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Miramax, LLC

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Parke Avenue Entertainment, LLC

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Miramax, LLC’s Demurrer to the 1st and 2nd causes of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation is SUSTAINED. Defendant Miramax, LLC’s Motion to Strike is MOOT. Plaintiff to address at the hearing what factual allegations could be added to cure the defects.

I. 1st cause of action for fraud—SUSTAIN.

A. Plaintiff fails to allege fraud with specificity

Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ misrepresentations at ¶28, p. 8:15-24. “The misrepresentations by Harrison on behalf of Miramax included, but were not limited to the following: a) the only “relevant” agreement between the parties concerning interactive game rights was the 1996 PSA; b) pursuant to the PSA, Fifth Avenue reserved interactive game rights in its favor subject only to the Magnet Agreement, thereby suggesting, in direct contravention of the express terms of the 2003 Amendment, that once the Magnet Agreement expired these rights should be granted to Miramax per the PSA; c) intentionally failing to disclose the existence of the 2003 Amendment; d) representing that the Side Letter constituted the “first amendment” to the 1996 PSA.” See Complaint, ¶28, 8:15-24.

Defendant argues Plaintiff fails to allege a misrepresentation of fact by Defendant. However, based on the facts alleged in the complaint, these statements were misrepresentations. The 1996 Agreement was not the only relevant agreement between the parties concerning interactive game rights, 5th Ave.’s interactive game rights were not subject only to the Magnet Agreement and the 2016 Side Letter Agreement was not the first amendment to the 1996 Agreement. See Complaint, ¶¶8-13 (detailing the negotiation and execution of the 2003 Amendment to the 1996 Agreement, which superseded the 1996 Agreement).

Defendant also demurs on grounds that it never made these misrepresentations. Defendant argues that the 6-28-16 email from Harrison, the contents of which are alleged at ¶16 of the Complaint, do not contain the misrepresentations alleged in ¶28.

However, nothing in ¶28 indicates that the alleged misrepresentations were all made in the 6-28-16 email. In fact, nothing in ¶28 indicates when these alleged misrepresentations were made or how they were made. As such, Plaintiff’s 1st cause of action for fraud therefore fails for lack of specificity.

In opposition, Plaintiff states that the “First” alleged misrepresentation was made in the 6-28-16 email and the “Second” misrepresentation was made in a 12-21-16 email and both emails were from Harrison. See Plaintiff’s Opposition, 9:1-8. However, this information is not pled in ¶28, nor is the “how” and the “when” as to each misrepresentation apparent from the complaint.

B. Plaintiff’s 1st cause of action for fraud includes an insufficiently pled cause of action for concealment

Moreover, “intentionally failing to disclose the existence of the 2003 Amendment” is a concealment, not an affirmative misrepresentation. “A fraud claim based upon the suppression or concealment of a material fact must involve a defendant who had a legal duty to disclose the fact.” Hoffman v. 162 North Wolfe LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1186. “There are four circumstances in which nondisclosure or concealment may constitute actionable fraud: (1) when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff; (2) when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff; (3) when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; and (4) when the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses some material facts.” Id.

In order to state a claim based on fraudulent concealment, Plaintiff must allege facts that would support a duty of disclosure. CC ;1710(3). Plaintiff fails to allege the circumstances it maintains would impose a duty of disclosure on Defendant. Based on Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendant is not a fiduciary, nor did Defendant have superior knowledge of the 2003 Amendment.

C. Plaintiff fails to allege justifiable reliance

“Except in the rare case where the undisputed facts leave no room for a reasonable difference of opinion, the question of whether a plaintiff's reliance is reasonable is a question of fact.” Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1067. “Negligence on the part of the plaintiff in failing to discover the falsity of a statement is no defense when the misrepresentation was intentional rather than negligent. Nor is a plaintiff held to the standard of precaution or of minimum knowledge of a hypothetical, reasonable man. [¶] Conversely, a plaintiff's reliance is not reasonable when he puts faith in representations which are preposterous, or which are shown by facts within his observation to be so patently and obviously false that he must have closed his eyes to avoid discovery of the truth.” Id. (demurrer improperly sustained based on justifiable reliance where alleged misrepresentations were not so preposterous or false to preclude liability).

Moreover, “[r]eliance is justifiable only when circumstances were such to make it reasonable for plaintiff to accept defendant's statements without an independent inquiry or investigation.” Philipson & Simon v. Gulsvig (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 347, 363. Thus, in Philipson, the Court found on the 2nd prong of SLAPP that the plaintiff law firm failed to plead justifiable reliance for purposes of its fraud claim: “We cannot view this story, as told by Philipson in its own pleading, as demonstrating anything like ‘reasonable reliance.’ Philipson's role, as Tultex's attorney, simply does not allow it to unquestioningly abandon its professional obligations to that client, simply because an officer of the company (who has previously stated consistently that a particular asset belongs to Tultex) suddenly claims that she has personally owned that asset all along.” Id. at 363. The Court found plaintiff’s case to be “exactly the sort of case in which we can determine whether, on the facts pleaded, there is any foundation, prima facie at least, for the charge of fraud.” Id.

Based on Plaintiff’s complaint, the following facts are admitted as true: (1) both 5th Ave. and Plaintiff were/are wholly owned by Lawrence Kippin (Complaint, ¶¶1 and 6; (2) 5th Ave. entered into the 1996 Agreement and the 2003 Amendment (Complaint, ¶¶8-13; (3) Harrison emailed Kuppin on 6-28-16 inquiring as to the availability of the interactive game rights for Hellraiser (Complaint, ¶16); (4) Kuppin “forgot” about the 2003 Amendment when he received Harrison’s email (Complaint, ¶17); (5) Kuppin did not have access to any of his business records for Hellraiser because he had recently moved (Complaint, ¶17); and (6) despite knowledge that he did not have access to his business records and had not reviewed them, Kuppin evaluated and responded to Harrison’s question regarding the availability of interactive game rights based wholly on Harrison’s statements and representations (Complaint, ¶17).

Kuppin admits therefore that (1) he knew of the 2003 Amendment at one point and “forgot” about it when Harrison emailed him; (2) he conducted no independent investigation into his own company’s interactive game rights were; (3) he relied on Miramax’s statements to determine the scope of his company’s rights; (4) Miramax was not Kuppin’s fiduciary nor did it have superior knowledge of the 2003 Amendment; and (5) he engaged in an arm’s length negotiation with Miramax and executed the 2016 Side Letter Agreement without any independent investigation or review of his own files, relying solely on statements by Harrison. Kuppin also fails to alleges with specificity the affirmative representations made by Harrison.

Based on these facts, Plaintiff’s complaint is one of those “exceptional cases” where the facts pled do not state a prima facie case of justifiable and reasonable reliance. Demurrer is therefore sustained. Plaintiff should and clearly address how the failure to plead justifiable and reasonable reliance is capable of cure with leave to amend.

II. 2nd cause of action for negligent misrepresentation

Plaintiff’s 2nd cause of action is based on the same insufficiently pled misrepresentations as the 1st cause of action. Plaintiff’s 2nd cause of action also relies on the same facts to plead justifiable reliance as the 1st cause of action. In fact, the allegations of justifiable reliance are even more defective in the case of negligent misrepresentation, because the misrepresentations were not intentional. “Negligence on the part of the plaintiff in failing to discover the falsity of a statement is no defense when the misrepresentation was intentional rather than negligent.” Beckwith, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at 1067.

III. Defendant’s Motion to Strike—MOOT. ¶38 and the prayer for relief are in connection with the 1st cause of action for fraud.


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where PARK AVENUE ENTERTAINMENT LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where Miramax, llc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GATTI JOHN MICHAEL