GANG OF FOUR APPEAL DISMISSED – UPDATED!!
The Appellate Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal filed by Alan Rosenberg, Anne-Marie Johnson, Kent McCord and Diane “Sleepy” Ladd against the Guild and all directors who voted to fire Doug Allen. The court described the appeal as moot, agreeing that even if there had been a problem with the written assent, any such problem would have been fixed by the formal vote of the National Board on February 9 ratifying the assent and the firing, and the court awarded costs of the appeal to the union.
The Court of Appeal decision is here. Variety chimes in here.
THANK YOU JESUS!!!
Thank goodness this madness seems to finally be ending.
What a frustrating WASTE of hundreds of thousands of our precious union dollars. Way to stab your own union in the heart, Anne Marie and Alan. I believe Ms. Johnson, Mr. Rosenberg, Ms. Ladd and Mr. McCord owe the membership an apology and explanation as to why they PERSISTED in weakening SAG by bleeding its financial resources – all to defend a frivolous and moot lawsuit. Surely, those hundreds of thousands of Guild dollars could have been better used preserving various staff positions or even for shoring up our reserves towards a potential strike fund in the future. If they are too embarrassed or blinded by their own sense to entitlement to apologize, then they should seriously consider resignation from the board.
Do we have any assurances that not a penny more of our dues will be (ab)used to reimburse the Go4′s attorney fees?
You’re welcome, my child.
The fact that the appeal was dismissed strongly indicates that the Court of Appeal found — correctly — that it was moot.
Of course it was moot, because the claimed procedural irregularity with the written assent was cured by the same actions being taken at a regular live meeting of the SAG board.
In any event, the standard of review for an order granting or denying a TRO or preliminary injunction — which is what happened here — is fairly strict. It’s not enough to show “mere error” on the part of the trial court; the appellant must show abuse of discretion. Under the circumstances of this case, there was little prospect that plaintiffs would be able to make such a showing.
My only gripe is that the Court of Appeal waited this long to make the mootness finding. SAG tried to get the appeal dismissed earlier on grounds of mootness, and the Court of Appeal denied the motion summarily with no explanation. It should have been granted then.
Finally, it must be remembered that this appeal only concerned a challenge to the February 5 order denying a TRO or preliminary injunction hearing. The principal case remains pending in the trial court, although for the life of my I can’t figure out how or why it’s still alive there.
VG
And that principal case is still costing us money.
Alan and AMJ – the gift that keeps on giving…
I should add — it’s not that the lawsuit was dismissed … it’s only that the appeal from the February 5 ruling has been dismissed. The underlying lawsuit is still pending.
VG
Not only do we have to be vigilant that they don’t try to do something in exec session ala Wilson/Bower, but Alan and the rest of these “people” should make a contribution to the Actors Fund. But they won’t. It can be strongly “suggested” by the membership.
Keep in mind that AMJ stated on one of her “conference calls” during the election that she was paying her own legal fees and would not want to take a dime of SAG’s money. She also said that if this were to be taken up in executive session she would move to have it out in the open so the members could witness it all.
Let’s keep her to her word (whatever THAT’S worth).
Alan Rosenberg told me when I asked him after the SAG Membership Meeting in NY “Who is paying your legal bills?” He said and I quote: “There are no bills. It’s all pro bono.”
Based on VG’s comment, I’m still confused as to the state of play then.
A “moot” ruling stops the pain for the moment, I suppose, but still leaves the gun on the table for someone to pick up later.
Ah, having reviewed briefs, I gather VG is saying this is the appeal to the trial court not granting a temporary restraining order that was dismissed (only) and the underlying case still snails its way along.
Not really. Today’s decision removed the bullets and tied the barrel in a knot. There is virtually no chance the underlying action will survive in light of this smackdown. Look for SAG to file a petition for review to kill this thing dead.
“Respondent is awarded its costs on appeal”
Oh ho, get out the checkbook, Alan, et al.
Y’know, this thing may really be dead. Courts in American jurisprudence don’t like to determine hypotheticals. In order to have “standing” in court to be a plaintiff you have to show you’re injured, and if the issue is moot, then no one today is injured. . .
So. . . . maybe it is over? Other than SAG squeezing their appeals costs the court awarded them out of the plaintiffs?
Looking at a calendar and the relevant dates of milestones, and the fact that court awarded costs of the appeal portion to SAG (and the appeal has dragged on much longer than original ruling, so presumably most of the billable hours are there as well), I’d guess SAG has a very good chance of being awarded far more than the majority of its legal costs so far by the court if SAG pursues it aggressively.
Whether they do so, and whether they will be able to actually collect such an award. . . dunno.
I had the same thought. NOW WE REEEEAAALLY gotta make sure they don’t beg for relief in executive session.
I CAN HEAR IT NOW…”NOT DIME ONE…NOT ONE DIME… N-O-D” we an all do a “scott wilson” outside 5757 HA
“Hey Hey, Ho Ho, ‘Reimburse’ and Out You Go!” ?
Marisa -
Go to your calendar, look up the date that AR said that to you, and write it down. Document it. Seriously.
If it comes back to haunt us, at least we’ll have that.
And thank you.
V.
And now this Labor Board thing…we’d better get out the bullhorns. Ya think Wilson has some extras in his garage?
Good one Geo…very funny
I know exactly when it was..it was at the last membership meeting at the DGA when Rosenberg was in town and David White spoke. The meeting where the MFer’s thought it was so funny to have their cell phones all go off at the same time. I’m sure someone has that date.
Don’t worry I documented it. AND I listened as did others to AMJ say she wouldn’t take a dime of our money to pay her legal fees. That was on her “conference call” during the campaign.
Guys, don’t jump for joy over SAG being awarded costs. “Costs” is a technical term. It means FILING FEES – i.e., a few hundred dollars at most. It does not mean ATTORNEYS FEES, which are many tens of thousands of dollars.
Even if/when SAG finally wins the underlying case, Rosenberg et al will almost certainly NOT have to pay SAG’s legal fees, because that’s not how U.S. law works. In general, in the U.S., each side pays its own legal fees no matter who wins.
As I read the Court of Appeal opinion discussing mootness, I can’t see why the exact same arguments wouldn’t apply to the underlying lawsuit. Coupled with the problems with plaintiffs’ theories, I would think SAG could knock the case out with a motion at any time.
VG
They can collect. (Assuming they want to stay part of the union)
So, either way its a win for the rest of the union, they pay up or get out.
On the not entirely related and not entirely unrelated front. . . has the board done anything about repealing the part of the January assent that made only White and McGuire official spokesman for the Guild?
Or are Howard and Aquino still bound by that as well?