Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 246 views

    Hanzer V CBS Feb 22 Ruling

    Uploaded by

    THROnline
    The court held a hearing on a motion for summary judgment filed by CBS Studios in a civil case regarding agency commissions. After arguments, the court took the matter under submission. Upon reconsideration, the court denied CBS's motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication, finding that triable issues of material fact exist as to whether there was a contract between the parties and their meeting of the minds.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hanzer V CBS Feb 22 Ruling

    Uploaded by

    THROnline
    246 views2 pages
    The court held a hearing on a motion for summary judgment filed by CBS Studios in a civil case regarding agency commissions. After arguments, the court took the matter under submission. Upon reconsideration, the court denied CBS's motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication, finding that triable issues of material fact exist as to whether there was a contract between the parties and their meeting of the minds.

    Original Description:

    2/22/22

    Original Title

    Hanzer v CBS Feb 22 Ruling

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court held a hearing on a motion for summary judgment filed by CBS Studios in a civil case regarding agency commissions. After arguments, the court took the matter under submission. Upon reconsideration, the court denied CBS's motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication, finding that triable issues of material fact exist as to whether there was a contract between the parties and their meeting of the minds.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    246 views2 pages

    Hanzer V CBS Feb 22 Ruling

    Uploaded by

    THROnline
    The court held a hearing on a motion for summary judgment filed by CBS Studios in a civil case regarding agency commissions. After arguments, the court took the matter under submission. Upon reconsideration, the court denied CBS's motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication, finding that triable issues of material fact exist as to whether there was a contract between the parties and their meeting of the minds.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

    Civil Division
    Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 38

    18STCV09231 February 22, 2022


    HANZER HOLDINGS, et al. vs CBS STUDIOS, INC 9:30 AM

    Judge: Honorable Maureen Duffy-Lewis CSR: None


    Judicial Assistant: R. Karapetyan ERM: None
    Courtroom Assistant: R. Lomeli Deputy Sheriff: None

    APPEARANCES:
    For Plaintiff(s): Lee S. Brenner; Ronald J. Nessim With Julia Cherlow; Craig A. Thompson
    (Telephonic)
    For Defendant(s): Sarah Lynn Cronin With Carl Benedetti; Kenneth D Kronstadt

    NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment /By CBS Studios
    (Defendant)

    Pursuant to Government Code sections 68086, 70044, and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956,
    Justus Balentine, CSR# 13859, certified shorthand reporter is appointed as an official Court
    reporter pro tempore in these proceedings, and is ordered to comply with the terms of the Court
    Reporter Agreement. The Order is signed and filed this date.

    Matter is called for hearing.

    The Court notes that Motion to be Admitted pro Hac Vice is set for 03/09/2022.

    Parties agree to advance the above motion and to be heard on this date.

    On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice /By CBS
    Studios Inc. (Defendant) scheduled for 03/09/2022 is advanced to this date and heard .

    Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED.

    After hearing arguments, the Court rules as follows:

    Matter is taken under submission.

    LATER:

    The Court, having taken the matter under submission earlier on this date, now rules as follows:

    Minute Order Page 1 of 2


    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
    Civil Division
    Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 38

    18STCV09231 February 22, 2022


    HANZER HOLDINGS, et al. vs CBS STUDIOS, INC 9:30 AM

    Judge: Honorable Maureen Duffy-Lewis CSR: None


    Judicial Assistant: R. Karapetyan ERM: None
    Courtroom Assistant: R. Lomeli Deputy Sheriff: None

    CBS move for summary judgment and adjudication.

    Summary Judgment-CBS moves on the entire complaint on the grounds that there was no
    contract, and no "meeting of the minds". FACTS 1 through 47.

    Summary Adjudication-CBS alternatively moves for summary adjudication on the Breach of


    Implied Covenant cause of action on the grounds "Plaintiffs have recently asserted that their
    implied covenant cause of action is really based on a statement allegedly made by CBS in
    October 2016 to Richard Weston that Paradigm Talent Agency had represented that it was the
    successor to Major Talent Agency" and (ii) CBS's alleged failure to investigate Plaintiffs'
    interests in an agency commission prior to November 2016.

    Summary Judgment-DENIED on the moving papers. CBS fails to meet its burden. CBS has not
    shown that there are no triable issues of material fact.

    The Separate Statement presents sufficient evidence to show that there are triable issues of
    material facts as to whether there was a contract and whether there was a meeting of the minds.

    Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is DENIED on the moving papers.
    CBS argues there is no Breach of Implied contract not that there is no Breach of Implied
    Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

    They argued "two additional independent reasons", making arguments that pertain to an
    intentional misrepresentation cause of action resulting in reliance and resulting damage from that
    reliance which was not pled.

    As the motion is determined on the moving papers, Court does not address the objections.

    Clerk is to give notice.

    Certificate of Mailing is attached.

    Minute Order Page 2 of 2

    You might also like