Tabberone's Hall of Shame - E! Entertainment Television.

Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!

Tabberone's Hall Of Shame E! Entertainment Television

Some background information first.
The members of the different entertainment acadamies vote on their prospective awards every year. Before they vote on the award, they are obligated to actually have seen the movie, broadway show, or television show in question. For the movie industry this is easier than for televison. As part of awards promotions, the academy members are sent DVDs of the various television shows being considered for awards. With every academy member receiving close to 100 DVDs like this every year, it's natural to assume some of these DVDs will get into the secondary market.
That's what is causing the problem. One of the distributors of these DVDs, E! Entertainment Television, is actively engaged in the unlawful practice of terminating eBay auctions featuring these DVDs. E!, (for short) is claiming the usual copyright infringement tripe while pointedly ignoring the rights of individuals.
E! has mounted a feeble defense trying to say that E! has never relinquished ownership of the DVDs in question. E! claims that the DVDs are licensed to the recipients and are therfore still the property of E! Yet, how does E! retain ownership of the DVDs when there is no signed licensing agreement and E! has no idea to whom the DVDs were sent unsolicited?
On November 15, 2003, Tabberone, using the eBay seller ID of WitnessProtectionProgram, listed one of these DVDs on ebay.
Late on November 17, 2003, Tabberone received the Why Ended email from VeRO.
Not one to dally, Tabberone emailed the VeRO member immediately on November 18.
Surprisingly, E! actually responded right away.
Tabberone again emailed the VeRO member with some legal points for them to ponder.
Alas, Tabberone did not get a second reply. Thinking the first reply was "canned" she emailed them again demanding some sort of response.
None was forthcoming. So, "What did we do?", you ask? Silly you, we filed a lawsuit on November 21, 2003.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff (that's us) can send the complaint US Mail to a defendant along with a Waiver of Service. A waiver of service is a device put into the FRCP to save the government the time to send a US Marshall to serve papers in a federal lawsuit. US Marshalls have more important things to do and Congress intended this provision to take the work load off of them. And, in its infinite wisdom and superior knowledge, Congress ordered the courts to penalize a US defendant who refused mail service and insisted on being served by a US Marshall.
Guess what? E! refused mail service. When we called them on January 13 to inquire about their intentions concerning accepting service, we were told they were seeking outside counsel on the matter. On January 22, 2004, when we called to again inquire, we were told to get a US Marshall for service. Is E! as stupid as they act?
According to the California Secretary of State's web site, E! Entertainment Television, Inc., is corporation #C1272418, date filed March 25, 1985, and shows the Agent For Service of Process to be Jeffery R Lai.
The telephone conversations confirmed the registered agent for E!, Jeffery Lai, had received the mailed copies of the complaint and the Request For Waiver of Service. The registered agent for E!, Jeffery Lai, is also in-house counsel for E! Plaintiffs gave E! more than ample time and opportunity to accept service by mail.
The registered agent for E! had no reasonable reason to refuse service by mail. Personal Service on E! was effected on Tuesday, January 27, 2004, by registered process server, Mark Valenti, of Los Angeles, California. Mark informed us that he was told by the secretary that Jeffrey Lai was unavailable. When he asked for another lawyer, he was told they were all out and that he should come back another time so a lawyer could read the papers and decide if they wanted to accept them. Mark then asked for an officer of the company and the secretary refused to call one. Mark then found an employee who was willing to identify himself and served the papers.
To what purpose was all of this? Is E! so arrogant and have so little regard for the legal system that they play this charade? It's petty and an insult to the courts.
On February 12, 2004, we filed a Motion For Costs with the court.
On February 12, 2004, while returning home, we were informed that the law firm of Snell & Wilmer, LLP of Denver, Colorado had taken over representation in the case. They immediately wanted us to send them a waiver of service or they would file a motion contesting service. We pointed out to them we didn't want to allow them a waiver because we felt it would compromise our motion for expenses.
On February 18, counsel for E!, Michael Martin, filed a Motion To Dismiss, Or In The Alternative, To Quash Service For Insufficiency Of Service Of Process. We contend this motion is a delaying tactic and is filled with deliberate distortions of fact.
On March 8, counsel for E!, Michael Martin, filed Defendant's Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For Costs Of Service.
On March 10, counsel for E!, Michael Martin, withdrew his Motion To Dismiss, Or In The Alternative, To Quash Service For Insufficiency Of Service Of Process.
On March 17, we filed Plaintiffs' Reply To Defendant's Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For Costs Of Service.
On March 25, 2004, the Court entered a Minute Order.
On March 29, 2004, counsel for E!, Michael Martin, filed Defendant's Motion To Dismiss which was accompanied by Defendant's Brief In Support Of Motion To Dismiss.
On March 30, 2004, the Court entered the Scheduling Order.
On April 16, 2004, we filed Plaintiffs' Response To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss.
On May 4, 2004, counsel for E!, Michael Martin, filed Defendant's Reply Brief In Support Of Motion To Dismiss.
We believe Magistrate Judge Patricia Coan has a pro se bias based upon her rulings. However that may be, she ruled in favor of E! saying we did not have lawful possession of the item in question. Lawful possession to re-sell the item. We are sure a court of appeals would not agree with her but we declined to continue.

It has come to our attention that one Jeffrey Lai is no longer with E! Inquiring minds would like to know why? Has Jeff done something rash? Did he leave voluntarily? Was he let go? He's no longer the registered agent for E! Maybe Jeff left because, as he stated in his affidavit, he can't seem to get his mail delivered in-house? Or was it because in our opinion he out-right lied about the service issue?
Considering he had knowledge of the complaint and then vigorously attempted to avoid service, in our opinion, shows his low level of ethics. Was the corporate mentality that prompted this his alone or was he just following procedure? A registered agent ducking service - not a good image for E!

Rebuttals
In an effort to provide a balanced view, we make the following offer to anyone who feels they have been wrongly accused on this web site.
If you, or your company, have been referenced on these pages, and you would like the chance to post a rebuttal, we will post your rebuttal (provided it is in good taste) so others can read it. The rebuttal must be submitted in a format that can easily be converted into HTML. We reserve the right to alter the rebuttal to make it more readable. However, we will not alter the content (unless there is offensive material to be removed). We also reserve the right to comment on any rebuttal received. Emails protesting the content of this web site may be treated as rebuttals by us at our discretion.
We made this offer a very long time ago and as of July 2007, only AnimieHot.com, in our Hall Of Shame, has chosen to submit a formal rebuttal.