Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 04/01/2021 01:04 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Bolden,Deputy Clerk 1 VENABLE LLP Lee S. Brenner (SBN 180235) 2 [email protected] Sarah L. Cronin (SBN 252624) 3 [email protected] Matthew M. Gurvitz (SBN 272895) 4 [email protected] 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300 5 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310.229.9900 6 Facsimile: 310.229.9901 7 Attorneys for Defendant CBS Studios Inc. 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 11 HANZER HOLDINGS, a California Limited Case No. 18STCV09231 Partnership, and ARLITA,Deadline INC., a California 12 Corporation, Assigned to Hon. Maureen Duffy-Lewis, Dept. 38 13 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT CBS STUDIOS INC.’S 90067 LLP 14 v. OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ CA , MOTION FOR SUMMARY 15 CBS STUDIOS INC., a Delaware corporation, ADJUDICATION 310.229.9900 ENABLE ENABLE V Defendant. [CBS Studios Inc.’s Responsive Separate LOS LOS ANGELES 16 Statement and Statement of Additional 17 Facts; Compendium of Evidence; and 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2300 Evidentiary Objections filed concurrently 18 herewith] 19 Date: April 15, 2021 Time: 9:30 a.m. 20 Dept.: 38 21 Reservation ID: 015012961628 22 Action Filed: December 20, 2018 Trial Date: June 7, 2021 23 24 25 PUBLIC – REDACTS MATERIALS FROM CONDITIONALLY SEALED RECORD 26 (Unredacted Version Lodged CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL) 27 28 51117192 CBS STUDIOS INC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINITFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 3 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 3 4 A. Paramount Negotiates The Winkler-Rich Agreement Regarding The Creation Of Television Shows ...................................................................................................... 3 5 B. In September 1985, Major Talent Agency Dissolved, Completely Wound Up and 6 Stopped Performing Under The Winkler-Rich Agreement, A Fact Which Richard Weston And Hanzer Holdings Covered Up .............................................................. 4 7 C. Sham MTA (Amivida) Provides Services On MacGyver ......................................... 5 8 D. In 2015, CBS Announces The MacGyver Remake .................................................. 7 9 E. Plaintiffs Could Not And Cannot Perform Any Services ......................................... 7 10 III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION .............................................. 8 11 Deadline IV. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IS PROCEDURALLY IMPROPER ........................................... 9 12 V. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM (DEFENSE NO. 1) ....................................... 10 13 90067 VI. CBS DID NOT BREACH THE WINKLER-RICH AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE NEW LLP 14 CA MACGYVER SERIES IS A REMAKE, NOT A SPINOFF (DEFENSE NOS. 2-3) .......... 11 , 15 VII. AS A MATTER OF LAW, PLAINTIFFS CANNOT BE THE SUCCESSORS-IN- 310.229.9900 ENABLE ENABLE V INTEREST TO MTA, A COMPANY WHICH WOUND UP OVER 35 YEARS AGO LOS LOS ANGELES 16 (DEFENSE NO. 10)............................................................................................................ 12 17 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2300 A. MTA Could Not Have Delegated, And Did Not Delegate, Its Rights And Obligations To Plaintiffs ......................................................................................... 12 18 B. Even Assuming Arguendo That MTA Had Delegated Its Service Obligations To 19 Hanzer Holdings (As Plaintiffs Now Claim), Such A Delegation Would Have Been A Breach Of The Winkler-Rich Agreement, Excusing CBS’s And Its 20 Predecessor’s Performance, And Negating Any Purported Successor Rights ....... 13 21 C. Plaintiffs Are Estopped From Asserting That They Are The Successors-In-Interest To MTA (DEFENSE NOS. 4 & 9) ......................................................................... 16 22 VIII. IN ANY EVENT, PLAINTIFFS CANNOT MEET AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF 23 THEIR CONTRACT CLAIMS – PEFORMANCE (DEFENSE NOS. 6-7) ...................... 17 24 A. Plaintiffs Cannot Perform Any Service Obligations To Earn The “Agency Commission” At Issue Herein ................................................................................ 17 25 B. CBS Was Not Required to Seek An Administrative Adjudication Before The 26 Labor Commissioner Because The Commissioner Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over This Dispute ................................................................................................... 19 27 IX. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 20 28 ii 51117192 CBS STUDIOS INC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINITFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 Airport Plaza v. Blanchard, 5 188 Cal. App. 3d 1594 (1987) ...................................................................................... 14, 15, 16 6 Alki Partners, LP v. DB Fund Servs., LLC, 4 Cal. App. 5th 574 (2016) ....................................................................................................... 13 7 Bliss v. California Co-op. Producers, 8 30 Cal. 2d 240 (1947) ......................................................................................................... 15, 16 9 Cahill Bros. v. Clementina Co., 10 208 Cal. App. 2d 367 (1962) ...................................................................................................... 9 11 Cook v. Snyder, 16 Cal. App. 2dDeadline 587 (1936) ...................................................................................................... 18 12 Cox v. Delmas, 13 99 Cal. 104 (1893) .................................................................................................................... 18 90067 LLP 14 CA Cty. of Solano v. Vallejo Redevelopment Agency, , 15 75 Cal. App. 4th 1262 (1999) ................................................................................................... 13 310.229.9900 ENABLE ENABLE V Farmland Irr. Co. v. Dopplmaier, LOS LOS ANGELES 16 48 Cal. 2d 208 (1957) ............................................................................................................... 14 17 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2300 Haldor, Inc. v. Beebe, 18 72 Cal. App. 2d 357 (1945) ...................................................................................................... 14 19 Hearn Pac. Corp. v. Second Generation Roofing, Inc., 247 Cal. App. 4th 117 (2016) ......................................................................................... 2, 15, 16 20 21 Hinckley v. Bechtel Corp., 41 Cal. App. 3d 206 (1974) ...................................................................................................... 11 22 Judicial Council of California v. Jacobs Facilities, Inc., 23 239 Cal. App. 4th 882 (2015) ................................................................................................... 14 24 Krolikowski v. San Diego City Employees’ Ret. Sys., 24 Cal. App. 5th 537 (2018) ..................................................................................................... 16 25 Lewis & Queen v. N.M. Ball Sons, 26 48 Cal. 2d 141 (1957) ............................................................................................................... 18 27 Mendoza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 28 6 Cal. App. 5th 802 (2016) ................................................................................................. 10, 12 iii 51117192 CBS STUDIOS INC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINITFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 Miller v. Nestande, 192 Cal. App. 3d 191 (1987) ...................................................................................................... 8 2 Murphy v. Luthy Battery Co., 3 74 Cal. App. 68 (1925) ............................................................................................................. 14 4 Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Ct., 5 227 Cal. App. 4th 226 (2014) ............................................................................................... 8, 10 6 Plotnik v. Meihaus, 208 Cal. App. 4th 1590 (2012) ................................................................................................. 13 7 Rehmani v. Sup. Ct., 8 204 Cal. App. 4th 945 (2012) ..................................................................................................... 8 9 Richman v. Hartley, 10 224 Cal. App. 4th 1182 (2014) ................................................................................................. 10 11 Securitas Security DeadlineServices USA, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., 197 Cal. App. 4th 115 (2011) ..................................................................................................... 8 12 See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., 13 210 Cal. App. 4th 889 (2012) ................................................................................................. 8, 9 90067 LLP 14 CA , State Comp. Ins. Fund v. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc., 15 50 Cal. App. 5th 422 (2020) ....................................................................................................... 9 310.229.9900 ENABLE ENABLE V State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct., LOS LOS ANGELES 16 228 Cal. App. 3d 721 (1991) ...................................................................................................... 8 17 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2300 Styne v. Stevens, 18 26