Ladd v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.
2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 733, 110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 74, 184 Cal. App. 4th 1298 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where one party to a contract has discretionary power affecting the other's rights, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires that power to be exercised fairly. Additionally, a defendant who asserts that a plaintiff's damages are partially barred by the statute of limitations bears the burden of proving which specific portion of the damages is time-barred.
Facts:
- In 1979, Alan Ladd, Jr. and his production companies (Ladd) entered into a joint venture with Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. (Warner) to produce and distribute films.
- The parties terminated the joint venture in 1985, but under their agreement, Warner remained obligated to pay Ladd a percentage of the profits from the films Ladd had produced.
- Warner licensed packages of movies, which included Ladd's valuable films alongside less valuable ones, to broadcast and cable networks.
- In these licensing deals, Warner often employed a practice known as 'straight-lining,' where it allocated an identical share of the total license fee to every movie in the package, irrespective of each film's individual box office success, awards, or star power.
- Ladd conducted a profit participation audit in 1993, which led to a 1996 settlement agreement releasing all claims relating to the distribution of the films through September 30, 1992.
- In 2001, Ladd discovered that another investor in the film 'Blade Runner' was receiving payments from Warner, despite Warner having told Ladd the film was unprofitable.
- A subsequent audit revealed Warner's straight-lining practice, which resulted in the underallocation of license fees to Ladd's more valuable films and a corresponding underpayment of his profit participation.
Procedural Posture:
- Ladd filed an action against Warner in the California Superior Court (trial court) for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, among other claims.
- During a jury trial, the trial court granted Warner's motions for nonsuit on Ladd’s claims for fraud and for profits related to the film 'Blade Runner'.
- The jury returned a special verdict in favor of Ladd on the remaining claims, finding Warner breached its contract or the implied covenant and awarded Ladd $3,190,625 in damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict.
- Warner filed four motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), all of which the trial court denied.
- Warner (as appellant) appealed the judgment and the denial of its JNOV motions to the California Court of Appeal, and Ladd (as cross-appellant) appealed the trial court's nonsuit rulings.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a movie studio's practice of 'straight-lining'—allocating the same license fee to every film in a package regardless of its actual value—breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing owed to a profit participant?
Opinions:
Majority - Klein, P. J.
Yes, a movie studio's practice of 'straight-lining' breaches the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court reasoned that every contract contains an implied covenant that neither party will injure the other's right to receive the benefits of the agreement, which is particularly applicable when one party, like Warner, has discretionary power affecting the rights of another. Warner's own executive conceded an obligation to 'fairly and accurately allocate license fees to each of the films based on their comparative value as part of a package.' Evidence showed that straight-lining failed to do this, treating an Academy Award-winning film like 'Chariots of Fire' as equal in value to filler material, thereby depriving Ladd of his fairly earned profits. The court rejected Warner's defenses that the practice was common in the industry or insisted upon by licensees, finding that even a common practice cannot absolve a party of its duty to act in good faith toward its profit participants.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the protective power of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in contracts where one party holds substantial discretionary authority, particularly within the entertainment industry. It establishes that 'industry custom' is not a valid defense for conduct that unfairly deprives a contracting party of their expected benefits. Furthermore, the ruling creates a crucial procedural clarification by placing the burden of proof squarely on the defendant to segregate damages when asserting an affirmative defense like the statute of limitations. This prevents defendants from using the statute of limitations as a blanket shield and forces them to specifically prove which claims are time-barred, which can be a significant advantage for plaintiffs in complex, long-running contractual disputes.
Unlock the full brief for Ladd v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.