Representative Matters

Intellectual Property, Entertainment and Media Matters

Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex

• Represented Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex, in a lawsuit filed in state court concerning illegal photographs taken by the paparazzi of their son playing in their private yard. Because the party responsible for the photographs was unknown, the lawsuit was filed against “John Doe” defendants and subpoenas were sent to the three biggest celebrity news agencies, which revealed the agency that was responsible. In a settlement announced three months later, the news agency apologized to the family, agreed to pay a portion of their legal fees, and agreed to turn over all photos and destroy all copies, and never traffic in any photos of the couple or their son taken by similar means. The case and settlement received world-wide coverage, including in The New York Times, BBC News, Le Figaro and Der Spiegel, and included Mr. Kump’s statement that “This is a successful outcome. All families have a right, protected by law, to feel safe and secure at home.” (Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex vs. John Does 1, et al, Los Angeles Superior Court case no. 20SMCV00975).
• Representing Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex, in a defamation action filed by a half-sibling in federal court in Florida. Mr. Kump and his team filed a motion to dismiss the entire complaint on the ground that the alleged statements were not defamatory as a matter of law. On February 15, 2023, the Court heard oral argument on the motion. On March 30, 2023, United States District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell issued a 32-page opinion granting Mr. Kump’s motion to dismiss. When plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint, Mr. Kump and his team filed a new motion to dismiss the entire complaint. After conducting oral argument on November 8, 2023, the Court on March 12, 2024, issued a 58-page opinion granting Mr. Kump’s motion to dismiss and dismissing the entire action with prejudice. In summary, the Court held that “[a]s to the defamation claims, each and every statement is non-actionable, either because it is a protected opinion, substantially true based on judicially noticed evidence, not capable of being considered defamatory, or because Plaintiff is precluded from meeting the actual malice standard.” (Id., pp. 9-10.) The Court on March 12, 2024, also issued Judgment in favor of Meghan.

MRC Entertainment

For over fifteen years, Mr. Kump has represented MRC Entertainment, a leading television and film studio that specializes in the creation of content in partnership with the industry’s foremost creative talent, in a variety of litigation and counseling matters involving cutting edge intellectual property and contract issues. 

• Represented MRC and affiliated companies sued for copyright infringement in connection with the hit film “The Blackening” by plaintiffs who alleged the film’s story was based upon their card game. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) in federal court in Ohio, and in response to the opposition filed by Mr. Kump and his team, the Court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction and transferred the action to federal court in Los Angeles. After MRC filed an opposition to the TRO. U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer on June 16, 2023, denied the motion for a TRO. In her ruling, Judge Fischer found that: “Plaintiffs present little to no detail regarding either the game or the screenplay, and there is no reason to believe that the expression of ideas in either has been copied in the making of the film.” The ruling continues, “Plaintiffs have also not shown any significant likelihood of irreparable harm” and “have not established that any of the relevant factors favor an injunction.” The film premiered in theatres in June 2023 and was a box-office success. 
• Representing Claimant MRC and related entities in an arbitration against Academy Award-winning actor Kevin Spacey in connection with MRC’s hit series House of Cards. The arbitration award in favor of MRC of over $30 million became public when MRC filed in state court a petition to confirm the arbitration award against Spacey. Years earlier, Mr. Kump filed MRC’s arbitration alleging that Spacey, in his role as actor on and executive producer of the series, had breached his agreements with MRC. After extensive discovery, including more than 20 depositions, and after an 8-day evidentiary hearing, a neutral JAMS arbitrator found entirely in favor of MRC on the parties’ competing claims for breach of contract, and ordered Spacey and his loan-out and producing entities to pay MRC more than $30 million in compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. In a detailed 46 page single-spaced Final Award, the Arbitrator found that Spacey—as a result of certain conduct in connection with several crew members in each of the five seasons that he starred in and executive produced House of Cards—had repeatedly breached his contractual obligations to provide his services “in a professional manner” and “consistent with [MRC’s] reasonable directions, practices, and policies,” including MRC’s Harassment Policy. Spacey appealed the Final Award through JAMS’ Arbitration Appeal Procedure. Thereafter, a three-arbitrator appellate panel affirmed the Final Award in its entirety.
• Representing plaintiff MRC and affiliated companies in litigation in state court against insurers who insured MRC in connection with House of Cards, seeking to recover damages suffered by MRC as a result of Spacey’s conduct which was the subject of the arbitration in which MRC prevailed.
• Represented defendant MRC in a trademark infringement action filed in federal court in Boston, in which plaintiff alleged that MRC’s popular television series “House of Cards” and related gambling slot machines and memorabilia infringed upon plaintiff’s trademark.
• Represented MRC and all other defendants in a copyright infringement action filed by a screenwriter who claimed the motion picture Elysium starring Matt Damon and Jodie Foster infringed the copyright in his screenplay. Mr. Kump represents MRC, the financier and producer of the film, along with Neill Blomkamp, the Oscar-nominated writer/director of the hit film District 9 who wrote and directed Elysium, and a major motion picture studio that distributed the film, among others. United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the Northern District of California issued a 32-page ruling granting KHIKS’s motion for summary judgment and denying the screenwriter’s motion for summary judgment. The Court found that “while there might be some superficial similarities between the two works, a close examination of the screenplay and the film reveals many significant differences and few real similarities among the protectable elements.” Based on its ruling, the Court entered judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed the action. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. (Briggs v. Blomkamp, et al, 70 F.Supp.3d 1155 (N.D.Cal.), aff’d, 714 Fed. Appx. 712 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S.Ct. 233.)
• Represented MRC in both federal and state court for two years concerning MRC’s payment to the Philip K. Dick Testamentary Trust for the exclusive rights to the short story “Adjustment Team” written by the late Philip K. Dick, which was the basis for MRC’s successful film The Adjustment Bureau. MRC alleged that the Trust had breached representations and warranties that the Trust owned the exclusive world copyright rights in the underlying story because, in fact, the underlying story had fallen into the public domain in the U.S. and most foreign territories. Mr. Kump on behalf of MRC filed a complaint in federal court for declaratory relief, after which the parties amicably resolved their dispute.

UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship Inc.)

Mr. Kump has represented UFC in several public and non-public matters. UFC is the world’s premier mixed martial arts organization (MMA), with more than 675 million fans and 185 million social media followers across the globe. The organization produces more than 40 live events annually that consistently sell out some of the most prestigious arenas around the globe, and its programming is broadcast in over 175 countries and territories, via more than 60 global broadcast partners, to more than 1.1 billion TV households worldwide in over 40 different languages.

• In August 2022, Mr. Kump and his team filed a copyright infringement action on behalf of UFC in federal court in Los Angeles. UFC’s complaint was against Canadian production companies and their principal who produced and distributed a documentary entitled “Bisping: The Michael Bisping Story,” about former UFC fighter Michael Bisping. In making the documentary, Defendants exploited UFC’s intellectual property without permission. In total, the documentary used portions of 24 different copyrighted works owned by UFC totaling almost nineteen (19) minutes of the film’s 109-minute runtime. UFC’s Complaint sought money damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and injunctive relief. After the matter was set for trial, the action was resolved and dismissed in March 2023.

The Saul Zaentz Company

• Represented The Saul Zaentz Company, the owner of certain film and other rights in J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit and Lord Of The Rings trilogy, in a dispute and arbitration with Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema concerning such rights.

The Kardashian and Jenner Sisters, and Kris Jenner

Mr. Kump has represented and is currently representing Kim, Kourtney, and Khloe Kardashian, Kendall and Kylie Jenner, and their manager and mother, Kris Jenner, in a variety of public and confidential matters, including litigation in state and federal court, and arbitration:

• Representing Kourtney, Kim and Khloe in the following three related state and federal actions and an arbitration filed in Los Angeles involving a hedge fund and its beauty company subsidiary concerning the operation of a cosmetics company to whom the Kardashians licensed their names and images. Mr. Kump and his colleagues won a preliminary injunction in federal court ordering the hedge fund and its subsidiary to stop selling products using the Kardashians’ names and likenesses, a ruling which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on May 26, 2017. (2Die4Kourt et al v. Hillair Capital Mgmt LLC et al, 2016 WL 4487895 (C.D. Cal.), aff’d, 2017 WL 2304376 (9th Cir.).) The three-member arbitration panel, after two weeks of live testimony, entered their Final Award, which held that: (i) the Kardashians recover approximately $12 million in damages and interest; and (ii) rejecting the hedge fund’s claims for $180 million in damages. The Kardashians thereafter filed their motion to confirm the arbitration award, which was granted by the Los Angeles Superior Court. Hillair appealed the ruling by the Superior Court, and the California Court of Appeal in a 49-page unpublished opinion affirmed in full the judgment in favor of the Kardashians (Hillair Capital Management, LLC, et al vs. Kim Kardashian, et al, Court of Appeal Case No. B299897).
• Represented Kourtney, Kim and Khloe in a trademark infringement action filed against them in federal court in Orlando by the foreign distributor of a Florida-based cosmetics company, seeking over $20 million in connection with their endorsement of a cosmetics line. The District Court granted the Kardashians’ motion for summary judgment filed by Mr. Kump and his team, and entered judgment in favor of the Kardashians. (Kroma Makeup EU, LLC v. Boldface Licensing + Branding, Inc., et al, 264 F.Supp.3d 1294 (M.D.Fla.).). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in a published unanimous opinion, affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Kardashians. (Kroma Makeup EU, LLC v. Boldface Licensing + Branding, Inc., et al, 920 F.3d 704 (11th Cir.).) Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court denied Kroma’s petition for certiorari, thus ending this several year saga in favor of the Kardashians.
• Represented Kim, Kourtney, Khloe and Kris in a breach of contract and intentional interference action filed in state court by the former CEO of a cosmetics company which had a licensing agreement with the Kardashians. This action was later dismissed after defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
• Represented Kylie in connection with defamation claims against Forbes magazine regarding an article entitled “Inside Kylie Jenner’s Web Of Lies—And Why She’s No Longer A Billionaire.” The matter received widespread press coverage with Mr. Kump quoted in USA Today, Forbes, US Weekly, the Daily Mail, and Page Six, among other publications.
• Represented plaintiffs Kim and her company Kimsaprincess, Inc. in an action filed in federal court in Los Angeles against the “fast fashion” company Missguided, which sells clothing throughout the world on its website. Missguided’s unauthorized use of Kim’s trademarked name and likeness to promote its website and products violated her statutory and common law rights of publicity, and infringed on her trademarks. The court entered a judgment in favor of Kim and her company in the amount of $2,700,000 plus attorneys’ fees. (Kimsaprincess, Inc. vs. Missguided USE (Finance) Inc., et al, USDC case no. 2:19-CV-01258 VAP (JEMx)).
• Represented Kendall and Kylie, and their respective businesses (Kendall Jenner, Inc., The Kylie Shop, Inc. and Kylie Jenner, Inc.) in an action filed against them in federal court in Los Angeles for copyright infringement in connection with their clothing businesses. The action was dismissed after discovery.
• Represented Kendall who was named in an adversary action filed in Bankruptcy Court in New York by the Trustee in connection with the infamous Fyre Festival, seeking to recover the promotional fee earned by and paid to Kendall. The matter was later dismissed.
• Represented Kim and her company Kimsaprincess, Inc. in an action filed by them in federal court in Los Angeles for copyright and trademark infringement, and violation of her right of publicity, against an Alabama doctor and his trade association for using her name and likeness without authorization in order to promote the so-called “Vampire Facial” procedure. The action was resolved in favor of Kim and her company with defendants agreeing to a permanent injunction against them and the payment of attorneys’ fees. (Kimsaprincess, Inc., et al vs. Charles Runels, et al, USDC case no. 2:19-CV-10415 CBM (AFMx)).
• Represented Kendall and Kendall Jenner, Inc. in a copyright infringement action filed by a photographer in federal court in Los Angeles.
• Represented Kim’s corporation Kimsaprincess Inc. in a trademark infringement action filed in federal court in Chicago by a makeup artist who has developed and sold a line of beauty products, concerning Kim’s cosmetics brand “KKW Beauty.” The federal judge in Chicago granted defendant Kimsaprincess Inc.’s motion to transfer the action to the federal court in Los Angeles, which was filed by Mr. Kump and his team. (Kirsten Kjaer Weis v. Kimsaprincess Inc., 296 F.Supp.3d 926 (N.D.Ill.).) After the conclusion of discovery and the filing of a summary judgment motion by Mr. Kump and his team, the action was dismissed.
• Represented Kendall as plaintiff in an action filed in federal court in Los Angeles against the creator and distributor of a laser treatment product for trademark infringement and violation of Kendall’s right of publicity, arising out of defendant’s unauthorized use of Kendall’s name and likeness to advertise defendant’s laser products. (Kendall Jenner, Inc., et al v. Cutera, Inc., USDC Case No. 2:16-cv-00936-JAK.)
• Represented Kris in a copyright infringement and breach of implied contract (idea theft) action filed against her in federal court in Los Angeles. The action was filed by the creator of a video game who alleged that the concept for a Kardashian video game had been presented to Kris, who allegedly shared the information with the company that launched a highly popular app for Kim Kardashian. In response to a motion to dismiss, plaintiff dismissed the federal action and filed a state court action, which was subsequently dismissed.
• Represented the Kardashian and Jenner sisters in the termination of their licensing agency, Agency for Performing Arts (APA), and the related litigation in state court in Los Angeles.
• Represented Kourtney, Kim and Khloe in a proposed class action filed in federal court in New York concerning the weight loss products sold under the QuickTrim brand, which the Kardashians endorsed. The plaintiffs, who were purchasers of certain QuickTrim products, sued the manufacturer and distributor of the products for alleged false advertising, and included the Kardashians in the lawsuit. The action was subsequently dismissed. (Andeia Cowan, et al v. Windmill Health Products, LLC, et al, USDC, SDNY Case No. 1:12-cv-1541-VM.)
• Represented Kim when she ended up in the middle of a lawsuit between TRIA Beauty, the company for which she endorsed an at-home laser hair removal product, and TRIA’s competitor, Radiancy, Inc. TRIA sued Radiancy in federal court in San Francisco for false advertising and Lanham Act violations. Radiancy then filed counterclaims against TRIA, and also sued Kim for false advertising for repeating TRIA’s advertising claims. After discovery and motion practice, the case against Kim was dismissed. (Tria Beauty, Inc. v. Radiancy, Inc., and Counterclaims, USDC, N.D.Cal. Case No. CV-10-5030-RS.)
• Represented Kourtney, Kim, Khloe, and Kris in an action filed in Fresno County Superior Court. The Kardashians had signed a contract with a company that specialized in debit card programs to endorse a debit card called the “Kardashian Kard.” When the card launched, it was criticized by consumer advocates and the financial press because of the financial fees built into the card. After the Kardashians terminated the contract, the company filed this lawsuit seeking $75 million for breach of contract. The complaint alleged the Kardashians publicized the termination of the contract, which caused the company to go out of business. Mr. Kump filed an anti-SLAPP motion to have the complaint dismissed on the ground the debit card company was seeking to hold the Kardashians liable for exercising their right of free speech on a matter of public interest. Fresno County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton agreed, and granted the motion filed by Mr. Kump and awarded attorneys’ fees to the Kardashians (The Revenue Resource Group, et al v. Dash Dolls, et al, Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 11-CE-CG-00058.). For more information, read the article from The Hollywood Reporter and Judge Hamilton’s opinion.

Evan Rachel Wood

• Mr. Kump and his team achieved a significant victory on behalf of actress and domestic abuse activist Evan Rachel Wood in a defamation action filed against her in Los Angeles County Superior Court by shock rocker Brian Warner p/k/a Marilyn Manson. Ms. Wood alleges that Manson raped and tortured her for many years during the course of a relationship when she was 18 years old, and threatened retaliation if she told anyone about it. Manson filed this lawsuit in 2022 after Ms. Wood publicly identified him as her abuser and rapist. On May 9, 2023, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Teresa A. Beaudet granted in full the anti-SLAPP motion filed on behalf of Ms. Wood by Mr. Kump and his team on the grounds that the alleged acts by Ms. Wood are protected by California’s anti-SLAPP law, which is designed to protect individuals who speak out on matters of public interest. Ms. Wood is well-known for her advocacy on behalf of domestic violence survivors, including testifying before the U.S. Congress and California legislature, as featured in the HBO documentary Phoenix Rising. In a 30-page written ruling, Judge Beaudet found that the allegations at issue in Manson’s complaint are matters of public interest, and that Manson failed to prove that his claims against Ms. Wood have even minimal merit. The Court thereafter granted the motion of attorneys’ fees filed by Mr. Kump and his team, and awarded Ms. Wood fees and costs totaling $326,956. (Brian Warner p/k/a Marilyn Manson, Los Angeles County Superior Court case no. 22STCV07568.)

Michael Strahan

• Represented NFL Hall of Fame player and ABC’s “Good Morning America” (GMA) television personality Michael Strahan in an action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court over a failed investment in a business involving singer, songwriter and actor Wiz Khalifa. After discovery, the action against Mr. Strahan was dismissed.

The Management Group (TMG)

• In one of the highest-profile cases in the entertainment business, Mr. Kump represented The Management Group (TMG) and its principals, who provide business management services to high-profile individuals and companies in the entertainment business. When TMG started to foreclose on a secured loan to their former long-time client, actor Johnny Depp, Depp filed a lawsuit in state court in Los Angeles concerning TMG’s representation of him. Mr. Kump responded by filing a highly publicized cross-complaint against Depp for fraud and breach of contract. The matter, which was heavily litigated for over 18 months, received international attention, and Mr. Kump was quoted extensively, including in The Hollywood Reporter, Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, BBC News, and Paris Match, among other publications. All of the lawsuits were dismissed on the eve of trial. (John C. Depp, II, et al v. The Mandel Company, Inc., dba The Management Group, et al, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 646882.)

William Morris Endeavor (WME) Entertainment

Mr. Kump has represented William Morris Endeavor (WME) Entertainment, and then Endeavor, in a variety of litigations in state and federal court, and in arbitration matters. For example:

• Mr. Kump represented defendant WME in an action for breach of fiduciary duty filed in state court in Los Angeles by former WME clients. The Court granted WME’s motion to stay the action pending the outcome of certain proceedings filed in New York.

For over two years, Mr. Kump represented defendant WME in an action filed in federal court in Los Angeles concerning the hit Fox television series, “New Girl.” The action was filed by two screenwriters who submitted copies of their screenplay “Square One” to talent agents at Endeavor Talent Agency (which merged with William Morris to become WME Entertainment). Plaintiffs allege that the agents provided the screenplay to various individuals, including Elizabeth Meriwether, the creator of the TV series “New Girl” which premiered on Fox. Plaintiffs filed this action for copyright infringement and breach of implied contract (idea theft) against WME and other defendants (mostly Fox entities plus the series’ creator and executive producer).

• United States District Judge Stephen V. Wilson granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the idea theft claim and dismissed the claim with prejudice. The Court held that the writers’ idea theft claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and that the writers failed to allege any facts that would excuse them from timely filing the claim. See Judge Wilson’s ruling.
• After the close of discovery, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claim. Judge Wilson issued a 24-page ruling granting defendants’ motion and terminating the action. See Judge Wilson’s ruling.
• At the conclusion of his ruling, Judge Wilson held that: “Plaintiffs have not introduced evidence demonstrating a triable issue of fact regarding Defendants’ access to Square One. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that a triable issue of access exists, no reasonable jury could conclude that there are substantial similarities in the plot, sequence of events, characters, mood, pace, setting, theme, or dialogue between Square One and New Girl.” Judge Wilson also granted WME’s motion for attorneys’ fees, awarding over $220,000 to Mr. Kump’s clients. See Judge Wilson’s ruling.

Sandra Bullock

• Represented Academy Award winner Sandra Bullock in a high-profile action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court against affiliate marketing companies that have been using her name and likeness without authorization to sell beauty products. Ellen DeGeneres is also a plaintiff (represented by her own counsel). The case has been widely reported including in The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times, and has been dismissed without prejudice to further action and proceedings. (Sandra Bullock and Ellen DeGeneres v. John DOE 1-100, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 19STCV40025.)
• Representing Ms. Bullock in numerous investigations and take-down proceedings in connection with fake ads and scams on the internet in which third parties use her name, image and likeness without authorization. 

SMAC Entertainment

• Represented SMAC Entertainment—a multi-dimensional talent management, music, branding, and production company founded and operated by NFL Hall of Fame player and ABC’s “Good Morning America” (GMA) Michael Strahan and Constance Schwartz-Morini—which was sued in an action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court regarding a clothing brand associated with the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and two retired WWE wrestling stars known as the “Bella Twins.” The entire action was recently settled and dismissed prior to trial.

Samax, Inc. (Rights holder in The Sopranos)

• Represented Samax, Inc., successor-in-interest to Brillstein Grey Communications and owner of rights in the iconic Sopranos television series, regarding HBO’s exploitation of the series.

Alexander Davis

• Representing Alexander Davis, grandson of tycoon Marvin Davis, in an action filed in state court involving his stepfather who is seeking hundreds of millions arising out of a settlement agreement concerning a former joint business. (Alexander J. Davis vs. Kenneth D. Rickel, Los Angeles Superior Court case no. 20SMCV01367).

Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

• Represented Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Hofesh, Inc., in a trademark infringement action filed against Hofesh in federal court in Los Angeles by the owner of the HAPPY PLACE trademark. Hofesh is the producer of a multi-sensory pop-up art exhibit called “Happy Place.” This matter was dismissed after discovery. (Happy Place, Inc. v. Hofesh, LLC, et al, USDC Case No. 2:18-cv-06915-ODW.)

Daniel Tosh

• Represented Daniel Tosh, the comedian, TV host, actor, writer and executive producer, whose television show Tosh.0 played for 12 seasons on Comedy Central and became the network’s most successful show, in getting out of his contract with ViacomCBS on favorable terms. During the last telecast of Tosh.0, Tosh paid homage to his representatives for making him “the wealthy comedian I am today,” and singled out “big hitter Mike Kump” who is “the best in the business at unwinding relationships on your terms.”

EuropaCorp S,A.

• Represented EuopaCorp S.A., a French production company founded by famed film director Luc Besson, in connection with a French investigation into his alleged conduct.

Critical Content LLC

• Represented Critical Content LLC, a leading global content studio that focuses on unscripted and scripted programming, in a dispute with a competitor and network concerning the right to produce an unscripted TV series based on Wham-O’s iconic toy, Slip ‘N Slide, which included an action filed in state court. The matter was later resolved.

Justin Baldoni, Wayfarer Entertainment LLC and Wayfarer Studios LLC

• Represented American director, actor and filmmaker Justin Baldoni, and Wayfarer Entertainment LLC and Wayfarer Studios, LLC in an action filed in state court by Wayfarer Entertainment’s terminated employee alleging fraud and breach of contract. (Shane Norman vs. Wayfarer Entertainment, LLC, et al, Los Angeles Superior Court case no. 20STCV46882). The action was later dismissed before trial.

Additional Intellectual Property, Entertainment and Media Matters

• Represented and representing a diverse group of entertainment and media clients in a variety of matters, including clients Barbra Streisand, Brad Pitt, Jamie Foxx, golfer Phil Mickelson, M. Night Shyamalan (film director, screenwriter, producer), Elizabeth Banks (actress, film maker), Harvard Prof. David Sinclair (academic and biologist on aging and epigenetics), Skydance Media (a diversified global media company founded by David Ellison), Hyperobject Industries (Adam McKay’s film and TV production company), Blumhouse Television (multi-media company in film and TV), SK Global Entertainment (developer, financer and producer of global premium content), HBO Latin America, North Six Productions (global collective of producers and content creators), Brillstein Entertainment Partners (a talent management firm and television production company), Management 360 (a talent and literary management + film and television production company), Marv Films (a British production company owned by film producer, director and screenwriter Matthew Vaughn).

Jessica Simpson

• Represented actress, singer, and fashion designer Jessica Simpson, along with her parents and her corporation, who were sued in state court for breach of an alleged 10% finder’s fee agreement in connection with the $120 million sale of Jessica’s company. Mr. Kump filed a cross-complaint for fraudulent concealment against plaintiff and his business partner. All of the lawsuits were dismissed prior to the jury trial. (Jeffrey Bowler v. The Jessica Simpson Collection, et al, and Cross-Complaint, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 591050.)

Jamie McCourt

• Represented Jamie McCourt, then owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers, in her marital dissolution action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Frank McCourt took the position that he was the sole owner of the Dodgers based upon a marital property agreement signed by the couple. During discovery, Mr. Kump and Jamie’s legal team discovered that the couple actually signed two versions of the marital property agreement, one of which preserved Jamie’s marital property rights in the Dodgers, and one of which did not. After an eleven-day bench trial, the Honorable Scott M. Gordon set aside the marital property agreement, finding that it was not valid or enforceable. As a result of the ruling, all of the couple’s assets acquired during their marriage, including the Los Angeles Dodgers, were presumed under California law to be community property. Mr. Kump’s achievements in the McCourt trial were recognized by the Daily Journal, the leading legal newspaper in California, in “Top Plaintiffs’ Verdicts by Impact.” Published annually, the Daily Journal‘s list is a selection of Top Verdicts throughout the year, highlighting those cases with outstanding results.

Michael Keaton

• For over two years, Mr. Kump represented Golden Globe winner and Academy Award nominee Michael Keaton in a lawsuit filed against him in federal court in Chicago in connection with the motion picture The Merry Gentleman. Keaton starred in and made his directorial debut in the independent film which garnered widespread praise from critics when it premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and when it was released in theaters. Nevertheless, years later, one of the investors in the film filed a breach of contract action against Keaton, alleging that Keaton’s breaches of his Directing Agreement caused the investor to lose his investment. After conducting discovery for several months, Mr. Kump and his team filed a motion for summary judgment which established that Keaton’s performance as director did not cause the film to underperform at the box office.

United States District Judge Gary Feinerman in Chicago agreed and granted Mr. Kump’s motion in an 18-page published opinion. The District Court ruled that plaintiff failed to show that a reasonable jury could find a causal connection between Keaton’s alleged breaches and plaintiff’s claimed monetary losses. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

Mr. Kump argued the appeal to the three-Judge panel consisting of Seventh Circuit Judges William J. Bauer, Ilana Rovner and David F. Hamilton. The appellate panel issued its unanimous opinion affirming summary judgment for Keaton and dismissing the action against Keaton. In his written opinion, Circuit Judge Hamilton asked: “Who can say why a critically praised movie did not make money?”  Hamilton wrote: “no reasonable trier of fact could find that Merry Gentleman lost its entire investment of $5.5 million because Keaton failed to submit his first cut on time or failed to publicize the movie better. Merry Gentleman entered the directing contract to have Keaton deliver a finished movie, and he delivered one that showed well at Sundance and won some critical praise. The breaches by Keaton that Merry Gentleman alleges cannot reasonably be said to have rendered the investment completely worthless.”

Both The Hollywood Reporter and the National Law Journal, among others, wrote about Mr. Kump’s victory. Mr. Kump told the National Law Journal: “We’re very pleased with this victory. Michael directed a film which received critical praise at both the Sundance Film Festival and in the national media when released, and he put his heart and soul into making this movie. We’re glad this is finally over.” (Merry Gentleman LLC v. George and Leona Productions, Inc. and Michael Keaton, 76 F.Supp.3d 756 (N.D.Ill. 2014), aff’d, 799 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2015).)

Starz Entertainment

Prior to Starz’s acquisition by Lionsgate, Mr. Kump for many years represented Starz, a media and entertainment company that produces and Mr. Kump filed actions in federal and federal court to protect and enforce Starz’s copyright and contractual rights. For example:

• Mr. Kump filed an action in Colorado state court on behalf of Starz against DISH Network LLC for breach of contract when DISH, without Starz’s permission, provided Starz’s premium programming free of charge for an entire year to over 10 million DISH customers. Starz sought damages against DISH of over $100 million because DISH’s “give-away” of Starz’s channels breached the parties’ Affiliation Agreement. The jury trial was conducted in Colorado state court with Mr. Kump serving as lead trial counsel for Starz. During the second week of the jury trial, the parties reached a settlement of all claims brought by Starz against DISH.
• FX Network LLC filed an action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against DISH and Starz for intentional interference with contractual relations based upon DISH’s “free” give-away of Starz’s premium programming. Mr. Kump defended Starz in FX’s action and defeated FX’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The action against Starz was subsequently dismissed.
• Mr. Kump filed an action on behalf of Starz when a Disney subsidiary began permitting Internet services, such as Apple’s iTunes, to sell Disney Pictures that had been exclusively licensed to Starz (see Complaint). Mr. Kump and his team filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which asked the Court to interpret the parties’ license agreements as prohibiting the conduct at issue (see Motion). The Court granted Starz’s motion and adopted Starz’s interpretation of the parties’ contracts (see Order). The action was resolved on the eve of trial.

Whalerock Industries

• Represents Whalerock Industries, an independent media/technology company, which creates, distributes and produces premium content and brands in digital, television and feature film across all platforms throughout the world, in a variety of litigation and counseling matters involving cutting edge intellectual property and contract issues.
• Represented Lloyd Braun, co-founder and co-owner of entertainment powerhouse BermanBraun, in the transaction that resulted in Braun becoming the sole owner of the company, now known as Whalerock Industries. Braun is recognized as an innovator in traditional and new media, having served as President of Brillstein-Grey Entertainment, followed by several years at Disney/ABC where he served as Chairman of ABC Entertainment Television Group, after which he served as the head of Yahoo! Media Group before founding BermanBraun.

Shaquille O’Neal

• Represented NBA legend Shaquille O’Neal who was sued by an alleged former business associate. Mr. Kump removed the action to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit on the ground it was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff countered that the statute of limitations had been tolled by a California statute (section 351) because Shaq lived outside the state of California from the time the causes of action accrued. Mr. Kump’s motion argued, however, that the statute cannot be constitutionally applied in this case because the unreasonable burden it would impose on interstate commerce violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
• United States District Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen granted Mr. Kump’s motion and dismissed the entire action with prejudice, finding that “the burden on interstate commerce imposed by section 351 outweighs the articulated state interest in this case, and the application of section 351 to toll the statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s claims would violate the commerce clause.” (For more information, read Judge Nguyen’s opinion.) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Nguyen’s ruling, finding that “The burden on interstate commerce as applied to O’Neal is substantial and the countervailing interest is minimal. Application of section 351 in this case would offend the Commerce Clause and [plaintiff’s] suit was properly dismissed because it was untimely.” (See Ninth Circuit opinion).

Additional Representative Media, Entertainment and Intellectual Property Matters

• Represented well-known Hollywood producer Salim Akil in an action in state court alleging inter alia idea theft. (Amber Dixon Brenner v. Salim Akil, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 18STCV05673.) The action was later dismissed after discovery.
• Represented for several years Greg Garrison, the longtime producer, director and part owner of the Dean Martin television shows, and his Executor and Trustee (after his death), in several disputes and lawsuits over the rights to the shows, including two separate copyright infringement actions in federal court and three separate civil actions in state court. One of the state actions filed by Mr. Garrison’s heirs alleged they should be awarded an interest in valuable property based upon an alleged forged agreement. After a six day trial handled by Mr. Kump, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Reva Goetz ruled in favor of Mr. Kump’s client (see Court’s opinion).
• Represented the renowned cartoonist and screenwriter Daniel Clowes in connection with the actions by actor Shia LaBeouf, whose short film exhibited at the Cannes Film Festival infringed Mr. Clowes’ published comic. The matter was resolved without Mr. Clowes filing an action for copyright infringement.
• Represented Mark Koops in a confidential arbitration against Reveille Independent LLC. Mr. Koops was the co-creator and an executive producer of NBC’s television hit series “The Biggest Loser” and was for many years a Managing Director of Reveille.
• Represented the entertainment law firm Ziffren Brittenham when a third party sought to discover financial information concerning the firm’s clients. Mr. Kump obtained an important ruling for the law firm in the California Court of Appeal that barred the discovery on the grounds that it invaded the clients’ constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy.

Trade Secrets Litigation

• For over fifteen years, Mr. Kump has served as West Coast litigation counsel for USI— a diversified insurance and financial services firm that is the eighth-largest insurance brokerage in the United States – in numerous misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition actions filed throughout California against insurance producers who left to join competing firms. In these actions, Mr. Kump obtained injunctive relief to protect USI’s trade secrets and to enforce USI’s restrictive covenants, which resulted in the cases settling on favorable terms for USI. Mr. Kump also counsels USI on a broad range of trade practice issues, including trade secret protection and the enforceability of contractual covenants governing competition.

Film & Television Profit Participants Litigation

Mr. Kump has successfully represented profit participants in several matters against studios and television and film companies to recover monies contractually owed to his clients.

• For three years, Mr. Kump represented the writers and producers of the award winning television series “Smallville” in an action filed in state court in Los Angeles against the vertically-integrated media conglomerate Time Warner. The action was amicably resolved and dismissed. (Killara Productions, Inc., et al v. Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 434445.)
• Mr. Kump represented the creators of the award winning animated television comedy “King of the Hill” against Twentieth Century Fox Television in a matter resolved prior to the filing of litigation.
• Mr. Kump represented the creator (Nia Vardalos) and the executive producers (Tom Hanks, Rita Wilson, Gary Goetzman) of the film hit “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” in an action filed in state court in Los Angeles against the film’s studio and production companies. The action was amicably resolved and dismissed. (Clavius Base, Inc., et al v. Big Wedding Productions, Inc., et al, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 375442.)

Representative Appellate Cases

Throughout his career, Mr. Kump has handled a number of complex and diverse appellate matters in both the state and federal appellate courts.

• Mr. Kump led a legal team that prevailed in an international child custody battle waged in the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District in Fresno. The Court agreed with the arguments presented by Mr. Kump and his team, ruling in favor of their clients and summarily denying Petitioners’ request for an emergency stay and reversal of the trial court’s orders in an international child custody case. (Fatema Ezzuddin v. Ibrahim Qaidjoher Ezzuddin, California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, Case No. F071165.)

Petitioners were two sisters married to two men who are cousins; together, the two couples have nine minor children that were born and raised in Mumbai, India. The families are members of a religious faith which is several hundred years old and has over a million followers worldwide. When their spiritual leader died, a succession dispute arose, which caused a rift between the two sisters and their husbands. The sisters took their nine children and flew them from Mumbai to Bakersfield, California without the fathers’ knowledge or consent. Shortly after arriving, the sisters filed a motion in the Kern County Superior Court seeking temporary restraining orders against their husbands and seeking custody orders related to the minor children. After a trial, the trial court rejected the sisters’ claims of domestic violence and ordered the return of the children to the fathers’ custody.

Mr. Kump was brought in by the fathers’ family law attorney to handle the subsequent proceedings in the Court of Appeal. The sisters filed a request for an emergency stay in the Court of Appeal, and also sought orders reversing the trial court’s custody ruling in favor of the fathers. Mr. Kump and his team sprang into action and only 48 hours after the sisters filed several briefs and voluminous exhibits, Mr. Kump and his team filed a 45-page opposition with the Court of Appeal. Just 24 hours later, the Court of Appeal summarily denied all requests for relief by the sisters. As a result, the children with their fathers returned to their close-knit community in Mumbai, India, where they had been born and raised before being uprooted.

Merle Norman Cosmetics Litigation

• For over fifteen years, Mr. Kump represented Merle Norman Cosmetics, a national franchisor of cosmetics studios, in several federal and state actions covering a broad array of claims. After years of multi-state discovery, Mr. Kump successfully represented plaintiff Merle Norman in a four-week civil RICO and fraud trial filed in New York federal court against an advertising company. The presentation of Merle Norman’s case involved the testimony of eighteen witnesses and over 700 exhibits presented digitally. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury awarded a multi-million-dollar verdict to Merle Norman. (Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc. v. Clipper Magazine, Inc., et al, USDC, EDNY Case No. 98 Civ. 2327-DRH.)

Antitrust Litigation and Counseling

• • Mr. Kump’s practice encompasses antitrust litigation and counseling. Mr. Kump successfully represented defendant Courtside LLC in an antitrust action filed in federal court in Los Angeles.  Courtside produces and finances multi-platform, quality programming and is the radio home for high profile personalities. In this action, independent producers of news and talk radio programs alleged that lead defendant Dial Global, Inc. monopolized certain markets in the radio programming industry, and that as part of this antitrust conspiracy, Courtside interfered with plaintiffs’ contracts with certain radio personalities. Mr. Kump and his team filed a motion to dismiss the tort claims against Courtside for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which United States District Judge Jesus Bernal granted and dismissed all claims against Courtside. (The Original Talk Radio Network, Inc., et al v. Dial Global, Inc., et al, USDC Case No. CV-12-7370-JGB.)
  • For over ten years, Mr. Kump successfully represented Merle Norman in a series of related state and federal actions, defending the company against alleged violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, while prosecuting the company’s trademark and Lanham Act claims. (Acton v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc., 163 F.3d 605 (9th Cir.); Acton v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc., 1995-1 CCH Trade Cases 71,025 (C.D. Cal.); Acton v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc., 1994-2 CCH Trade Cases 70,784 (C.D. Cal.); Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., Cent. Dist. of Cal., 856 F.2d 98 (9th Cir.).) During this litigation, Mr. Kump successfully defended the company in a five-week jury trial on antitrust issues and in a bench trial on causation and damages, while also recovering favorable settlements in two bad faith actions brought against the company’s insurers.
  • Mr. Kump represented International E-Z Up, Inc., the originator and manufacturer of instant portable canopies, against antitrust counterclaims filed in the company’s patent infringement case. After creating and implementing a targeted discovery plan, Mr. Kump brought a motion for summary judgment, which the federal court granted in a published opinion. (Carter v. Variflex, Inc., 101 F.Supp.2d 1261 (C.D. Cal.).)