Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Modern Family" cast sues studio as negotiations turn ugly
32 views
Skip to first unread message
David
Jul 24, 2012, 2:53:13 PM7/24/12
to
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/modern-family-sues-20th-contract-negotiations-353575
'Modern Family' Cast Sues 20th TV as Contract Renegotiation Turns Ugly
by Matthew Belloni
The cast of Modern Family has declared war on producer 20th
Television.
Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that cast member Ty Burrell, Julie
Bowen, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Eric Stonestreet and Sofia Vergara have
filed suit today in Los Angeles Superior Court to void their
contracts. The legal theory, according to sources who have seen the
lawsuit, is that their deals violate California's "7 Year Rule," which
prohibits personal services contracts for longer than 7 years. This
tactic is common one for actors who seek to void contracts during
renegotiations.
The move comes amid a salary standoff that has already delayed today's
scheduled start of the fourth season of Modern Family. The cast has
hired litigator Jeff McFarland with Quinn Emanuel and are pressing
their case in court.
'Modern Family' Cast Sues 20th TV as Contract Renegotiation Turns Ugly
by Matthew Belloni
The cast of Modern Family has declared war on producer 20th
Television.
Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that cast member Ty Burrell, Julie
Bowen, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Eric Stonestreet and Sofia Vergara have
filed suit today in Los Angeles Superior Court to void their
contracts. The legal theory, according to sources who have seen the
lawsuit, is that their deals violate California's "7 Year Rule," which
prohibits personal services contracts for longer than 7 years. This
tactic is common one for actors who seek to void contracts during
renegotiations.
The move comes amid a salary standoff that has already delayed today's
scheduled start of the fourth season of Modern Family. The cast has
hired litigator Jeff McFarland with Quinn Emanuel and are pressing
their case in court.
He is the Resurrection and the Light: The Rapacious Mr. Hole
Jul 24, 2012, 3:38:36 PM7/24/12
to
On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 2:53:13 PM UTC-4, David wrote:
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/modern-family-sues-20th-contract-negotiations-353575
>
> 'Modern Family' Cast Sues 20th TV as Contract Renegotiation Turns Ugly
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/modern-family-sues-20th-contract-negotiations-353575
>
> 'Modern Family' Cast Sues 20th TV as Contract Renegotiation Turns Ugly
> by Matthew Belloni
>
> The cast of Modern Family has declared war on producer 20th
> Television.
>
> Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that cast member Ty Burrell, Julie
> Bowen, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Eric Stonestreet and Sofia Vergara have
> filed suit today in Los Angeles Superior Court to void their
> contracts. The legal theory, according to sources who have seen the
> lawsuit, is that their deals violate California's "7 Year Rule," which
>
> The cast of Modern Family has declared war on producer 20th
> Television.
>
> Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that cast member Ty Burrell, Julie
> Bowen, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Eric Stonestreet and Sofia Vergara have
> filed suit today in Los Angeles Superior Court to void their
> contracts. The legal theory, according to sources who have seen the
> prohibits personal services contracts for longer than 7 years. This
> tactic is common one for actors who seek to void contracts during
> renegotiations.
>
> The move comes amid a salary standoff that has already delayed today's
> tactic is common one for actors who seek to void contracts during
> renegotiations.
>
> scheduled start of the fourth season of Modern Family. The cast has
> hired litigator Jeff McFarland with Quinn Emanuel and are pressing
> their case in court.
They were desperate for work and signed those deals willingly, nobody had a gun to their head. I say fire them all and cancel the show.
> hired litigator Jeff McFarland with Quinn Emanuel and are pressing
> their case in court.
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 24, 2012, 4:11:47 PM7/24/12
to
Dano
Jul 24, 2012, 4:22:56 PM7/24/12
to
"He is the Resurrection and the Light: The Rapacious Mr. Hole" wrote in
message news:cc4327c0-65dd-415c...@googlegroups.com...
===================================================================
Good luck with the show if they do that. Wonder how they'd explain a whole
new cast. Just might change the show a bit.
The point is...it's now a huge money maker. The cast is a huge part of
that. They need the cast as much as the cast needs them. No one will take
that gamble.
message news:cc4327c0-65dd-415c...@googlegroups.com...
Good luck with the show if they do that. Wonder how they'd explain a whole
new cast. Just might change the show a bit.
The point is...it's now a huge money maker. The cast is a huge part of
that. They need the cast as much as the cast needs them. No one will take
that gamble.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Jul 24, 2012, 4:31:17 PM7/24/12
to
On Jul 24, 4:11 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Uh, wouldn't their contracts be valid for up to 7 years?-
FWIW, the article said, "The six adult cast members currently have
contracts through the seventh season of the show. But as THR
previously reported, renegotiations are common between the third and
fourth seasons, when casts of hit shows typically get bigger paychecks
in exchange for agreeing to continue with the show beyond the seventh
season. Sources tell THR the five cast members are being offered
salary increases as follows: $150,000 per episode plus a $50,000 per
episode bonus for season 4; $200,000 per episode for season 5;
$225,000 for season 6; and up to $325,000 for an anticipated season 9.
The cast is asking for much more, including more than double the
offered salary if the show goes 8 or 9 seasons, as expected."
The show actually has seven adult cast members--Sarah Hyland is 21.
No mention was made of her contract.
> Uh, wouldn't their contracts be valid for up to 7 years?-
FWIW, the article said, "The six adult cast members currently have
contracts through the seventh season of the show. But as THR
previously reported, renegotiations are common between the third and
fourth seasons, when casts of hit shows typically get bigger paychecks
in exchange for agreeing to continue with the show beyond the seventh
season. Sources tell THR the five cast members are being offered
salary increases as follows: $150,000 per episode plus a $50,000 per
episode bonus for season 4; $200,000 per episode for season 5;
$225,000 for season 6; and up to $325,000 for an anticipated season 9.
The cast is asking for much more, including more than double the
offered salary if the show goes 8 or 9 seasons, as expected."
The show actually has seven adult cast members--Sarah Hyland is 21.
No mention was made of her contract.
BTR1701
Jul 24, 2012, 5:52:00 PM7/24/12
to
show'.
Barry Margolin
Jul 24, 2012, 8:22:28 PM7/24/12
to
In article
<3c37845f-fc77-4c16...@u2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Rule to void them?
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
<3c37845f-fc77-4c16...@u2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jul 24, 4:11�pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> > Uh, wouldn't their contracts be valid for up to 7 years?-
>
> FWIW, the article said, "The six adult cast members currently have
> contracts through the seventh season of the show.
So if the contracts are only for 7 years, how can they use the 7 Year
> On Jul 24, 4:11�pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> > Uh, wouldn't their contracts be valid for up to 7 years?-
>
> FWIW, the article said, "The six adult cast members currently have
> contracts through the seventh season of the show.
Rule to void them?
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Mason Barge
Jul 25, 2012, 10:34:02 AM7/25/12
to
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:22:28 -0400, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu>
wrote:
Well, obviously they had to allege that services under the contract extend
for more than 7 years. Maybe they are alleging that some clause like
"shall perform such publicity services as needed . . ." obligates them to
do stuff after it nominally expires. Just a speculation.
wrote:
for more than 7 years. Maybe they are alleging that some clause like
"shall perform such publicity services as needed . . ." obligates them to
do stuff after it nominally expires. Just a speculation.
Mason Barge
Jul 25, 2012, 10:37:59 AM7/25/12
to
contracts, an illegal clause will void the entire contract.
It happens in Georgia with non-compete contracts. If there is one overly
restrictive clause, the entire thing is void. Like if it says the
employee cannot compete in the United States and he has never worked
except in Georgia -- say, a salesman in a particular industry -- a court
won't enforce it even as to Georgia.
BTR1701
Jul 25, 2012, 11:01:42 AM7/25/12
to
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 25, 2012, 11:15:50 AM7/25/12
to
Still, I find it hard to believe that studio lawyers can't draft a contract
that's binding within the law.
Mason Barge
Jul 25, 2012, 11:43:04 AM7/25/12
to
We may have fought for slavery but since then the state has gotten very
pro-individual-freedom.
anim8rFSK
Jul 25, 2012, 11:52:37 AM7/25/12
to
In article <atropos-AD22F5...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
I think non-competes are a thing of the past at this point. They were
intended for a day when a cobble didn't want his apprentice opening a
new shop in the same neighborhood, but across town or the next town or
state would be okay, but most business are SO non localized any more it
would be impossible to draft an enforceable one except in very limited
circumstances.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
intended for a day when a cobble didn't want his apprentice opening a
new shop in the same neighborhood, but across town or the next town or
state would be okay, but most business are SO non localized any more it
would be impossible to draft an enforceable one except in very limited
circumstances.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Jul 25, 2012, 12:38:29 PM7/25/12
to
On Jul 25, 10:37 am, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It happens in Georgia with non-compete contracts. If there is one overly
> restrictive clause, the entire thing is void. Like if it says the
> employee cannot compete in the United States and he has never worked
> except in Georgia -- say, a salesman in a particular industry -- a court
> won't enforce it even as to Georgia.-
> It happens in Georgia with non-compete contracts. If there is one overly
> restrictive clause, the entire thing is void. Like if it says the
> employee cannot compete in the United States and he has never worked
> except in Georgia -- say, a salesman in a particular industry -- a court
It's been a long standing provision of law that contracts with extreme
elements--such as you describe--are not enforeable. But they have to
be very extreme. If say a hair stylist has a non-compete clause
restricting her to say a ten mile radius for one year, that would be
enforceable.
Returning to the issue at hand, it does not seem that the issue here
is extreme. Read the entire article from the link and it makes sense,
whether you agree with the actors' position or not.
As to this show, I think it's rather speculative if it could go on to
8th or 9th seasons, despite it being popular now and well done. No
matter how good a sitcom, eventually it gets stale and repetitious.
Smart sitcoms quit while they're on top, maybe afer five or six
seasons.
Compounding the challenge for this is show is some of the key
characters are children. Cute/funny children do not necessarily
evolve into cute/funny young adults or college kids. The Wonder Years
lost steam as Kevin and Winnie grew up. Some shows try to stay young
by adding a new kid to the cast, such as a baby or relative: The
Brady Bunch brought in Cousin Oliver, Growing Pains adopted a kid (Leo
Decaprio) and had a baby, Family Ties had a baby, etc.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Jul 25, 2012, 12:49:21 PM7/25/12
to
On Jul 25, 11:15 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Still, I find it hard to believe that studio lawyers can't draft a contract
> that's binding within the law.
You would be correct. The studios have long experience with this sort
> Still, I find it hard to believe that studio lawyers can't draft a contract
> that's binding within the law.
of thing.
In this particular case, the actors are not arguing about the terms of
the present contract, but about what happens when that contract
expires. Since they all expect the show to continue after the
contract expires and the actors would be needed for that, the actors
do have some leverage. (I personally question whether that long-life
expectation is realistic, but what do I know.)
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Jul 25, 2012, 12:45:33 PM7/25/12
to
On Jul 25, 11:52 am, anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
> I think non-competes are a thing of the past at this point. They were
> intended for a day when a cobble didn't want his apprentice opening a
> new shop in the same neighborhood, but across town or the next town or
> state would be okay, but most business are SO non localized any more it
> would be impossible to draft an enforceable one except in very limited
> circumstances.
Small businesses use them all the time. The restrictive clauses are
> I think non-competes are a thing of the past at this point. They were
> intended for a day when a cobble didn't want his apprentice opening a
> new shop in the same neighborhood, but across town or the next town or
> state would be okay, but most business are SO non localized any more it
> would be impossible to draft an enforceable one except in very limited
> circumstances.
rather limited, but they prevent a key employee from opening up a
competing business right down the road from his former employer for a
short period of time, and stealing customers from his old employer.
BTR1701
Jul 25, 2012, 2:24:20 PM7/25/12
to
effect that "if any part of this contract is found to be void or
unenforceable by a court, the rest of the contract is still valid and
binding". So even if the non-compete (or in the case of Modern Family, the
length of the contract term) is found to be in violation of law and void,
it wouldn't strike the entire contract out and completely free the actors
from their obligations.
anim8rFSK
Jul 25, 2012, 3:24:53 PM7/25/12
to
In article
<1349899149364931167....@news.giganews.com>,
Agreed; I was just speaking to non-competes in general.
<1349899149364931167....@news.giganews.com>,
Mason Barge
Jul 25, 2012, 5:14:32 PM7/25/12
to
Georgia. I'd imagine there are other states, but I don't know.
Courts can refuse to enforce any convenant in a contract as contrary to
public policy, including severability clauses.
Mason Barge
Jul 25, 2012, 5:15:41 PM7/25/12
to
0 new messages