Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Southern District of Florida

Federal Judiciary

: Southern District of Florida

Three-week-old news

It seems that some important findings and conclusions came out while D.O.M.?who has been indefatigable with his exhaustive coverage of Paris Hilton?was out of town. This oversight needs immediate and painstaking correction.

You will doubtlessly recall that the receiver to a film company claims Paris breached a contract by failing to promote the film Pledge This!. Last year, The Chief, applying New York law, held that the receiver was not entitled to reliance damages, i.e., the $8.3 million spent making the movie. (Seems like a lot for a film that The Chief noted was ?hardly destined for critical acclaim.? {I hope that doesn?t mean he had to watch it.}) Nonetheless, the receiver might be entitled to some of the $1 million paid to Paris if she has been unjustly enriched. (Not in general?Paris Hilton is obviously unjustly enriched, if anyone is?but with regard to this project.)

So, the receiver had an expert go through a bunch of Paris Hilton?s contracts to figure out what it costs to have her, say, show up at a party and do some ?non-meaningful speaking? and what it costs to have her attempt the other kind of speaking. Paris? lawyers argued, apparently seriously, that this method ?fails to value the benefit the producers received from Ms. Hilton?s acting services.? Notwithstanding, about three weeks ago, The Chief decided that Paris failed to deliver $160,000 worth of meaningful speaking.

The next step is for the parties to figure out whether the work Paris did?including her dramatic rendering of protagonist Victoria English, leader of ?the most popular and exclusive sorority? at South Beach University?was worth more than $840,000. How could it not be? Briefs are due on October 15, 2010. So, expect a report from D.O.M. on that.

Full post as published by Southern District of Florida on September 24, 2010 (boomark / email).