David Cassidy Denied Jury Trial over "Partridge Family" Claims - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

JamesG · 07-16-2012, 07:21 PM

David Cassidy Denied Jury Trial over "Partridge Family" Claims
7/16/2012
by Eriq Gardner

David Cassidy may not get a chance to tell a jury how Sony Pictures Television screwed him out of "Partridge Family" money after all. A judge has ruled that the dispute should be handled by an arbitrator.

Last year, the actor sued Sony and claimed that despite reports that ABC's top-rated series in the 1970s had generated nearly $500 million from games, magazines, posters and more, he was only paid a "paltry sum."

Cassidy further alleged that his contract entitled him to 15 percent of net proceeds from merchandise and 7.5 percent of the net proceeds derived from the exhibition and exploitation of the underlying property rights of the show.

In an interview with CNN last year, Cassidy expressed enthusiastic optimism about how a jury would handle his claims.

"I don't want to shame and embarrass and humiliate them, but I will if I have to," he said. Pretending he was addressing his potential legal adversary, Cassidy added, "You owe me a fortune -- you want to go to trial, big bad Sony against David Cassidy, go ahead."

But there may not be any trial. A California judge earlier this month decided to honor the arbitration provision of the actor's 1971 contract. Cassidy is appealing.

It's understandable why Cassidy would want this dispute before a jury instead of an arbitrator: Celebrities often make sympathetic figures and there's quite a bit of skepticism over so-called "Hollywood accounting."

One of the best examples is the $23 million in profits that was awarded by a jury a couple years ago to Don Johnson from Rysher Entertainment over "Nash Bridges".

Cassidy and his attorney Kenneth Linzer believe that their case against Sony is just as strong. The complaint points out that Cassidy got a very favorable contract to star in "Partridge Family", entitling him to more than "net profits" but rather "net proceeds."

In the complaint, Cassidy wasn't quite sure what he was owed, pointing to reports that merchandise and spinoffs had generated $500 million, but he blamed the uncertainty on the fact that Sony had provided accountings and financial reports "begrudgingly, inconsistently, inaccurately and fraudulently."

The contract might have in part been favorable to Cassidy, but not completely.

In Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Kalin's order to send the dispute to an arbitrator, he writes, "There is no support for Cassidy's argument that he was fraudulently induced to enter into the arbitration agreement."

So now Cassidy may be headed for arbitration, which besides featuring no jury, also has different (and often limited) rules pertaining to discovery. Linzer says he'll file a writ to the court of appeal to head off that possibility.

Sony hasn't yet responded to a request for comment, but upon the lawsuit's initial filing, the company said in a statement, "We have dealt with Mr. Cassidy in a completely lawful and appropriate way, and are confident that we will prevail in any proceeding."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...lawsuit-349561

caro · 07-17-2012, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesG

David Cassidy Denied Jury Trial over "Partridge Family" Claims
7/16/2012
by Eriq Gardner

.[/I]"

David Cassidy is not having a good month.

http://record-eagle.com/real_estate_...in-Foreclosure

David Cassidy's 34th-floor penthouse in the Las Olas River House is being turned over to the bank.

David Cassidy is no longer singing "Could It Be Forever" about this 34th-story penthouse. "The Partridge Family" star has agreed to surrender his $1.35 million Fort Lauderdale, FL condo to the bank within three months, rather than continue going through the foreclosure process, according to GossipExtra.com.

AB · 07-17-2012, 07:01 PM

I realize many people don't care for David Cassidy & his huge ego but that's not the point.
If one actor (Don Johnson as mentioned above) can get such a large settlement, then why shouldn't David Cassidy get a settlement too? He probably had no idea how popular the show, the music & merchandise would be when he signed on to do the series. And it was David's face & music that made it all so very profitable.

caro · 07-18-2012, 07:30 AM

David had his contract redone when he turned 21 because they found out that they neglected to get a parent's signature. When this happened David did get a piece of the show and music...
David's lawsuit is about merchandising. Nobody recalled too much merchandise out there after the show was over but David claims he never got his 15%. I think it was someone's job back then to take care of that.
Now it's like going back through company and accounting changes 40 years ago.
I don't think David ever had a strong case.

07-16-2012, 07:21 PM	#1
JamesG Freakshow Moderator Forum Icon Join Date: Feb 01, 2008 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 57,045	David Cassidy Denied Jury Trial over "Partridge Family" Claims *David Cassidy Denied Jury Trial over "Partridge Family" Claims* 7/16/2012 by Eriq Gardner David Cassidy may not get a chance to tell a jury how Sony Pictures Television screwed him out of "Partridge Family" money after all. A judge has ruled that the dispute should be handled by an arbitrator. Last year, the actor sued Sony and claimed that despite reports that ABC's top-rated series in the 1970s had generated nearly $500 million from games, magazines, posters and more, he was only paid a "paltry sum." Cassidy further alleged that his contract entitled him to 15 percent of net proceeds from merchandise and 7.5 percent of the net proceeds derived from the exhibition and exploitation of the underlying property rights of the show. In an interview with CNN last year, Cassidy expressed enthusiastic optimism about how a jury would handle his claims. "I don't want to shame and embarrass and humiliate them, but I will if I have to," he said. Pretending he was addressing his potential legal adversary, Cassidy added, "You owe me a fortune -- you want to go to trial, big bad Sony against David Cassidy, go ahead." But there may not be any trial. A California judge earlier this month decided to honor the arbitration provision of the actor's 1971 contract. Cassidy is appealing. It's understandable why Cassidy would want this dispute before a jury instead of an arbitrator: Celebrities often make sympathetic figures and there's quite a bit of skepticism over so-called "Hollywood accounting." One of the best examples is the $23 million in profits that was awarded by a jury a couple years ago to Don Johnson from Rysher Entertainment over "Nash Bridges". Cassidy and his attorney Kenneth Linzer believe that their case against Sony is just as strong. The complaint points out that Cassidy got a very favorable contract to star in "Partridge Family", entitling him to more than "net profits" but rather "net proceeds." In the complaint, Cassidy wasn't quite sure what he was owed, pointing to reports that merchandise and spinoffs had generated $500 million, but he blamed the uncertainty on the fact that Sony had provided accountings and financial reports "begrudgingly, inconsistently, inaccurately and fraudulently." The contract might have in part been favorable to Cassidy, but not completely. In Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Kalin's order to send the dispute to an arbitrator, he writes, "There is no support for Cassidy's argument that he was fraudulently induced to enter into the arbitration agreement." So now Cassidy may be headed for arbitration, which besides featuring no jury, also has different (and often limited) rules pertaining to discovery. Linzer says he'll file a writ to the court of appeal to head off that possibility. Sony hasn't yet responded to a request for comment, but upon the lawsuit's initial filing, the company said in a statement, "We have dealt with Mr. Cassidy in a completely lawful and appropriate way, and are confident that we will prevail in any proceeding." http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...lawsuit-349561 Attached Images

07-18-2012, 07:30 AM	#4
caro Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Nov 04, 2009 Location: suburbs Posts: 232	David had his contract redone when he turned 21 because they found out that they neglected to get a parent's signature. When this happened David did get a piece of the show and music... David's lawsuit is about merchandising. Nobody recalled too much merchandise out there after the show was over but David claims he never got his 15%. I think it was someone's job back then to take care of that. Now it's like going back through company and accounting changes 40 years ago. I don't think David ever had a strong case.
	Last edited by caro; 07-18-2012 at 08:52 AM.

07-17-2012, 07:01 PM	#3
AB Member Eternal Member Forum Icon Join Date: Dec 26, 2006 Location: The South Posts: 59,429	I realize many people don't care for David Cassidy & his huge ego but that's not the point. If one actor (Don Johnson as mentioned above) can get such a large settlement, then why shouldn't David Cassidy get a settlement too? He probably had no idea how popular the show, the music & merchandise would be when he signed on to do the series. And it was David's face & music that made it all so very profitable.