Portman

Portman v. New Line Cinema CA2/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 6, 2013B233669California6,299 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

1. The original complaint The original complaint (OC) in this action was filed on July 13, 2009, and alleged causes of action against New Line for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud and deceit, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Portman alleged that he is a “developer of multi-media content through his development company, Portman & Company.” He further alleged that in or about June 2002, he was introduced to officers of New Line through “an intermediary, Peter Kirshenbaum.”1 On June 3, 2002, Portman entered a signed written agreement with Kirshenbaum “related to the exploitation of Portman’s motion picture project on party crashing.” The agreement between Portman and Kirshenbaum detailed the terms under which Kirshenbaum would introduce Portman to senior management at New Line. The Portman-Kirshenbaum agreement was faxed to New Line, and individuals at New Line initialed the contract and returned it to Portman via fax. Portman alleged that he disclosed to New Line that he was in “active conversations with United Talent Agency [(UTA)] regarding the development of…

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.