Ovitz seeks stay of suit by 'disgruntled' worker
Ovitz fires back
Oct 21, 2002
In the first response to the $4 million lawsuit launched earlier this month against Michael Ovitz by Cathy Schulman, the former production head of Ovitz' film company, Artists Production Group, Ovitz's attorneys alleged in a court filing that the suit "is filled with lies and internal inconsistencies" and that Schulman is "a disgruntled former employee."
The motion, filed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court, requested a stay on the suit, arguing that the contractual dispute should be settled instead by binding arbitration as provided in Schulman's employment contract.
In a separate legal dispute, Ovitz's attorneys won a victory last week when a Superior Court judge threw out a defamation claim included in the $9.6 million suit against Ovitz filed by Eric Tannenbaum, the former head of Ovitz's now defunct Artists Television Group in April (HR 4/12).
Ovitz's response in the Schulman case offered a dramatically different scenario contradicting Schulman's contention that Ovitz fired her "in a rage" after she told auditors for Vivendi Universal looking into APG's joint venture to develop and produce movies with Studio Canal "that APG was stealing from Vivendi." (HR 10/8)
Instead, it characterizes Schulman as an ineffective executive who "failed to deliver on her proclamation (made both internally and to the press) that she would move a significant number of major motion pictures into production," while simultaneously making "nagging attempts to usurp the titles of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer in addition to President."
When APG hired Mark Canton as CEO in January, according to the court papers, Schulman refused to surrender her authority over the joint venture projects to Canton and publicly resigned her post on Jan. 31. Although APG continued to pay her benefits and allow her the use of her office while settlement discussions took place, the complaint alleges that Schulman "interfered with various projects (and) disparaged the joint venture."
Schulman met with Vivendi auditors Feb. 4 as part of what the complaint describes as a "routine audit." But according to the Ovitz scenario, the audit findings were not disclosed to APG or Studio Canal until Feb. 19, five days after Schulman was fired for cause and escorted from her office, where she was "found after normal business hours attempting to steal company property."
Calling her suit "a calculated and well-publicized manipulation of the Court system designed to harass and humiliate defendants into an unwarranted financial settlement," the motion argued that as agreed to in Schulman's employment contract, the contractual dispute should be settled by binding arbitration. Although Ovitz's attorneys had initiated an arbitration with the American Arbitration Assn. in September, Schulman filed suit on Oct. 7, the day before an initial arbitration conference was to have been held.
Reacting to the motion, Schulman's attorney Randall Sunshine said, "We're surprised a man of Mr. Ovitz's stature would stoop to a blame the victim defense."
A hearing on the motion is currently scheduled for Nov. 13. The motion was filed by Andrew Pauly and Jeffrey Lewis of Greenwald, Pauly, Foster & Miller on behalf of Ovitz, APG and the APG/Studio Canal joint venture. According to sources close to the case, Studio Canal, a unit of Vivendi Universal, which was named in the original complaint, also joined the brief Friday, although that could not be independently verified, and a spokesperson for Vivendi Universal declined comment.
In the Tannenbaum case, sources confirmed that Superior Court Judge Frances Rothschild has rejected Tannenbaum's claim that Ovitz defamed him by criticizing Tannenbaum's management abilities in the industry after the shutdown of ATG.
A hearing is scheduled for Oct. 30 to determine how much Ovitz has spent in attorneys fees relating to the rejected defamation claim. Sources close to Ovitz said the judge's ruling means Tannenbaum will have to pay attorneys fees that could amount to more than six figures, though a source on the Tannenbaum side countered that the judge has yet to order that such fees be paid.
The motion, filed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court, requested a stay on the suit, arguing that the contractual dispute should be settled instead by binding arbitration as provided in Schulman's employment contract.
In a separate legal dispute, Ovitz's attorneys won a victory last week when a Superior Court judge threw out a defamation claim included in the $9.6 million suit against Ovitz filed by Eric Tannenbaum, the former head of Ovitz's now defunct Artists Television Group in April (HR 4/12).
Ovitz's response in the Schulman case offered a dramatically different scenario contradicting Schulman's contention that Ovitz fired her "in a rage" after she told auditors for Vivendi Universal looking into APG's joint venture to develop and produce movies with Studio Canal "that APG was stealing from Vivendi." (HR 10/8)
Instead, it characterizes Schulman as an ineffective executive who "failed to deliver on her proclamation (made both internally and to the press) that she would move a significant number of major motion pictures into production," while simultaneously making "nagging attempts to usurp the titles of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer in addition to President."
When APG hired Mark Canton as CEO in January, according to the court papers, Schulman refused to surrender her authority over the joint venture projects to Canton and publicly resigned her post on Jan. 31. Although APG continued to pay her benefits and allow her the use of her office while settlement discussions took place, the complaint alleges that Schulman "interfered with various projects (and) disparaged the joint venture."
Schulman met with Vivendi auditors Feb. 4 as part of what the complaint describes as a "routine audit." But according to the Ovitz scenario, the audit findings were not disclosed to APG or Studio Canal until Feb. 19, five days after Schulman was fired for cause and escorted from her office, where she was "found after normal business hours attempting to steal company property."
Calling her suit "a calculated and well-publicized manipulation of the Court system designed to harass and humiliate defendants into an unwarranted financial settlement," the motion argued that as agreed to in Schulman's employment contract, the contractual dispute should be settled by binding arbitration. Although Ovitz's attorneys had initiated an arbitration with the American Arbitration Assn. in September, Schulman filed suit on Oct. 7, the day before an initial arbitration conference was to have been held.
Reacting to the motion, Schulman's attorney Randall Sunshine said, "We're surprised a man of Mr. Ovitz's stature would stoop to a blame the victim defense."
A hearing on the motion is currently scheduled for Nov. 13. The motion was filed by Andrew Pauly and Jeffrey Lewis of Greenwald, Pauly, Foster & Miller on behalf of Ovitz, APG and the APG/Studio Canal joint venture. According to sources close to the case, Studio Canal, a unit of Vivendi Universal, which was named in the original complaint, also joined the brief Friday, although that could not be independently verified, and a spokesperson for Vivendi Universal declined comment.
In the Tannenbaum case, sources confirmed that Superior Court Judge Frances Rothschild has rejected Tannenbaum's claim that Ovitz defamed him by criticizing Tannenbaum's management abilities in the industry after the shutdown of ATG.
A hearing is scheduled for Oct. 30 to determine how much Ovitz has spent in attorneys fees relating to the rejected defamation claim. Sources close to Ovitz said the judge's ruling means Tannenbaum will have to pay attorneys fees that could amount to more than six figures, though a source on the Tannenbaum side countered that the judge has yet to order that such fees be paid.
Share on LinkedIn
