Monday, June 15, 2009

SAG Lawsuit Still Grinds On; Court Denies SAG’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

As I previously reported, SAG’s counsel in late May filed a motion to dismiss the appeal by SAG president Alan Rosenberg and three other Membership First hardliners (1st VP Anne-Marie Johnson and board members Diane Ladd and Kent McCord) of a Superior Court order that denied their application for a temporary restraining order. On June 5—just days before the new TV/theatrical contracts were ratified—Rosenberg et al. filed a brief opposing the motion to dismiss.

Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals on June 9 issued a one-sentence order denying the motion to dismiss, presumably meaning that the appeal is too complex to be decided without oral argument (or, at least, full briefing). So, the appeal grinds on. Rosenberg et al. previously filed their brief in the appeal. SAG’s responsive brief is due July 1. Thereafter, Rosenberg et al. get to file a reply brief, and then there will probably be oral argument at some point. Within 90 days after the oral argument, the court will issue its ruling.

In other words, the appeal will probably drag on until sometime in November unless Rosenberg et al. are persuaded to drop it. Meanwhile, the suit itself proceeds in the trial court as well. Confused as to how a case can proceed in two courts at once? Well, it happens, and the legal fees aren’t cheap. All of this sounds like a campaign issue that Unite for Strength will probably raise—why reelect a president who persists in suing his own union? UPDATE: Indeed, as SAGWatch points out, by continuing to pursue their lawsuit, Rosenberg et al. are reneging on a promise Anne-Marie Johnson publicly made to withdraw the suit if the TV/theatrical contracts were approved.

———————

Subscribe to my blog (jhandel.com) for more about entertainment law and digital media law. Go to the blog itself to subscribe via RSS or email. Or, follow me on Twitter, friend me on Facebook, or subscribe to my Huffington Post articles. If you work in tech, check out my new book How to Write LOIs and Term Sheets.

3 comments:

  1. Would UFS even need a campaign issue? If the MF'ers couldn't persuade more than 23 percent of the union to vote down a contract that was clearly flawed (though certainly not the dead fish the MF'ers made it out to be), how could Alan possibly win reelection? He's holding a place on the ballot until the MF'ers convince Martin Sheen to run, which he probably won't. (If UFS can persuade Jamie Cromwell to run, it will be JFK vs. George H.W. Bush. How cool would THAT be?)

    The MF'ers rational behavior/sense of propriety has shuffled off its mortal coil, or at least blown a fuel pump or alternator, if I may mix my Shakespeare with my "Car Talk."

    End, end, end the madness!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I just don't know what to say! I find this so confusing and unappealing. How can there be trust within the Union with this President?

    ReplyDelete
  3. and how [or why] would the members trust someone like Anne Marie johnson who frequently makes a comment that she won't stand behind?...like dropping the lawsuti. Wait to you read her next comments - she already demanding a strike in 2011.

    If her disparaging actions cause a violation and fine from AFTRA (or two) there should be an action against her. She is a fiduciary of the Guild, when her actions cause fines she [and her cohorts] should be held accountable.

    ReplyDelete