The splenetic squirmish in the courts between CAA and Range Media Partners over whether the 2020 formed latter can really exist or not is nowhere near over, but a patchwork ruling today certainly put the matter on a new footing for all concerned – at least for the next three weeks.
At its core, the demurrer outcome Thursday afternoon from LA Superior Court Judge Mark A. Young saw portions of accusations of the stealing of trade secrets by future Range execs, lifting confidential data and information, and, among others, the Concealment of Unlawful Conduct sub-claims tossed out. Accordingly, CAA was schooled that, despite the assertions against Range in their heavily redacted amended complaint of two months ago, “soliciting clients is not independently wrongful.”
Yet, at the same time, despite all the huffing and puffing about the big evil CAA trying squash the little guy, Judge Young has not let Range off the hook yet for being allegedly being unlicensed talent agency, as CAA insists, or over the unfair competition element of this. The LASC judge has also provided CAA to take another swing at some of its hot button accusations that were shot down today. With the drama of CAA’s gotcha-on-camera June FAC filing ebbing and clock is ticking, as the agency now have “20 days to file an amended complaint consistent with this order.”
Depending on how you look at it, the outcome Thursday afternoon from Judge Young is a tale of two types of talent representations.
It’s either a big win for the Peter Micelli, Jack Whigham, Michael Cooper, Mick Sullivan and Dave Bugliari founded Range. Or, with little room in the middle, it’s merely a annoying setback in the long run for the Bryan Lourd-run CAA as they still prevailed on some pretty big ticket points. As always, with the around 150 clients that CAA and upstart Range share and other business they have, the truth is a bit more nuanced. As always in the courts, there will be plenty more moves, filings and appeals for both sides to make in this nearly yearlong breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference clash.
Add to that, the fact that both CAA and Range are awaiting an arbitrator’s decision expected before the end of the year on the separate fight over cancelled equity and other compensation to ex-CAA crew Whigham, Bugliari, Sullivan, and Cooper.
In that context, Range and its Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP team have maintained for a while, and made clear in another filing just last month, that much of CAA’s public lawsuit of last year is intentionally detrimentally repetitive of the private arbitration that has been taking place since 2022 behind closed doors. They argue CAA is double dipping because the arbitration has supposedly not exactly been going the uberagency’s way.
With that, Range’s top lawyers today planted a flag of partial victory and preemptively tossed another grenade into CAA’s overall strategy. “Today the court dismissed nearly all of CAA’s claims,” said the rarely understated Orin Snyder and Ilissa Samplin.
“The ruling confirms what this case is really about: CAA’s attempt to block competition and control the choices of talent,” the Gibson Dunn partners added. “CAA filed a lawsuit full of far-fetched claims. It simply did not work. CAA’s remaining claim under the Talent Agencies Act exposes CAA’s true goal: forcing artists into a system CAA controls. CAA wants to dictate who talent can work with, even if it means attacking managers, advisors, and those who support talent outside their agency.
“This isn’t about protecting artists—it’s about protecting CAA’s monopoly. It’s a power grab, plain and simple.”
Undoubtedly already having their Paul Hastings lawyers preparing to refile the claims that were thrown overboard today, CAA had no comment on Thursday’s ruling when contracted this evening by Deadline.
Take that as no comment, for now, and watch that docket.
