|The longstanding legal dispute between the author Clive Cussler and Crusader Entertainment took a new twist this week when a California appeals court reversed a lower court order that Mr. Cussler pay Crusader $5 million after a ruling that he had acted in bad faith in dealings over the movie “Sahara.” The appeals court upheld the trial court in rejecting Mr. Cussler’s claim that he was owed $8.6 million by Crusader. The ruling, which came on Wednesday from a three-judge panel, sent the dispute back to the lower court to determine who, if anyone, had actually prevailed in the case. That determination would affect the assignment of responsibility for legal costs. Mr. Cussler filed suit against Crusader in 2004, asserting that it had violated its contract with him in making a film based on his novel “Sahara” and its fictional hero Dirk Pitt. Crusader then filed a cross-complaint that accused Mr. Cussler of contractual violations.|
|There may not be a sequel in the works for the 2005 movie "Sahara" starring Matthew McConaughey and Penelope Cruz, but the legal battles over the infamous box office bomb just keep on going.|
On Wednesday, there was another decision in "Sahara" author Clive Cussler's legal battle with Crusader Films (now doing business as Bristol Bay Productions) and, as has been the case in the past, both sides are claiming victory.
First the back story. Cussler sued Crusader in 2004, seeking $40 million. He claimed Crusader, which is owned by Anschutz Film Group, did not honor his contract to have approval over the screenplay. Anschutz and Crusader countersued, alleging that Cussler inflated book sales to land a movie deal and didn't help promote the film as he had promised.
In 2007, Crusader was awarded $5 million by a Los Angeles Superior Court, but jurors in the case also said Cussler was due $8.5 million from Crusader/Bristol Bay for a second novel that was not made into a movie. A judge later reversed that decision and Cussler's lawyer appealed the ruling.
On Wednesday, the California Court of Appeals handed down its ruling and both sides sounded like they were popping the champagne. Anschutz's team said Cussler lost each of his claims for relief and is owed nothing.
Cussler's lawyer, Bert Fields, said the court reversed the $5 million award to Cruasder and that "Crusader was barred from claiming that Cussler was not entitled to the balance of payments under the contract ... Cussler is totally vindicated."
But Crusader's lawyer, Marvin Putnam, had a different spin on the decision.
"As the jury correctly found, Crusader did not harm Clive Cussler in any way and owes him nothing. Now, although he was first to sue, Cussler comes away with empty hands," Putnam said in a statement.
We wouldn't be surprised if this case isn't over yet.
|QUOTE (Nick Kismet @ Mar 6 2010, 04:52 PM)|
Nick Kismet thinks this is great news. Nick Kitt can suck it.
|QUOTE (Empress @ Mar 7 2010, 03:51 PM)|
|QUOTE (Nick Kismet @ Aug 6 2010, 07:32 AM)|
|Nick...uh, I mean Joe...|
|QUOTE (Joe Hopasagabus @ Sep 5 2010, 03:00 PM)|
| I thought you banned Nick Kitt, so how could I possibly be him ?|
Nick Kismit, you don't want to back up your statements, then don't make them.
|QUOTE (jwinchell @ Sep 6 2010, 10:04 AM)|
| I'm not sure it means anything, but I did an anagram search on Hopasagabus and one of the first ones was "buphaga asso." I found that buphaga africana was another name for the rhinoceros bird, a bird that "alights on the back (side?) of a rhinoceros in search of parsitic insects."|
Interesting, huh? Other than that, it just seems like a nonsensical name.