Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 9 of 12. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations 46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 45 of this Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 47. Plaintiff and Marvel were parties to the Agreement, which is a valid and binding contract. 48. At all relevant times, Disney was aware of the Agreement and its terms. 49. On information and belief, Disney intentionally and improperly induced Marvel to breach its agreement with Plaintiff by releasing the film on Disney+ simultaneously with its release in theatres, in violation of the Agreement which required a “theatrical release of the Picture” as the parties understood that term at the time of contracting, meaning an exclusive theatrical release of the Picture. But for Disney’s actions, Marvel would not have breached the Agreement. 50. Through the conduct described above, Disney intended to disrupt or prevent Marvel’s performance under the Agreements, and did disrupt or prevent that performance. 51. Through its conduct, Disney caused damage to Plaintiff by, among other things, cannibalizing box office receipts for the Picture and reducing Plaintiff’s deferred compensation and box office bonuses under the Agreement, in an amount to be proven at trial. 52. Disney’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 53. In engaging in the misconduct alleged herein, Disney acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, and in willful disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and interests, thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of Disney pursuant to Civil Code § 3294. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 9 of 12. Periwinkle Entertainment, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company Court Filing retrieved [redacted] is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 9 of 12. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations 46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 45 of this Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 47. Plaintiff and Marvel were parties to the Agreement, which is a valid and binding contract. 48. At all relevant times, Disney was aware of the Agreement and its terms. 49. On information and belief, Disney intentionally and improperly induced Marvel to breach its agreement with Plaintiff by releasing the film on Disney+ simultaneously with its release in theatres, in violation of the Agreement which required a “theatrical release of the Picture” as the parties understood that term at the time of contracting, meaning an exclusive theatrical release of the Picture. But for Disney’s actions, Marvel would not have breached the Agreement. 50. Through the conduct described above, Disney intended to disrupt or prevent Marvel’s performance under the Agreements, and did disrupt or prevent that performance. 51. Through its conduct, Disney caused damage to Plaintiff by, among other things, cannibalizing box office receipts for the Picture and reducing Plaintiff’s deferred compensation and box office bonuses under the Agreement, in an amount to be proven at trial. 52. Disney’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 53. In engaging in the misconduct alleged herein, Disney acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, and in willful disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and interests, thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of Disney pursuant to Civil Code § 3294. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved [redacted] deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. deadline.com

Scarlett Johansson Puts Disney on Blast for Intentionally Interfering With Her Contract

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

DOE v. Github: Code Stored on GitHub Ultimately Belong to Their Authors

The Noonification: Dear America, I Am Breaking Up With You (6/2/2024)

The Noonification: Dear America, I Am Breaking Up With You (5/26/2024)

The Noonification: How AI’s Bias Problem Can Affect Your Next Job Application (5/22/2024)

Scarlett Johansson vs Disney: Demand for Jury Trial

Scarlett Johansson vs Disney: Prayer for Relief

DOE v. Github: Code Stored on GitHub Ultimately Belong to Their Authors

The Noonification: Dear America, I Am Breaking Up With You (6/2/2024)

The Noonification: Dear America, I Am Breaking Up With You (5/26/2024)

The Noonification: How AI’s Bias Problem Can Affect Your Next Job Application (5/22/2024)

Scarlett Johansson vs Disney: Demand for Jury Trial

Scarlett Johansson vs Disney: Prayer for Relief

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps