Ersoff

Mardirossian & Associates, Inc. v. Ersoff

Bad Law
153 Cal. App. 4th 257·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1169·62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 665
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 18, 2007B182966California9,208 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perluss, J.

Seth Ersoff appeals from the judgment entered in this action in quantum meruit filed by his former legal counsel, Mardirossian & Associates, Inc. (M&A), to recover attorney fees. Ersoff asserts the trial court committed multiple errors before, during and after trial and contends the jury’s special verdict is not supported by substantial evidence. Ersoff and his trial counsel also challenge an order imposing monetary sanctions against each of them “jointly and severally” in the amount of $3,500. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Infomercial Deal

Ersoff managed the careers of Sugar Ray Leonard, the former Olympic boxing gold medalist and world champion, and Billy Blanks, a physical trainer who had developed an exercise program called Tae Bo. In March 1998 Ersoff entered a written agreement with Universal Management Services, Inc. (UMSI), an infomercial production company, and its president, Paul Monea, to create an infomercial marketing Blanks’s Tae Bo program. After Leonard gave Ersoff a videotaped testimonial for the Tae Bo tapes, Ersoff, purportedly on Leonard’s behalf, signed Leonard’s name to a testimonial release authorizing UMSI’s use of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.