ANOTHER LIBEL LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST NETFLIX: MAKING A MURDERER

Last week, a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled that a libel lawsuit filed against Netflix and the makers of the hit true crime documentary television series (also known as a docuseries) Making a Murderer will be allowed to proceed. The lawsuit was filed by Andrew Colborn, a retired Wisconsin police sergeant, who alleges the series libeled him by insinuating he planted evidence in an effort to frame Avery. Colborn also filed a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

The Emmy Award-winning series premiered in 2015 and tells the story of Steven Avery, a man from Manitowoc County, Wisconsin who was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault and attempted murder of a female jogger and spent 18 years in prison before being exonerated by DNA evidence. Avery was released from prison but was eventually convicted for the murder of another woman and remains in prison for that crime. 

Colborn claims the docuseries is “biased and falsely depicts him as having framed Avery for the [Teresa] Halbach murder.” He also claims that, due to his (allegedly unfair) portrayal in the series, he has become the target of an “onslaught of threats and criticism.”

In response to Colborn’s claims, Netflix attempted to assert a version of fair report privilege, which allows for the republication of statements – even potentially defamatory ones – from official government proceedings. Netflix argued that the parts of the series that Colborn is challenging all come from Avery’s defense at his murder trial or from conclusions drawn by those who are familar with the criminal proceeding. 

However, U.S. District Court Judge Brett Ludwig disagreed, writing, “Neither the Supreme Court nor the Seventh Circuit has ever suggested a speaker enjoys unconditional First Amendment immunity for making defamatory statements simply because the statements concern legal proceedings.” 

Netflix also requested to have the case thrown out, stating that Colborn failed to serve them in a timely manner with his complaint, and also claimed that the statute of limitations had run out before Colborn filed his claim. However, Ludwig stated that Netflix had failed to convince the court of the inadequacy of Colborn’s claims, as records show process servers made several attempts to deliver the complaint to the production company and streaming service, meaning Colborn had exercised “reasonable diligence.”

Ludwig also added that Netflix’s portrayal of the series as an accurate report of the Avery trial is a factual issue that should be adjudicated later on, given that Colborn claims the docuseries “intentionally altered excerpts from the Avery trial transcripts.”

Colborn is considered a public figure.  In The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that for a publicly-known figure to succeed on a defamation claims, the public-figure plaintiff must show that the false, defaming statements was said with “actual malice.” The Sullivan court stated that”actual malice” means that the defendant said the defamatory statement “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” The Sullivan court also held that when the standard is actual malice, the plaintiff must prove actual malice by “clear and convincing” evidence, rather than the usual burden of proof in a civil case, which is the preponderance of the evidence standard. As for whether Colborn will manage to muster sufficient evidence in order to convince a jury that Netflix and the other defendants defamed him with “actual malice,” that remains to be seen. 

O.J. Simpson, Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein Lawyer Alan Dershowitz sues Netflix for Libel

In yet another example of how participating in a documentary or reality TV show can go awry, Alan Dershowitz is not happy with how he was portrayed in the documentary television miniseries (docuseries) Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich, and has filed a new libel suit against Netflix as well as against the series producers Leroy & Morton Productions and Radical Media. In addition to the libel claim, the American lawyer who is perhaps best known for his work on the legal defense teams of O.J. Simpson, Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, is also suing for breach of  contract and fraudulent inducement causes of action based on the agreement for an interview, alleging the producers promised not to disparage him. He is demanding at least $20 million each in damages for the four separate causes of action. 

The docuseries is based on the book Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him, and All the Justice that Money Can Buy: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein by James Patterson and features interviews with survivors of Epstein. The miniseries also examines how the convicted sex offender was able to use his wealth and power to commit such crimes. 

Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor emeritus, alleges he was misled “knowingly and deliberately” by the docuseries’ producers, who he claims “maliciously and intentionally” portrayed him in “a defamatory manner” and created a series with a “deliberately one-sided narrative.”   Respectfully, did he not see that coming?

Filthy Rich features a series of interviews with Dershowitz in which the lawyer defends the plea bargain he had negotiated for Epstein in 2008 which required the financier to register as a sex offender. Dershowitz also denies the allegations that he raped Virginia Roberts Giuffre as part of Epstein’s sexual trafficking of minors. 

According to Dershowitz’s defamation suit, Netflix had agreed to present evidence establishing he never had sex with Giuffre. Instead, he alleges, they portrayed the sexual allegations against him as a “he said/she said” situation. The complaint Dershowitz filed states that if Netflix “presented that evidence in Filthy Rich, as had been promised, [it] would have undercut the credibility of … the very people whose interviewed comments Filthy Rich depended upon.”

Dershowitz also claims that non-chronological editing choices in the series add credibility to Giuffre’s accusations and alleges that portions of the docuseries “presented allegations ‘anew’ and outside the context of any report of litigation.” Furthermore, he claims that the producers deliberately chose not to include evidence in the series that would exonerate him from Giuffre’s accusations.  

A Netflix spokesperson responded to news of Dershowitz’s lawsuit, saying, “Mr. Dershowitz’s lawsuit is without merit, and we will vigorously defend our partners and the series.”

How do you think this lawsuit should go? Do most documentaries have an agenda, and is participating in a documentary always risky?

Ice Cube Sues Robinhood for Unauthorized Use of His Image and Likeness

Ice Cube is suing Robinhood, a financial services company known for offering commission-free trades of stocks and exchange-traded funds via mobile app. The rapper claims the company used his image without permission and misquoted some of his lyrics in an advertisement. 

Celebrities guard the valuable use of their image and likeness closely. In fact, under a doctrine of law referred to as the “right of publicity,” they alone have the right to control (and benefit from) the commercial value of their name, likeness, voice, signature, and any other personal identifying traits that are unique to them (which may include, as in this case, song lyrics).  In California, where many celebrities work and live, this concept is actually codified in a civil law that makes it “unlawful, for the purpose of advertising or selling, to knowingly use another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness without that person’s prior consent.”   There are also federal laws (such as trademark laws) that protect celebrities against these unauthorized uses.

According to the complaint filed by Michael Taitelman and Sean Hardy of Freedman + Taitelman on behalf of Ice Cube, Robinhood has violated the Lanham Act (also known as the Trademark Act of 1946) which prohibits trademark infringement, trademark dilution and false advertising, along with a number of other California statutes that prohibit the misappropriation of someone’s likeness and unfair competition.

The complaint states:

In a cynical effort to appeal to a young demographic, Robinhood has engaged celebrity endorsers such as Jay-Z, Nas, and Jared Leto to endorse its products and services,” states the complaint. “However, in an act of unmitigated gall and transparent retribution, Robinhood and its subsidiary have now used the image and likeness of Ice Cube – without his permission – to promote Robinhood’s terrible products and services. Robinhood has picked on the wrong man this time.

Ice Cube claims the company’s use of his image and lyrics is damaging his reputation, referencing the hundreds of other lawsuits and multiple government investigations involving Robinhood. Additionally, he claims that the company has repeatedly ignored his multiple requests and demands that they cease using his image and likeness. 

The filed complaint sums it up as such: “Robinhood flagrantly displays its belief that it is exempt from the rules and laws that govern everyone else in the United States.”

Pulitzer Prize-Winning Author Claims Guillermo Del Toro Plagiarized The Shape of Water

A lawsuit claiming that Guillermo Del Toro plagiarized The Shape of Water from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Paul Zindel’s play Let Me Hear You Whisper has been dismissed.  

First, it’s important to note that most cases are settled outside of court, so we don’t always get court rulings that would otherwise help us determine what is and isn’t copyright infringement when it comes to similar works of art.  This case is no different.

Both The Shape of Water and Let Me Hear You Whisper feature plots about employees at scientific facilities who decide to free a creature imprisoned within the facility. The suit, which quickly gained international attention, was first filed in February 2018, right before Oscar voting concluded for that year’s ceremony. Despite the allegations against Del Toro’s work, it still won Academy Awards in four categories, including Best Picture. 

Mere months after the lawsuit was filed, U.S. District Court Judge Percy Anderson rejected the case, finding that, “Although the Play and the Film share the basic premise of an employee at a scientific facility deciding to free a creature that is subjected to scientific experiments, that concept is too general to be protected.” 

However, in June 2020, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided to reopen the case, citing a need for additional evidence and expert testimony to “aid in the objective literary analysis needed to determine the extent and qualitative importance of the similarities that Zindel identified in the works’ expressive elements, particularly the plausibly alleged shared plot sequence.” Both sides were due to present expert reports and witness designations this week, with a trial scheduled for July. 

Instead, it was announced this week that the case is being dropped. A spokesperson for Searchlight, one of the co-defendants, stated, “David Zindel, the son of Paul Zindel, author of Let Me Hear You Whisper, acknowledges, based on confidential information obtained during the litigation process, that his claims of plagiarism are unfounded. He acknowledges Guillermo del Toro as the true creator of The Shape of Water. Any similarity between the two works is coincidental.” 

The Shape of Water has been the subject of other copyright claims, in addition to those made on behalf of Paul Zindel. Jean-Pierre Jaunet, a French film director accused del Toro in February 2018 of copying a dance scene from his movie Delicatessen. Additionally, some viewers pointed out that Shape of Water shares a similar plot with The Space Between Us, a 13-minute short film by Marc S. Nollkaemper. However, the Netherlands Film Academy, who produced the short, rejected these claims, stating that the two films “are not in any conceivable way interlinked or related” and “have their own very different identities.”

Before you sign that Reality TV Contract…

Reality TV contracts are notoriously one-sided, aggressive, and difficult to negotiate unless you’re a celebrity. If you’re an “Average Joe” hoping to get famous by starring in a reality show, be ready to “sign your life away,” if you’re not careful. A common tactic is to put a time pressure on when they need the agreement signed by, often leaving little time for an attorney to do a review, if you even have one.  So what exactly are you signing away?  The below is just one example.

A California appeals court has ruled that American Idol contestant Michael Simeon Smith waived the right to sue for injuries when he signed the show’s contestant agreement. Smith, who appeared on the 14th season of the long-running singing competition show and placed within the top 24 contestants, claims he suffered a severe injury when an audiologist’s assistant, Ana Marie Montoya, attempted to make an impression of his ear canal while fitting him for an earpiece. 

According to the complaint Smith filed back in 2016, “Montoya placed the silicone and/or molding material into Plaintiff’s right ear. Plaintiff immediately felt pain and told Montoya to remove the Product. Montoya forcefully pulled it from Plaintiff’s right ear, and in the process of pulling out the Product, a portion of Plaintiff’s eardrum was removed. Blood began to come out of Plaintiff’s ear. Plaintiff was moved to a separate room, and left there for several hours.”

The complaint goes on to state that Smith subsequently sought medical treatment for his injuries, including tympanoplasty, a surgical technique involving a graft and “has been unable to perform music at the same level as prior to the incident, due to the absence of much of his eardrum.”

However, on Tuesday, Judge Tricia A. Bigelow affirmed a summary judgement that the Los Angeles Superior Court had granted in favor of the defendants finding that, although contestants were required to sign the contestant agreement, the “level of unconscionability of the provisions was not such as to render those waivers unenforceable.”

In her opinion, Bigelow wrote, “Smith contends [the contestant agreement] is procedurally unconscionable because he lacked the ability to negotiate its terms, and the challenged release and waiver provisions were hidden in the middle of a dense contract that was more than 20 pages long. Smith contends [the contestant agreement] is also substantively unconscionable because it required him to waive statutory rights and remedies available to him.”

Bigelow continued:

The Contestant Agreement, while adhesive in nature, did not involve surprise or other sharp practices. Smith presents no evidence of such. Instead, Smith acknowledges he was given weeks to review the agreement and could have sought legal advice if he wished. [The Contestant Agreement] was written in plain language and each provision within [the Contestant Agreement] was initialed by Smith separately. The heading of each provision, presented in bold-faced type and underlined, disclosed its subject in plain language: ‘Assumption of Risk of Unknown or Undiscovered Facts, Claims or Defects;’ ‘Waiver of All Claims and Suits;’ and ‘No Representations or Warranties from Producer.’… Further, Smith presents no evidence respondents lied to him, placed him under duress, or otherwise manipulated him into signing the Contestant Agreement.

Furthermore, while Smith argued on appeal that Montoya was guilty of gross negligence and that he should have allowed to amend his complaint to reflect this, Bigelow stated that any amendment to his claim would not change the court’s decision, as Smith had “failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that a triable issue exists regarding gross negligence, not because he failed to allege it in his complaint” as he had not presented any evidence that proved Montoya had deviated from safety instructions or industry standards in making the impression of his ear or in taking it out.

In short – reality TV contracts, however aggressive, are enforceable. Make sure you budget for hiring an attorney to review them before you sign, or you could (and probably will) pay big for it later.

Anyone surprised by this ruling?

Nike stops the sale of Lil Nas X Satanic Shoes in its tracks

Nike successfully got a judge to order the Lil Nas X’s limited edition satanic-themed Nike Air Max 97 shoes be “pulled from the shelves” following a temporary restraining order granted by federal court judge Eric Komitee. 

Early last week Musician Lil Nax X collabed with streetwear brand MSCHF to release a limited edition, devil-themed Nike shoe that contains a drop of blood MSCHF employees. Nike was not happy.

Many consumers claimed they will never again purchase Nike products due to their supposed support of satanism.  “Likelihood of confusion in the marketplace” being one of the requirements of trademark infringement, Nike quickly filed suit against MSCHF Product Studio, the company that partnered with Lil Nas X to release 666 pairs of satanic-themed shoes, claiming trademark infringement and dilution and unfair competition. 

The shoe giant claims the company materially altered their trademarked product without permission, causing customers to boycott Nike due to an incorrect belief that the company is endorsing satanism.The company is seeking compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, plus disgorgement of profits in an amount to be determined. Additionally, they are asking the court to order that the shoes and all marketing materials be turned over to Nike for destruction. 

MSCHF’s attorneys fought back, arguing that the shoes are “not typical sneakers, but rather individually-numbered works of art that were sold to collectors for $1,018 each,” and contends that confusion is unlikely, due to the presumed sophisticated nature of the purchasers.  MSCHF also pointed out that there were never any statements made that would imply Nike was in any way affiliated with the shoes and also claimed that all but one pair of shoes had already been shipped out, thus rendering a recall baseless. 

Nike alleged that they have good reason to believe some of the shoes were shipped out after the lawsuit was filed and that some of the pairs already in the hands of consumers will be resold on the secondary market.  I’ve confirmed as of today that there are pairs being sold on both etsy and ebay (although I did note some have been removed).

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Komitee that Nike had presented sufficient evidence to be granted a temporary restraining order and that the company has shown a likelihood of prevailing on the merits at the deeper injunctive hearing that is still to come. 

What do you think? Did you think Nike endorsed and released the Lil Nas X shoes?  Should the shoes be considered “works of art?” Was your image of Nike tainted after first hearing about the shoes?

Disney’s ‘Muppet Babies’ Lawsuit

Disney has managed to evade a recent lawsuit filed against them by TV screenwriter Jeffrey Scott, who wrote for 1980s children’s shows including Spider-Man, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Hulk Hogan’s Rock ‘n’ Wrestling. Scott filed the lawsuit in October 2020, alleging that Disney’s reboot of Muppet Babies infringed on elements of the production bible he had created for the original show back in the 1980s, including the show’s nursery setting and the child versions of the characters, and because he had pitched a reboot of the series to the company in 2016.

Disney had responded to Scott’s claims, arguing that the concept of toddler-aged muppets was invented by Jim Henson in a dream sequence of the 1983 film The Muppets Take Manhattan, and that none of Scott’s “contributions to the underlying intellectual property are original, copyrightable, and non-trivial, or substantially similar to the Muppet Babies series of 2018.” 

However, a federal judge in California recently dismissed the case, ruling that, because Scott did not disclose the production bible when filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2003, he has no standing to claim ownership now. 

While Scott argued that he provided a list of 25 story ideas to his bankruptcy trustee, which he claims should have been enough to put the trustee on notice to conduct an investigation, U.S. District Court Judge Stanley Blumenfeld concluded that it is not reasonable to interpret Scott’s assets as having included the production bible, stating, “Because Plaintiff has no ownership interest in the Work or its purported copyrights, Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the present lawsuit.”

Blumenfeld dismissed Scott’s claims without prejudice, which means Scott will be able to refile his case in the future, should he manage to reopen his bankruptcy case and reclaim the copyright to the Muppet Babies production bible. Time will tell if he will go to that effort.

This is a great example of a case not being decided on the merits of the copyright issue – as is often the case in copyright law since many cases settle out of court. The questions remain: Was there an infringement? Was the reboot based on Scott’s contributions, and is he entitled to compensation?  We won’t know unless and until (1) Scott reopens his bankruptcy case (which depends on whether a bankruptcy judge will allow him to – and whether the law allows him to); (2) assuming he’s allowed to reopen the case, he is able to reclaim and establish his copyright in the Muppet Babies production bible; and (3) he refiles and the judge decides on the merits (assuming there aren’t any more procedural issues in the way, and also assuming there isn’t a settlement before the judge gets a chance to do so).

The case for and against net neutrality

Last week, a federal judge in California ruled that California’s proposed net neutrality law will be allowed to go into effect. The state’s law is more strict than the current federal laws, which were adopted during the Obama administration, and could serve as a baseline for future federal rules. 

Net neutrality refers to the idea that internet service providers (ISPs), like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T, should treat all content flowing through their network as equal – they should not be allowed to block or degrade certain material. In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission reclassified broadband as a telecommunication service and passed an all-encompassing net neutrality order, which aimed to prevent ISPs from showing favoritism for certain content and service providers while discriminating against others. However, these rules were overturned in 2017 when the FCC became Republican-controlled. 

Advocates for net neutrality believe that an open internet is vital for innovation and invention to continue, arguing that if broadcast companies are allowed to play favorites, new companies and technologies will never have the chance to enter the market and grow. Additionally, they fear that if only a few large telecommunications companies dominate the market, it could lead to the suppression of free speech and could limit quality internet access to only those who can pay for it. Some proponents for net neutrality even argue that cable companies should be reclassified as “common carriers,” like public transportation providers and public utility companies, thus making them subject to laws that prohibit discrimination. 

Critics of net neutrality argue that requiring ISPs to treat all traffic equally will discourage the investment in new infrastructure and will create a disincentive for ISPs to innovate. Others simply feel that additional regulation is unnecessary as the current system in place has worked for years. FCC Commission Ajit Pai and Joshua Wright from the Federal Trade Commission argued in an article published in The Chicago Tribune that, “the Internet isn’t broken, and we don’t need the president’s plan to ‘fix’ it. Quite the opposite. The Internet is an unparalleled success story. It is a free, open and thriving platform.” 

Pai also believes that the perceived threats from ISPs to consumers are non-existent, stating, “The evidence of these continuing threats? There is none; it’s all anecdote, hypothesis, and hysteria.”

Despite these objections, U.S. District Court Judge John Mendez ruled that California’s law would be allowed to take effect and rejected a push for an injunction from a telecom association that includes AT&T, Charter and Verizon. 

Multiple telecom industry associates released a joint statement following the trial’s conclusion, stating that they will be reviewing the judge’s decision before deciding upon their next steps. They also urged Congress to set nationwide net neutrality rules instead of allowing states to determine their own regulations, asserting that, “A state-by-state approach to Internet regulation will confuse consumers and deter innovation, just as the importance of broadband for all has never been more apparent.”

Where do you stand on net neutrality? Do you think the internet needs to be regulated?

Do I need to pay my rent during the Covid-19 pandemic?

I’ve been getting a lot of questions from people about whether they should be paying their rent or mortgage during the pandemic. I’m also noticing a lot of misconceptions and misinformation about the various rent relief ordinances that have been put into play to help renters, so I thought I’d put out some information to help navigate it all and answer some questions. If you’re confused, you’re not alone. These ordinances have been changing, often and quickly, and it’s hard to keep up.

For example, on March 15, Mayor Garcetti said no one in the city of LA could be evicted for Covid 19 issues.  But then he issued a new order 2 days later, on March 17, clarifying that eviction trials would be delayed until April 16^th.  This meant any evictions already in the pipelines were on hold. Then on March 23, he changed that date to June 22. And he expanded this “pause on evictions” to apply to not just cases where people can’t pay rent because of Covid-19, but also what are called no-fault evictions – such as evictions under the Ellis Act if a landlord needs you to move out because they are “going out of the rental business,” for example – which I won’t get into today.   This is just an example of how the orders are changing and have changed quickly sometimes in a matter of days.

What I’m going to do is go over what the laws are as of TODAY.

First off, although I’m a lawyer, I’m not your lawyer, and this isn’t legal advice.  This is just meant to sum up the current status of where the law stands on rent.  Second, landlord-tenant laws vary from state to state, and since I’m in Los Angeles, I’m going to focus on Los Angeles. If you’re not in Los Angeles and need info about your particular city or state, you will have to refer to your local laws

So, here are a few things you need to know:

DO I HAVE TO PAY MY RENT?

The short answer is yes, you are legally obligated to pay rent, even during the pandemic. Covid-19 doesn’t make that go away. Even if you don’t pay it now, you will have to pay it when all this over. This is really a deferral, not an excuse.  The ordinance says that if you can’t pay your rent now, then you have 12 months from when the pandemic is over to pay back the rent you owe.  The pandemic is officially “over” when the government announces we are no longer in a state of emergency.

Now, this is good but not great, because if you can’t pay it now, who says you can pay your regular rent PLUS however many months you owe in back rent when all this over? Some people are predicting we are only delaying the inevitable, and 12 months from now, we’re going to see a lot of evictions, and maybe even an increase in homelessness. Because of this, a lot of tenant rights advocates and pushing for actual relief from rent.  This gets tricky, though, because what about landlords that rely on their tenants paying rent? It ends up having a trickle down, or in this case, trickle up, effect.

 

WHAT IF I CAN’T PAY MY RENT?

 

First off, if you can afford to pay your rent, you should, because you’re going to owe it eventually.  But many people legitimately can’t – either because they lost their job, or they’re sick and they can’t work, or they’ve been ordered to stay inside and can’t work. About 1/3 of renters could not pay their rent in April.  If you are one of these people, the first thing you need to do is notify your landlord, in writing, ASAP, but no later than 7 days after rent is due. You should tell your landlord the reasons why (and make sure you say it is due to the pandemic). And then prepare and keep any evidence that you can’t pay because of how Covid-19 has impacted you – whether it is medical records that you were sick, or proof that you lost your job, or unemployment check stubs, if you’re self-employed, bank statements showing money isn’t coming in, emails where clients are canceling, etc. Anything you can think of that shows how Coronavirus is impacting your ability to pay rent.  You’re going to owe this money in 12 months or so, and if you don’t pay it by then and you face eviction, you’re going to need to show these documents to a judge in order to defend yourself.

BUT, and this is very important, you do NOT have to provide these documents to your landlord. Many landlords have sent out letters saying that you’re still obligated to pay rent and then suggesting that you can only defer paying rent if you can document how you have been affected – which is true, but some landlords are suggesting that you have to show them these documents to prove you can’t pay the rent. Again, this is NOT required under the ordinance, and if your landlord asks for proof, you can and should respectfully decline.  Your financial records are private and under no circumstances should you share them with anyone unless you must.

ALSO, and this is equally important, some landlords are asking tenants to sign documents agreeing to pay back the rent by a certain time. Do not sign anything your landlord gives you, at least without talking to a lawyer first. Under the current ordinance, you have 12 months from when the pandemic is over to pay back the rent. Some landlords are asking tenants to sign agreements promising to pay the rent back in less time. This is asking you to give up a right you have under the law, and between the law and the contract, the terms of the contract will prevail.  One corporate landlord even egregiously asked tenants to sign a document promising to turn over their stimulus checks to the landlord within 5 days of receiving them! Fortunately, tenants who received this letter were smart enough to reach out to tenants rights advocates, who then called out the landlord, and they ended up embarrassed and apologized.

 

CAN MY LANDLORD EVICT ME?

 During this emergency, you cannot be evicted from your home for not paying rent. Evictions are on hold until 90 days after the end of the Covid-19 state of emergency, except those dealing with public health and safety. First off, courts are closed until June 22^nd, but even if the courts were open, the ordinance says a summons won’t be issued until 90 days after the governor removes the stay at home order.

 

SO, IN SUMMARY:

 

• You are still legally obligated to pay rent, even during the pandemic;

 

• If you can’t pay rent, immediately notify your landlord, in writing, no later than 7 days from the date rent is due, and state that it is due to the pandemic.

 

• Keep any records of how the pandemic has impacted your ability to pay rent. Hang on to these, but DO NOT give your landlord any financial records or proof.

 

• Do not sign anything your landlord gives you (without at least speaking to a lawyer).

 

• Be prepared to pay back any rent you missed within 12 months of the pandemic being over.

 

• You cannot be evicted for failing to pay rent until at least 90 days after the end of the pandemic. If your landlord tries to evict you after this 90 day period, that’s when you get to show the court your records showing how the pandemic affected your ability to pay.

 

Hope you guys found this useful!  If you have any questions, feel free to post them in the comments and I will do my best to answer. And if there are any other topics you’d like me to post about, feel free to DM me on @MitraEsq on Instagram.

 

Bye for now!

 

 

 

What’s The Verdict: Comcast and Houston Sports battle over bankruptcy and alleged scheming, who is behind it?

What’s The Verdict: Comcast and Houston Sports battle over bankruptcy and alleged scheming, who is behind it?

Houston Regional Sports Network has been in an involuntary bankruptcy phase but most recently, a litigation trustee filed a complaint accusing Comcast of doing everything in its power to impair the Network in an attempt to acquire the rights to broadcast Houston Astros (baseball) and Houston Rockets (basketball) games at a significant discount.

Robert Ogle makes clear that the cable giant has a track record of poor customer service and that since Houston Regional Sports Network was set up in 2003, they have experienced Comcast’s ‘dishonesty’ firsthand.  It was in 2010 that Comcast became a partner with a 22.5 percent interest in the network and the teams, Astros and Rockets, owned the rest of the percentage.  At this point, Comcast said it would use its power to achieve promised rates, gave an advanced loan for $100 million, amongst other things.  In addition, the sports teams granted the Network exclusive rights to games through the year 2032 for hundreds of millions.  This all happened in 2010 and then in 2013 is where problems arise.

The complaint (filed by the Network) asserts that Comcast has been doing everything in its power to acquire its primary and most valuable assets, the right to telecast programming related to Houston Astros and Houston Rockets, as well as the right to receive revenue from affiliation agreements with MVPDs that carry CSN Houston.  What’s interesting is that Houston Regional Sports Network was never able to reach affiliations with a major MVPD; thus, the lawsuit claims this was intentional on Comcast’s part.  Other regional sports networks owned by Comcast were able to make deals but the major difference is that with these other networks, Comcast owned most, if not all, of the equity.

In effect, Houston Regional Sports Network began to experience liquidity constraints because they couldn’t make any big distribution deals.  This caused the Astros and Rockets to offer to sell their own equity to Comcast, but they didn’t take the offer.  So what happened next? The financial situation of Houston’s Regional Sports Network continued to grow worse, which eventually led to a buy-out offer from Comcast at a much lower price.  Mr. Ogle says that all of it was part of Comcast’s plan and that Houston’s RSN was basically a scheme.  How was it a scheme?

Comcast would put the Debtor (HRSN) into bankruptcy and automatically its value would drop substantially. With that, Comcast would make a statement of its intention to offer a great amount of money to acquire the Debtor plus assets, which would scare away other potential buyers.  Once it was clear that Comcast was the only likely buyer,  Comcast could buy the Debtor plus assets at an even smaller price than it had stated.  This is because there would be no other buyers  so HRSN would have no other option but to take the offer regardless of how small it was.

Point being, Rockets and Astros were in terrible position and the truth is that Comcast played a role in this.  The teams ended up selling to AT&T and DirectTV for $5000 which is a lesser value than they would’ve made if they simply liquidated all their assets in 2013.  Comcast of course denies all claims and allegations as entirely without merit.

What do you think will happen? Stay tuned for more on What’s The Verdict!