Defendants, a producer and movie distributor, appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) and its order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Plaintiff prosecuting attorney prevailed in his action for breach of an agreement not to exhibit a motion picture in theaters, for tortious invasion of his right of privacy, and for an injunction against further theater exhibition of the movie.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. is a California Corporate Compliance Attorney
Overview
The prosecuting attorney consented to appear in and narrate a film based on a high-profile criminal case on the express condition that it would be shown only on television, not in theaters. In his contract and tort action against the producer and movie distributor, the jury found that the producer breached the agreement by contracting with the movie distributor for theater exhibition of the film, knowing that the prosecuting attorney did not consent to theater displays. The jury awarded compensatory and exemplary damages, and the lower court also enjoined further theater exhibition of the film. On appeal, the court affirmed the compensatory damages award based on evidence that the prosecuting attorney suffered humiliation and embarrassment because of apprehension that if the movie were shown in theaters, the public would assume he was compensated for participating in the project. The court held that the evidence supported the findings that theatrical distribution was not authorized, that the prosecuting attorney suffered distress and humiliation to a substantial degree, that the award of compensatory damages was not excessive, and that injunctive relief was properly granted.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the prosecuting attorney.