AE Entertainment Public Relations Anthony Emby LIAR and Prying on pepople's hopes and dreams Don't Let the WEB Page fool YOU! FAKE, Internet

Peter Currin et al. v. A.E. Entertainment

Peter Currin et al. v. A.E. Entertainment

CV105035074S                                                             
 
(PLEASE SCROLL TO THE END)

-- May 25, 2011
JUDGMENT AFTER HEARING IN DAMAGES
In this matter, the plaintiffs, Peter Currin and David Currin, bring a breach of contract claim against A.E. Entertainment. The plaintiffs allege that they entered into a contract with A.E. Entertainment to act as the plaintiffs' publicist. The defendant failed to appear and was defaulted. The court conducted a hearing in damages on May 16th and 23rd 2011. A default admits the material facts that constitute a cause of action and entry of default, when appropriately made, conclusively determines the liability of a defendant Accordingly, the entry of default against the defendant commands the rendering of judgment in favor of the plaintiff Following the entry of a default, all that remains is for the plaintiff to prove the amount of damages to which it is entitled At a minimum, the plaintiff in such instances is entitled to nominal damages. (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) Abbott Terrace Health Center, Inc. v. Parawich, 120 Conn.App. 78, 867 (2010). A judgment of default normally requires a two step process. The first step is the entry of a judicial ruling of default, which constitutes a technical admission by the defendant of the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint The second step of the process is the hearing in damages, in which the plaintiff must still prove how much of the judgment prayed for in his complaint he is entitled to receive Thus, in both equitable and legal actions, the plaintiff must establish his right to relief to the court's satisfaction, even though some issues may have been laid at rest by the default. (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) Ratner v. Willametz, 9 Conn.App. 565, 7556 (1987).

The essence of the plaintiffs' claim is that they instituted litigation in federal court in 2007 against various parties relating to their claim that those parties had copied, and profited from, a song to which the plaintiffs owned the copyright. The plaintiffs claim that various persons conspired against them during the pendency of that action. The plaintiff, Peter Currin, entered into a contract with the defendant in April 2008, hiring the defendant to act as the plaintiffs' publicist. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant, A.E. Entertainment, although hired by the plaintiffs to publicly expose the conspiracy against them, did not, and, in fact, the plaintiffs claim, took part in that conspiracy and covered it up. The plaintiffs claim that as a result of A.E. Entertainment's actions, their federal lawsuit, and therefore their claimed right to collect from the defendants in that case, was lost. In their complaint they claim that the alleged breach caused the Currins injury and damages to their civil action filed in Federal 2nd District Court, loss of legal fees, legal research fee, loss of national and international exposure which resulted in the loss and injury of over 250 million dollars, back and future royalties, compounded interest under Title 28 Statue 1961, interest allowance, book deal regarding possibly the largest copyright case in United States History, etc. In their Amendment to Motion for Judgment and Order of Payments dated May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs request that judgment be entered against A.E. Entertainment in the amount of $150,000 out of the $250 million.

At the hearing in damages the court expressed its concern that the plaintiffs could not prove that the breach of the contract by A.E. Entertainment caused the plaintiffs' loss of the damages sought in the federal lawsuit, as well as the other damages they claimed. Indeed, the court cannot conclude, from the evidence presented, that if the plaintiffs had received the publicity they sought, the result of the federal lawsuit would have been different. The general rule in breach of contract cases is that the award of damages is designed to place the injured party, so far as can be done by money, in the same position as that which he would have been in had the contract been performed The Restatement (Second) of Contracts divides a [plaintiff's] recovery into two components: ?(1) direct damages, composed of the loss in value to him of the other party's performance caused by its failure or deficiency; ?3 Restatement (Second), Contracts 347(a) (1981); ?plus (2) any other loss, including incidental or consequential loss, caused by the breach Id., 347(b). Traditionally, consequential damages include any loss that may fairly and reasonably be considered [as] arising naturally, i.e., according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself Although there is no unyielding formula by which damages are calculated, it is our rule that [u]nless they are too speculative and remote, prospective profits are allowable as an element of damage whenever their loss arises directly from and as a natural consequence of the breach. (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) Sullivan v. Thorndike, 104 Conn.App. 297, 3034, cert. denied, 295 Conn. 907 (2007). The court finds that the damages claimed here by the plaintiffs, even though it is only a small percentage of the damages that they claim would have flowed to them if they had been successful in the federal action, are too speculative and remote. In addition, the evidence was insufficient to establish that such damages would be a consequence of the defendant's alleged breach of contract.

The complaint in this matter also alleges that the defendant breached the contract when it failed to perform and failed to secure an agreed upon performance regarding the world news network CNN. In their complaint the Currins seek as a remedy that the court command the defendant A.E. Entertainment to carry out the contract they entered into establishing the granting of money damages would be inadequate remedy for the contract breached and execution of Specific Performance regarding the World News Network CNN. Specific performance is an equitable remedy permitting courts to compel the performance of contracts for the sale of real property, and certain other contracts, pursuant to the principles of equity It has long been established that the court cannot enforce specific performance of an agreement whose terms are indefinite and uncertain. (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) Hill v. Raffone, 103 Conn.App. 737, 742, 744 (2007). There is nothing in the agreement between the parties that indicates specifically that A.E. Entertainment would secure publicity for the plaintiffs on CNN. In fact, the contract provides that: ?The parties realize that there may be times when Artist [Peter Currin] will desire that Publicist [Anthony Embry Public Relations] perform certain work and that Publicist will not perform the desired work or may not even commence to perform the desired work. Although there is some evidence that the defendant was in the process of arranging some exposure of the plaintiffs on CNN, there is no evidence that the defendant guaranteed such a result or that it had any control over CNN such that it could ensure such a result. Thus an order of specific performance is not appropriate in this case.
Therefore judgment shall enter in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant in the amount of $3,000, which is the amount the plaintiffs paid A.E. Entertainment for its services.

Jane S. Scholl, J.
Scholl, Jane S., J.




Latest Blog Posts

Law School's ABA Antitrust Lawsuit is Dying a Slow Death
Groupon Lawsuit Settled: Expiring Coupons Suits Nets $8.5M
How to Know if You Should Offer A La Carte Legal Services
Why Can't You use a Netflix Facebook App? It May be Illegal
New at FindLaw: Attorney General's Letter and an IT Bill of RightsView More


FindLaw Career Center

Attorney Corporate Counsel Academic Judicial Clerk Summer Associate Intern Law Librarian Paralegal Legal Secretary Law Enforcement District Attorney Legal Investigator Compliance Officer Investment Banker Business Development
  Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

View More




Contract Management Software

Affordable - Powerful - Easy to Use - Free Trial.
www.contractassistant.com

Tabs3 and PracticeMaster

Reliable billing and practice management software for law firms.
www.tabs3.com

Amicus Attorney

The world's leading practice management software for law firms.
www.amicusattorney.com

The original author of the 'Rip Off' report was seriously misguided and failed miserably to report the facts pertaining to her dispute. Even though the author/former client chose to make her claim personal; we will only present the facts without using her name. We make it a practice to never slander or reveal identity of clients even if one decides to "edit" the facts in their favor.

Anthony Embry was solely a name associated with A.E. Entertainment Public Relations. There was a silent owner that in the end made decisions that Anthony carried out (a simple check of the business license verifies this - the former client claimed to previously be a private investigator and should have been able to do a simple public records check to verify this). Not agreeing with the majority of these decisions and the way business was being conducted Anthony withdrew his name from the company when their contract was expired and the company was dissolved. I am writing this rebuttal to correct the claims made against Anthony NOT the company.

To address the complainants claims one needs to understand that she was not a typical client from the beginning. After stating that she suffered from a near-drowning incident as a child that gave her psychic powers to design her fashion line we knew there would be issues. We looked past these issues because

of the nature of the talent involved with the entertainment industry. This former client stated in the beginning that she wanted to send her fashions to Ms. Danica Patrick (NASCAR Race Driver). It was told to her that we would researchher publicist, reach out to them, and make a connection where possible.

Unbeknownst to us this former client was attending EVERY event that Ms. Patrick was at. After multiple conversations with Ms. Patricks publicist (based in Indianapolis) as well as sending them sketches, it was made clear to us that there was no interest in having this former client's designs used for Ms.

Patrick. As a professional courtesy we no longer contacted Ms. Patricks publicist.

The former client's claim that we never sent the items was false. There were many shipping records that indicated they were received by Ms. Patricks publicist and were declined for use. We cannot and will not forcefully pursue another publicist out of respect for them and their client. The items sent to Ms. Patrick's publicist were returned to the client when we received them (as stated in her own testimony).

As far as the former client's claim of "demanding" payment via PayPal - she chose this option to pay he monthly retainer fee. She had the option to mail a business check or money order before her fee was due. She chose to never pay on time sighting "unemployment" so in order to not be late on her payment she chose to rectify her bill with PayPal (which was still ALWAYS paid late).

A.E. Entertainment Public Relations provided the former client with a detailed monthly account of how her retainer paid hours were being used (to save her money we NEVER billed her for the shipping of numerous items to Ms. Patrick's publicist and always went over her allotted hours). She NEVER once disputed these hours.

In her contract and that of any standard publicity contract, she had the option at any time to dissolve the contract if less than desired performance was occurring. She NEVER exercised this option. In fact, it was A.E. Entertainment PR that dissolved her contract when issues started to arise out of her constantly contacting Ms. Patrick's publicist directly.  Her claim of awaiting a refund is outlandish due to the fact she never paid the month that the contract was dissolved.

In regards to promises made yet never fulfilled: anyone who works in the entertainment industry knows events and ideas change on a rapid basis.  How could you hold Anthony accountable for promises made by 3rd parties.  It is at their sole discretion to change who participates in their events.  Also, it is NEVER the job or position of your publicist to procure or secure employment, that is the job of your agent or manager, neither of which this former client had.

I have waited almost a year after this claim to file a rebuttal because I simply did not value the claimants words and was hoping that she would resolve whatever issues she felt needing resolved.  She has not once reached out to anyone to do so. 

On a last note, again this former client stated numerous times she was a former private investigator.  One who has operated in that realm would be expected to utilize all legal recourses when felt wrong had

been done.  A simple check of court cases filed in the former clients county or surrounding counties, as recent as September 09, 2011, have not yielded one criminal or civil complaint filed by any individual or company against A.E. Entertainment Public Relations or Anthony Embry personally.  Personally, if I had felt I had been wronged in the manner in which she proposes I would have sought legal recourse immediately.