Lust, arguing their relationship was "at will" and their agreement dictated he would have to sign over any copyrights or other IP he owned in connection with projects he worked on for the company. It also asked the court to toss Lust's claims in a March 2018that argued, "Only in Hollywood would someone who has received compensation and credit sue because no one asked him to do any actual work.
In a redacted order, Kronstadt finds the shortform agreement between the parties to be binding, even though it contemplated a longform agreement that was never signed. That SFA contained ambiguity surrounding the term "attached" and whether it meant Lust was contracted on a pay-or-play basis or he was guaranteed to be involved with the production.
Ultimately, the court found "the SFA requires that Lust either be paid, consistent with its terms, for each project to which he is 'entitled to be attached,' or be permitted to provide active producing services on each project." It's undisputed that Lust was paid under the SFA, so Kronstadt granted the motion with regard to Lust's claim for breach of contract. He also tossed Lust's claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and declaratory relief.
Source: Law Daily Report (lawdailyreport.net)
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: Refinery29 - 🏆 26. / 68 Read more »
Source: Forbes - 🏆 394. / 53 Read more »
Source: YahooNews - 🏆 380. / 59 Read more »
Source: NYMag - 🏆 111. / 63 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »