• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
/var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch6/14438780.doc
1IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THEELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDAGENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISIONWEST AVENUE FILMS, L.L.C.,))Plaintiff,)v. )CASE NO.: 02-9076 CA (22))ARTISAN PICTURES, INC.,))Defendant.))
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEY’S FEESPURSUANT TO §57.105, FLA.STAT.
Plaintiff, WEST AVENUE FILMS, L.L.C.
 
(“WEST AVENUE”), the prevailing party inthis action, hereby files this motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees pursuant to §57.105,Fla.Stat., against the losing party, Defendant, ARTISAN PICTURES, INC. (“ARTISAN”), andthe losing party’s attorney, Gerald J. Houlihan (“HOULIHAN”), and in support thereof, states:
INTRODUCTION
In April 2002, WEST AVENUE brought a one-count claim against ARTISAN for rescission based upon ARTISAN’s abandonment of a Letter Agreement to domestically distributeWEST AVENUE’s film
 , “Raw Deal: A Question of Consent 
” (“
 Raw Deal 
”). As discussed infurther detail below, ARTISAN and HOULIHAN have maintained a defense in this action whichthey knew or should have known was not supported by the material facts necessary to establishthe defense. ARTISAN’s defense was based upon the alleged validity of an unexecutedagreement between the parties, which ARTISAN had refused to even sign until
after 
this- 1 -
 
litigation had been filed and, even at that point, was not properly executed. This Court’s predecessor characterized the after-the-fact signing as a
 
“litigation tactic
 
and not so much a good faith desire to distribute this film
.”HOULIHAN is personally responsible for the attorney’s fees to be paid to WESTAVENUE because his actions do
not 
 
fall within the statutory exception of being “in good faith, based upon representations of his or her client as to the existence of those material facts” asHOULIHAN is much more than just the counsel of record for ARTISAN in this cause.
See,
§57.105(1), Fla.Stat.On May 16, 2002, ARTISAN entered into an Assignment and IndemnificationAgreement, assigning all of its rights, title, and interest regarding
 Raw Deal 
and all responsibilityfor the defense of ARTISAN in this lawsuit to Miami Film Enterprises, Inc. (“Miami Film”), acorporation which HOULIHAN, as sole shareholder and principal, formed the very same day asthe assignment. This Assignment and Indemnification is further evidence of the meritlessness of ARTISAN’s defending against WEST AVENUE’s claim that ARTISAN abandoned theagreement to distribute
 Raw Deal 
. ARTISAN’s president Amir Malin admitted at deposition thatMiami Film was not involved in film distribution. (Malin Deposition in evidence as DefenseExhibit “S”, attached hereto as Exhibit “
A
”, p. 39).Since May 16, 2002, HOULIHAN has been solely responsible for both the funding anddirecting of the ARTISAN defense in this matter. As of that date, ARTISAN no longer had any- 2 -
 
interest in this case or in
 Raw Deal 
; had clearly abandoned the film - the very issue in this case;and simply no longer had a dog in this fight
.
1
 Since May 20, 2002, the day HOULIHAN filed his Notice of Appearance in this case, hehas embarked on a campaign of foot-dragging and dilatory conduct, taking actions primarily for the purpose of unreasonable and improper delay, and has mounted a defense which he knew or should have known was not supported by material facts.HOULIHAN’s delay tactics included, but were not limited to:(a) filing repetitious Motions to Dismiss with Prejudice and Motions to Stay theProceedings, based on theories which the Court had already rejected;(b) filing with the Third District two (2) Notices of Appeal, along with EmergencyMotions to Stay the Proceedings on the same issue. HOULIHAN, in both instances, eventuallywithdrew the notices of appeal after the Third District denied the motions for stays;(d) filing three Motions for Extension of Time to file his initial brief in one of theabove mentioned appeals which HOULIHAN eventually withdrew;(e) filing numerous Motions to Stay Discovery with this Court and then, after thosemotions had been denied, delaying discovery and failing to comply with Court Orders1As noted by this Court when it rendered its decision, ARTISAN presidentAmir Malin admitted at deposition that at least as of May 17, 2002, ARTISAN was no longer taking any steps to release or distribute
 Raw Deal 
in any way, yet ARTISAN allowed the defenseof this case to continue. (
See,
Trial Transcript attached hereto as Exhibit “
B
”, p. 518; Exhibit“
A
”,Malin Deposition, p. 50).- 3 -
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...