Sunday, July 5, 2009

SAG President’s Anti-SAG Suit Continues

For those who like keeping up with legal dockets, SAG a few days ago filed its Respondent’s Brief in the appeals court case that stems from the lawsuit filed by SAG president Alan Rosenberg and three other Membership First hardliners (1st VP Anne-Marie Johnson and board members Diane Ladd and Kent McCord) against their own union.

Rosenberg et al will shortly file another brief, then (as I’ve previously outlined) there may be oral argument and then there will ultimately be a decision. But that’s just on the appeal. The case also proceeds in the lower court as well, and will probably continue to do so regardless of the outcome in the appellate court. Not that there’s any good reason for this case to continue in either court . . .


Subscribe to my blog ( 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.


  1. I thought the Respondents' Brief was way too technical given the relatively simple question(s) presented here. It's full of inside-baseball stuff that I fear will cause the appellate court to think there is more to the appeal than there really is. In attempting to answer each of the arguments made by the appellants, respondents let appellants dictate the playing field more than they needed to, in my view.

    There are two overarching issues:

    1. The appeal is from denial of a temporary restraining order. It is not a decision on the merits. Grant or denial of a TRO is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and is entitled to considerable deference from the appellate court. The merits case continues in the Superior Court and there is no demonstration that plaintiffs are impaired in their ability to pursue that case because of the lack of a TRO.

    2. The case truly is moot at this point. The subsequent board meeting that enacted the same measure that was previously enacted by written assent has removed any live issue from this case, at the trial court or appellate level. The ever-changing theories that the plaintiffs have offered in the case should indicate to the appellate court how tenuous their position is.



  2. Jonathan, have you looked at the Case Management Statements filed by the parties in the Superior Court action to see what the lawyers think still remains of the case?

    What, if any, discovery could possibly be needed? I would think that there were no disputed issues of material fact.


  3. Thank you, that sounds pretty straightforward. I'll give a shot. Such a wonderful blog. Thanks again.