From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Smithers v. MGM Studios
California Court of Appeal
139 Cal. App. 3d 643, 189 Cal. Rptr. 20 (1983)
William Smithers (plaintiff) was a well-regarded actor who was cast to appear in the television series Executive Suite. The show was produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. (MGM) (defendant). MGM’s president and vice president at the time were Harris Katleman (defendant) and Bernard Weitzman (defendant), respectively. After being cast, Smithers’s agent negotiated the billing agreement with MGM to include a most-favored-nation clause in exchange for a lower starting compensation. The clause stated that, with the exception of three higher-billed actors, if any other performer were to receive higher compensation than Smithers, he would receive that amount as well. Additionally, the clause stated that no performer, other than those three actors, would receive more prominent billing than Smithers. The clause was included in the interim-deal memo. However, the clause ultimately did not make it into the long-form contract, which was never signed. Ultimately, other performers received more prominent billing than Smithers. Eventually, Smithers complained that his billing was not in conformity with the clause, which led him to discover it was never included in the long-form contract. Smithers’s character was later written off the show. Katleman told Smithers that if he did not waive the most-favored-nation clause, he would blacklist him from performing on certain programming. Smithers filed suit for breach of contract, tortious breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and punitive damages. The jury awarded Smithers $1 million in economic damages and $2 million in punitive damages. MGM moved for the court to enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing that the amount of damages were speculative and unascertainable. The trial court denied the motion but reduced the amount of Smithers’s damages. MGM appealed the denial of its motion, and Smithers appealed the remittitur.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Nelson, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 604,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.