CELEBRITY LAWSUITS: Celebs Rumors

+107

All news where CELEBRITY LAWSUITS is mentioned

nypost.com
Justin Theroux scores win in legal battle with NYC neighbor he accused of trespassing, peeping
campaign of harassment against him and then-wife Jennifer Aniston after they started a $1 million renovation. “Theroux has established as a matter of law that various aspects of Norman Resnicow’s behavior toward him constitute a private nuisance — an intentional, unreasonable, interference with Theroux’s use and enjoyment of his apartment,” Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Gerald Lebovitz ruled.Theroux, 52, claimed in his suit that Resnicow, 76, had trespassed on his property, peeped into his windows, harassed workers and killed the ivy that grew on their shared roof terrace.Lebovitz previously found Resnicow liable for trespassing on Theroux’s side of the roof deck space.The judge rejected Resnicow’s request for the case not to be decided by a jury — saying Theroux was entitled to have jurors hear the case and that there were open questions for the panel to decide, according to the Monday ruling.In particular, jurors will be tasked with determining the damages to be awarded to the “Mulholland Drive” actor — who the judge said could also seek punitive damages at trial.Theroux — who split from the “Friends” actress in 2018 — is seeking at least $4.58 million in damages at trial.The next court date and a trial date have not been set yet.“The judge left many issues of facts for a jury to resolve and, therefore, we will need a jury trial to resolve them,” Resnicow’s lawyer Peter Levine told The Post Thursday.Levine said he doesn’t know if the case will settle ahead of trial, but noted that prior negotiations had broken down.
nypost.com
Brad Pitt slams Angelina Jolie’s ‘secret’ sale of French vineyard stake: suit
“Babylon” star had new business partners.“That was by design: Jolie collaborated in secret with Shefler and his associates to pursue and then consummate the purported sale, ensuring that Pitt would be kept in the dark,” reads the amended complaint filed Thursday in Los Angeles court by Pitt’s attorneys.Shefler’s Stoli company and Jolie “knowingly violated Pitt’s and [his company] Mondo Bongo’s contractual rights and forced a stranger into Pitt’s family home,” continues the paperwork obtained by The Post.The former couple had an equal stake in the $160 million Chateau Miraval — they purchased a controlling interest in 2008 and used the 1,200-acre estate as their wedding venue in 2014.The pair, who split in 2016, had a “mutual and binding commitment… that, if the time ever came, neither could or would dispose of his or her interest separately without the other’s consent,” according to the newly filed court document.The Post has contacted reps for Pitt, 59, and Jolie, 47, for comment.Jolie’s attorneys have called Pitt’s claims “frivolous, malicious and part of a problematic pattern.”Pitt initially sued Jolie over the vineyard in February 2022, with Jolie’s company, Nouvel, filing a $250 million cross-complaint in the fall.This new paperwork claims the winery business was Pitt’s “passion,” leading him to team up with esteemed winemaker Marc Perrin in 2013.“Together they would create one of the first high-end rosé wines, branded as a family-owned, family-run French wine business. That strategy met with success.
nypost.com
Judge tosses ‘Romeo and Juliet’ child sex-abuse suit, actors vow appeal
a lawsuit over a nude scene in “Romeo and Juliet,” finding the 1968 film is protected under the First Amendment.Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting — both 72 and the titular stars of the Franco Zeffirelli flick — claimed they were coerced into performing nude in the film’s bedroom scene while minors.They accused Paramount Pictures of sexual exploitation and distribution of nude imagery of children in their December suit, which sought more than $500 million in alleged damages.Judge Alison Mackenzie granted Paramount’s motion to strike the lawsuit Thursday.Mackenzie rejected Hussey and Whiting’s argument that the nude scene could be considered “child pornography.” The judge also found the pair did not comply with a 2020 California law that temporarily lifted the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse lawsuits.According to court documents obtained by The Post, Mackenzie wrote there was no evidence the film included “sufficiently sexually suggestive as a matter of law to be held to be conclusively illegal.” Paramount requested to dismiss the suit under the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, which allows defendants to move to strike supposedly meritless complaints that could undermine free speech.Solomon Gresen, an attorney for Hussey and Whiting, said he plans to appeal the decision.“I was angry,” Gresen told The Post on Friday. “I think that the anti-female bias in this country is real, and it’s something that I have dedicated my career to trying to right the wrongs.”He added: “It’s abusive to take images of naked children.
DMCA