LOCKE V WARNER BROS, INC.
57 Cal.App. 4th 354 (1997)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Locke (P) sought review of a decision that granted summary judgment
in favor of Warner (D), entertainment studio. P brought the action for tortious wrongful
discharge in violation of the public policy against sex discrimination, breach of contract,
and fraud.
FACTS: Locke (P) became romantically and financially involved with Clint Eastwood. In
1988, that relationship deteriorated and eventually the relationship was terminated. P then
sued Eastwood alleging numerous causes of action. That action was resolved in 1990 by a
settlement and mutual release. Eastwood agreed to pay P $450,000 and to convey certain
property to her. Furthermore, P contends that Eastwood secured a development deal for P with
Warner (D) in exchange for P's dropping of the case. Just by coincidence, P signed a
development deal with D contemporaneously with the P/Eastwood settlement. The P-D deal
called for P to get $250,000 per year for three years for a non-exclusive first look deal
wherein D got to see work product from P before any other studio could see it. The second
part of the contract called for a pay or play deal for $750,000 for D's directing services.
Unknown to P at the time, Eastwood had agreed to reimburse D for the cost of the contract if
P did not succeed in getting projects developed or produced. Early in the second year of the
three-year contract, D charged $975,000 to an Eastwood film. D paid P the guaranteed
compensation under the agreement ($1.5 million). P was provided with an office on the studio
lot and an admin. assistant. D did not develop any of P's projects or hire her or direct any
of her films. D contends the agreement was a sham and that D never had any intention of
making films with her and that D's sole motivation was to assist Eastwood in settling his
litigation. P sued D for sex discrimination and tortious breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing in violation of public policy and breach of contract and fraud.
D denied the allegations and moved for summary judgment in that D did consider all her
projects and the decision not to develop was not a breach of the contract. P presented
evidence that supported her contention that D had no intent to honor the agreement. The
trial court gave summary judgment to D; The trial court ruled that D was not required to
have a good faith or fair basis for declining to exercise P's developments and because D did
not breach the contract there was no fraud. P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
