Gennaro v. Rosenfield
600 F. Supp. 485 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate (a) irreparable harm and (b) either (1) a likelihood of success on the merits or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the movant's favor.
Facts:
- Maurice Rosenfield, a Broadway producer, acquired the stage rights to adapt the film 'Singin' In The Rain'.
- In November 1980, an agent for the London production's producer contacted choreographer Peter Gennaro's agent, Robert Cavallo, about the London show.
- Gennaro agreed to choreograph the London production on the condition that he also receive an option to choreograph any first-class stage production in the United States, including on Broadway.
- A January 20, 1983 letter, countersigned by Rosenfield, outlined 'heads of agreement' for Gennaro, including the option for the American production, and stated the terms would be converted into a 'formal document'.
- The London production, choreographed by Gennaro, opened on June 30, 1983, and was successful.
- In the summer of 1984, Cavallo learned that Rosenfield was planning the American production without Gennaro.
- On September 17, 1984, Cavallo sent a mailgram to Rosenfield stating Gennaro was exercising his option.
- On September 20, 1984, Rosenfield's attorney replied that Rosenfield had not asked Gennaro to choreograph the New York production.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Peter Gennaro and Geannie Productions, Inc. filed a complaint against defendants Maurice and Lois Rosenfield in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for breach of contract and defamation.
- Plaintiffs moved by order to show cause for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from hiring any choreographer other than Peter Gennaro for the American stage production of 'Singin' In The Rain' pending the outcome of the litigation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a choreographer entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing a producer from hiring a different choreographer when the existence of a binding contract is in significant factual dispute and the alleged harm consists of reputational damage and atrophy of professional skills?
Opinions:
Majority - Goettel, District Judge
No. A preliminary injunction is not warranted because the plaintiff has failed to establish either a likelihood of success on the merits or that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in his favor. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or a serious question for litigation with the balance of hardships tipping in his favor. Here, while reputational harm might be irreparable, the court found the alleged 'atrophy of skills' was not, as Gennaro is an established artist, unlike a young athlete whose career depends on continuous practice. More importantly, the plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits because there were too many unresolved factual questions regarding whether the January 20 letter constituted a binding contract, especially since it contemplated a future formal agreement and key terms were missing. Finally, the balance of hardships does not tip decidedly in the plaintiff's favor; the defendant would suffer significant harm by being forced to work with a choreographer he no longer desires or by abandoning the production, which is at least as great as the reputational harm the plaintiff would suffer from the denial of the injunction.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the high bar for obtaining a preliminary injunction, particularly in disputes over personal services contracts in the entertainment industry. The court's refusal to grant the injunction underscores judicial reluctance to compel specific performance or its equivalent when the underlying existence of a contract is in serious factual dispute. The decision distinguishes between different types of 'irreparable harm,' finding that for an established professional, potential skill atrophy is less compelling than for a novice. This case serves as a key example of how courts weigh the 'balance of hardships,' demonstrating that harm to a defendant—such as being forced into an unwanted working relationship—can be sufficient to deny preliminary relief, even if the plaintiff faces potential reputational damage.
Unlock the full brief for Gennaro v. Rosenfield