Kavanaugh wins case
Court claims Sitrick is bound to terms
More Articles:
Most Viewed:
'Blind Side' tackles box office competition(5001 views)Spielberg abandons 'Harvey'(1682 views)Nine(1452 views)Taylor Lautner to star in 'Max Steel'(1112 views)Jack Black animates film pitch(1057 views)Oscar loves foreign actresses(839 views) |
Los Angeles Country Superior Court Judge James Chalfant ruled Friday that Sitrick is bound by the terms of the 2002 settlement reached with Kavanaugh that essentially prevents the publicist from collecting a judgment he previously won against the producer.
Sitrick invested $6.2 million in 2001 with Kavanaugh, now one of the leading intermediaries between Hollywood and Wall Street hedge funds. Sitrick, who lost more than $5 million on the investment, cut a deal with Kavanaugh in 2002, agreeing not to pursue the funds because Kavanaugh said he was broke.
At the heart of Sitrick's latest lawsuit was his belief that Kavanaugh was hiding assets and that the 2002 settlement was thus null and void. In a 38-page opinion, Chalfant ruled otherwise.
Kavanaugh's reps said the "3:10 to Yuma" producer was glad he fought the suit.
"People encouraged me to settle this for the past few years, kept telling me it was a nuisance and a distraction," Kavanaugh said in a statement, which was part of a press release that went out on Business Wire. "There was no way I was going to pay Mike and let him keep doing this to other people. I understand he has been involved in over 40 legal matters and uses the press as a litigation tactic, as he tried to here."
Sitrick's attorney Patricia Glaser requested a correction from Business Wire, saying that Sitrick has "not been involved in anything close to 40 legal matters, and he did not use the press as a litigation tactic."
Glaser said Sitrick plans to appeal the decision. "We remain convinced that we have sufficient evidence that Kavanaugh misrepresented himself as penniless to avoid the judgment," she said.
Kavanaugh's attorney Carol Genis said in a statement Friday: "Today's decision unequivocally confirms that Sitrick and his lawyers had no case here."
