A commenter points us once again to Buchanan Ingersoll litigator Stuart Slotnick.
You may recall Stuart planned to make Woody's relationship with Soon-Yi the focus of his client American Apparel's defense of Woody's $10 million privacy infringement claim.
When the judge properly excluded that proposed testimony, Stuart suddenly wrapped his client around the First Amendment, which actually would have been an interesting issue to see litigated.
(I don't see the satiric element myself, but it still is a more credible defense than threatening to drag Woody's name through the mud).
But alas, Stuart's client gave up and settled for $5 million:
Standing with his lawyers outside a Manhattan federal court on Monday, Mr. Allen said, “I am told the settlement of five million dollars I am being paid is the largest reported amount ever paid under the New York right to privacy law,” according to Reuters.Always good to be involved in a record-breaking case, I always say.
25 comments:
Stuey is a former state court hack criminal prosecutor. How is it that American Apparel does not realize that its lawyer twisted the company's arm to settle for a way too large amount? And um, like your reader pointed out , nice that dip-wad did not include a confidentiality agreement , so that before the ink dried, Woody followed his lawyer's advise and rubbed Stu's nose in it.
PS - Buchanan Ingersoll???? PUH-lease.
Great deal for American Apparel. The publicity generated by this case would have cost at least three times this amount if paid to an advertising firm. Don't be surprised to see American Apparel sued again for something similar.
do you work at ingersol rand or whatever the name of stuey's firm???
to 3:41pm: welcome to the site Mr. Slotnik
Now Woody can cover about 1/3 of Scarlett's fee for his next movie.
How in the 'hail' do you not negotiate a confidentiality agreement? That's a lay-down.
3:41 here. Have any of you looked at American Apparel's website or previous advertisements. They want trouble. It is a cost effective way of getting your name out. The segment of the market that they sell to also enjoys a bit of controversy.
Take my word for it. This settlement was cost effective.
Why have a confidentiality agreement when what you want is more exposure and discussion? See it continues to pay off as you sit here and read this post and debate with me.
Also, I am not in any way related to any of the parties or their attorneys.
5 Mill??? For Woody Allen?
I'm calling the Shumie --I need a drink.
3:55 nailed it. I don't think we are their target audience.
I wish I was a little bit taller
I wish I was a baller.
I wish I had a girl I would call her.
Monday's in the book. Great blog day, by the way.
PS - that's skee lo, in case you were wondering
5:55, Who is wondering? We know. Dude has not had a hit in yrs.
Either has Alan Kluger. Or Shutts and Bowen, for that matter.
Shutts is for life!
If it settled on the eve of trial Stuey blew another mil or so on fees.
Anyone see the crap that they sell at American Apparel? Methinks the readers of the National Law Journal and the New York Times are not the target market of their pink daisy tee shirts and lime green chinos.
Outta ideas. Anyone?
bring back the guest blogger!
Outta ideas. How do I get the Princess' attention. Anyone?
9:40, Clone SFL.
dude looks like a lady.
The latina has blocked all my messages. What is the secret?
Lawyers read this site right? Perhaps you should all get a pacer account and read the docs like I did for my local paper. . . instead of buying what some other blog hack has said as gospel . . .
Oh, and read the answer to the complaint too, that was their argument from day one . . . wasn't something they dreamt up at the last minute as far as I was able to read . . . but, actually checking your facts is a little too much work eh?
11:22, you are not claiming a victory for Stu are you? Half the demand on the courthouse steps?
11:22 here - no, not claiming a victory, I'd have liked to have seen it play out. I'd have had a better story that way. I'm pointing out that this post parrots back a lot of what I've seen at other sites, inaccuracies and all. I've read the pleadings and think this would have been an interesting fight - that is what I am saying. $5million on the courthouse steps is not a win - unless - you consider punitives which insurance companies don't pay. In this instance the insurance company paid . . . so maybe it is a win. No matter really, all it has done is make Woody a smugger bastard and set a new floor for any job he takes . . .
11:22, thanks for reading and commenting.
First, I prefer "worthless lazy parasitic blog hack...."
And I do indeed have a PACER account, and can even file pleadings through the magic of the tubes (are you listening, Harvey?)
I also know the difference between a defense to liability and one that goes to damages.
For whatever reason, Mr. Slotnick elected to press his damages argument in the media and through discovery, which the court shut down.
That left the liability defense, which I think is interesting and would have liked to see litigated.
Post a Comment