Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Rosenberg v. SAG Lawsuit Dismissed

The lawsuit filed 1-1/2 years ago by SAG's then-president Alan Rosenberg against his own union has finally been formally dismissed, according to court records and a source with knowledge of the matter. The formal dismissal actually came in late July, but appears not to have previously been reported. The dismissal was expected, as the judge had ruled on the matter a month earlier.

The action ends with a whimper a suit that attempted to reinstate SAG's previous National Executive Director, Doug Allen, and impede the ultimate achievement of the 2009 agreement between SAG and the studios and producers.

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


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. I'm still confused.

    Wasn't the suit claiming that, the SAG constitution, at the time of the written assent ouster, was not in compliance with California State not-for-profit labor law, which required all national board members be notified in a written assent, not just the "yes" votes?

    And wasn't it true that the written assent signers were the only national board members notified, so therefore, the written assent as written in SAG's constitution, was illegal at the time?

    And didn't the national board re-do the written assent, this time giving notice to all members, both "no" and "yes" as required by state law?

    And didn't Duncan Crabtree Ireland then change the SAG constitution to come into compliance with state law, which was then voted up by the national board?

    I believe all the answers to those questions are yes.

    Obviously, the court(s) did not feel, either immediately or thereafter, that, since they re-did everything and changed the SAG constitution, and it did later pass in compliance with state law, that relief was necessary.

    I'd say that was a very questionable judgment at the very start, because, at the very start, what was done violated state law. Fact.

    Had it been a different judge, more sympathetic to the argument that the granting of an injunction would avoid the irreparable harm caused by the illegal action, and therefore Rosenberg et al, may have used the time to their advantage...

    Alas, it was not to be. The judge looked at the situation and said, in essence "well, they will get it right, so why bother."

    But, the truth is, the action as first taken was not in compliance with state law

  3. "But, the truth is, the action as first taken was not in compliance with state law"

    The truth may not be anything of the sort. There was no ruling made on that. I do believe that is moot - and even more moot now.

    The truth is Alan Rosenberg's actions that extended the "filibuster" that triggered the necessity for that written consent were illegal. Illegal and inappropriate - as were many of his actions during his sad tenure as President of SAG.

    That's why the members of SAG have kicked him and his Membership First cronies to the curb.

    Disgusting, that those four "leaders" have sought to rob the treasury of the very union that their "leadership" sent into the red.

    I think all four of them should be permanently expelled from the Board & any positions of guild government.

  4. Matt -

    You complain about the first judge in this case, but forget to mention that four subsequent judges evaluated the judgment of the first judge, and considered exactly the argument you're making (since the Rosenberg plaintiffs made this argument).

    None of those judges were persuaded by the argument you're making. That suggests that a different first judge might not have made a difference.

    In any case, this is all past tense.


  5. All past tense, yes, but let's be serious. Someday, this will be looked at in light of the facts, not the partisan reaction to the facts, and every word in the above post is true.

    The "moderates" simply don't want to hear it. Well, unfortunately the "moderates" have a lot of truth coming at them in the next year or so, and truth is a very bad thing for the moderates and they know it, which is why they are running from it as fast as they can.

    The post makes clear - the first judge kicked the can down the road, as judges often do, usually, in fact, do.

    That was the moment an injunction could have been granted and that was the moment Rosenberg et al could have used that ruling to show the membership the illegal lengths the moderates were going to to throw him and Allen out.

    The FACT is, at the time of the written assent as it was FIRST used, it was NOT in compliance with California State not-for-profit law, whereby you MUST send notification to ALL board members NOT just the "yes" votes.

    The fact that SAG then RE-
    VOTED sending the written assent to ALL members, and then the SAG council RE-
    WROTE the SAG constitution to come into compliance with state labor LAW PROVES THE POINT.

    WHY would SAG re-vote and the RE-WRITE the SAG constitution if they had NOT been in violation of state law?

    Successive judges, Jonathan (Jesus, is it this easy, I'm in the wrong business?) looked at the time that was passing, or had passed, and said "well, it's too late now, they re-did it legally" - the legal translation of which is "the point is MOOT."

    It does NOT mean they were NOT in violation, as the plaintiffs charged immediately, because THEN, they WERE.

    Care to challenge that with any substance Jonathan? Because those are the facts.

    As has been said before, the truth and the American Justice system are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT things.

    Ask one of the guys who got off death row cause his DNA test exonerated him after spending 30 years in solitary confinement.

    And there was NOTHING illegal about the "filibuster" on that first day. NOTHING. It was in COMPLETE compliance with the SAG Constitution, and was the result of LIES told by the moderates the night before that they would allow Doug Allen the courtesy of addressing SAG business BEFORE the assassins jumped up and tried to take him out - BEFORE they gave him the chance to make his pitch.

    They did NOT have the votes, and they, in a desperate attempt to override the perfectly legal filibuster THEY caused, they tried the first ham-fisted and totally ridiculous "written assent" by Gabrielle Carteris, that was dismissed without a second glance by Duncan Crabtree Ireland.

    Own it Jonathan.

  6. The only "ham-fisted" behavior was by Alan ("You want a civil war? I'll give you a fucking civil war! And I'll lead it!") Rosenberg. That was how Smokey Greentooth (with Shrieky by his sorry side) ran the SAG National Board meetings from the first day of his presidency.

  7. If that's all you've got - as the great Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "People are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

    Rosenberg went off, which he RARELY did, because UFS had purposefully LIED and treated Doug Allen with NO respect by not allowing him to address the board first, as they had agreed to do.

    Then, MF knew, day two of the meeting, they would probably fire him. But, UFS and specifically Gabrielle Carteris, couldn't keep her mouth shut, and they decided to jump the gun and act with a contempt for decorum and for the HUMAN BEING they were intent on humiliating.

    THAT kind of behavior is NEVER forgotten, and, if there IS a downfall to "moderate" SAG and merger (and there's a LOT of time for THAT to happen - hell, we're just gettin started folks) THAT kind of behavior will have been the seed for the moderates and mergers downfall.

  8. Mr. Mulhern:

    Doug Allen did nothing to earn "respect." He was an inexperienced ego-driven blunderer - utterly unsuited to lead a union - that did irreparable harm to SAG.

    Alan Rosenberg was a bumbling loose cannon with no skill, no knowledge, no tact, no ethics. He too brought SAG to its knees.

    And now it seems that YOU, Mr. Mulhern, are making threats. I think you have already outed yourself, and are now a useless low-level gadfly who obviously takes his orders from Anne-Marie Johnson.

    You are already past your own downfall - a terminally unemployed, bitter, swollen, pill-popping has-been. You will not be involved with merger, which means you will never exercise any influence in any performers' union.

  9. It is interesting, I will go back to read them again.