Michael Kump

Representative Matters

Michael Kump is a problem solver who fights tenaciously for his clients in order to protect their valuable intellectual property and contractual rights.  Representing plaintiffs and defendants in a broad and sophisticated litigation practice for thirty years, Mr. Kump has extensive experience and success inside and outside the courtroom in all aspects of intellectual property, contract, trade secrets, entertainment and antitrust litigation.  His representative corporate clients include Starz Entertainment LLC, USI Holdings Corporation, Vivendi Universal, and Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc.  Mr. Kump’s trial victory on behalf of his client Jamie McCourt was recognized by the Daily Journal, the leading legal newspaper in California, in “Top Plaintiffs’ Verdicts by Impact 2010.”

Starz Entertainment

For over ten years, Mr. Kump has represented Starz, which owns and operates the “Starz,” “Encore,” and “Starz Play” movie channels and video-on-demand services made available through cable, satellite, and Internet transmissions.  In addition to being a leader in the “traditional” pay television arena, Starz has long been at the forefront of the exploitation of motion pictures, and other video content, on the Internet.  Mr. Kump has filed multiple actions in federal court to protect and enforce Starz’s copyright and contractual rights in films licensed under output agreements with major studios—issues that have become more critical with the emergence of electronic downloading and the distribution of entertainment properties over the Internet.

In May 2011, Mr. Kump filed an action in Colorado state court on behalf of Starz against Dish Network LLC for breach of contract when Dish began giving away to its customers several Starz’s channels at no charge.  Starz seeks damages against Dish because the “free” promotion breaches the Affiliation Agreement between the parties.  In July 2011, FX Network LLC filed an action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Dish and Starz for intentional interference based upon Dish’s “free” give-away of Starz’s channels.  Mr. Kump is defending Starz in FX’s action and defeated FX’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

In March 2007, Mr. Kump filed an action on behalf of Starz when a Disney subsidiary began permitting Internet services, such as Apple’s iTunes, to sell Disney Pictures that had been exclusively licensed to Starz (see Complaint).  In August 2008, Mr. Kump and his team filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which asked the Court to interpret the parties’ license agreements as prohibiting the conduct at issue (see Motion).  In September 2008, the Court granted Starz’s motion and adopted Starz’s interpretation of the parties’ contracts (see Order).  The action was resolved in December 2008 on the eve of trial.

In addition, Mr. Kump counsels Starz on a range of intellectual property issues, including the company’s rights in new technologies and markets.  Mr. Kump also provides litigation representation and counseling to other companies concerning intellectual property and contractual rights in the media and entertainment industries, including by way of example, Media Rights Capital, a diversified global media company with operations in filmed entertainment, television programming and original digital content.

Jamie McCourt

Mr. Kump has been representing Jamie McCourt since before she filed a marital dissolution action on October 27, 2009 in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  Jamie and Frank McCourt in February 2004 became the owners of one of the marquee franchises in American sports, the Los Angeles Dodgers.  Jamie became the highest ranking woman in Major League Baseball, serving as Vice Chairman in 2004, and then as President in 2005 until she became CEO in 2009.  When the couple separated in 2009, Mr. McCourt took the position that he was the sole owner of the Dodgers based upon a marital property agreement signed in March 2004.

Mr. Kump and the rest of Jamie’s legal team asserted in the dissolution action that the marital property agreement was invalid and unenforceable on certain legal grounds.  Early in the dissolution action, Honorable Scott M. Gordon scheduled a bench trial for August 30, 2010 on the sole issue of the validity and enforceability of the marital property agreement.  The KWIKA team of Mr. Kump, Suann MacIsaac and Jonathan Steinsapir handled a substantial portion of the discovery and brief writing for this phase of the dissolution action.

The KWIKA team with the assistance of forensic document examiners made a shocking discovery in mid-July 2010:  The McCourts in 2004 had actually signed two versions of the marital property agreement, the “California version” which excluded the Dodgers from Mr. McCourt’s separate property (thereby preserving Jamie’s marital property rights in the Dodgers), and the “Massachusetts version” which included the Dodgers within his separate property.  Prior to this dramatic discovery, the only version offered in evidence by Mr. McCourt was the Massachusetts version, which gave him sole ownership of the Dodgers.  As a result of this bombshell discovery, the law firm that had jointly represented the McCourts in connection with the martial property agreement admitted on the eve of trial that one of its partners, after the originals of the agreement had been signed and notarized, switched out the key page in the California version excluding the Dodgers from Mr. McCourt’s separate property with the page from the Massachusetts version that included the Dodgers in his separate property.  The law firm never disclosed the switch to Jamie, or to her lawyers or the Court in the dissolution action, until the eve of trial.

The trial began on August 30, 2010 and lasted eleven court days, culminating with closing arguments on September 29, 2010.  During the trial, Mr. Kump handled two of the key witnesses, conducting the direct examination of the McCourts’ California trusts and estates lawyer, and cross-examining the California lawyer who prepared the marital property agreement and was one of the lawyers representing the couple in connection with the agreement (see Mr. Kump’s cross-examination on September 21 and September 27).

On December 7, 2010, Judge Gordon issued a 100-page Statement of Decision on the issue of the validity and enforceability of the marital property agreement (see the Court’s Statement of Decision).  The Court found that “there was no mutual assent or meeting of the minds” between Jamie and Frank when they executed the marital property agreement in 2004.  The Court ruled that “the marital property agreement is not a valid and enforceable agreement” and ordered that the agreement is “set aside.”  (See pp. 3-5.)  As a result of the ruling, all of the McCourts’ assets acquired during their over 30 years marriage, which includes the Los Angeles Dodgers and related assets, are presumed under California law to be community property.  The decision represents a total victory for the firm’s client in this phase of trial proceedings in the McCourts’ marital dissolution action.

Mr. Kump’s achievements in the McCourt trial were recognized by the Daily Journal, the leading legal newspaper in California, in “Top Plaintiffs’ Verdicts by Impact 2010″ in the January 19, 2011 edition.  Published annually, the Daily Journal‘s list is a selection of Top Verdicts throughout the year, highlighting those cases with outstanding results.

On November 3, 2011, the McCourts reached a settlement of their disputes in which Frank agreed to pay Jamie the sum of $131 million.  In addition, among other benefits, Jamie received as her sole and separate property certain real estate with a net equity value of approximately $50 million, plus a full indemnity for any tax liability.

Recent Intellectual Property and Entertainment Litigation

Over the years, Mr. Kump has represented numerous other well-known entities and celebrities in a wide array of litigation involving intellectual property and entertainment matters.  The following are some recent cases handled by Mr. Kump:

Mr. Kump represented the Kardashian sisters (Kim, Khloe and Kourtney) and their mother, Kris Jenner, in an action filed in 2011 in Fresno County Superior Court.  The Kardashians had signed a contract with a company that specialized in debit card programs to endorse a debit card called the “Kardashian Kard.”  When the card launched in November 2010, it was criticized by consumer advocates and the financial press because of the financial fees built into the card.  After the Kardashians terminated the contract, the company filed a lawsuit in Fresno County Superior Court against the Kardashians and their mother, Kris Kardashian Jenner, seeking $75 million for breach of contract.  The complaint alleged the Kardashians publicized the termination of the contract, which caused the company to go out of business.  Mr. Kump filed an anti-SLAPP motion to have the complaint dismissed on the ground the debit card company was seeking to hold the Kardashians liable for exercising their right of free speech on a matter of public interest.  Fresno County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton agreed, and granted the motion filed by Mr. Kump and awarded attorneys’ fees to the Kardashians.  For more information, read the article from The Hollywood Reporter and Judge Hamilton’s opinion.

When NBA legend Shaquille O’Neal was sued in July 2011 by an alleged former business associate who claimed the basketball great had ordered him to be kidnapped, Shaq turned for help to Mr. Kump who removed the action to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit.  The motion—which made it clear Shaq denies plaintiff’s ludicrous allegations—argued the entire action was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations.  Plaintiff countered that the statute of limitations had been tolled by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 351 because Shaq lived outside the state of California from the time the causes of action accrued.  Mr. Kump’s motion argued, however, that Section 351 cannot be constitutionally applied in this case because the unreasonable burden it would impose on interstate commerce violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

On October 17, 2011, U.S. District Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen granted Mr. Kump’s motion and dismissed the entire action with prejudice.  Judge Nguyen found that “the burden on interstate commerce imposed by Section 351 outweighs the articulated state interest in this case, and the application of Section 351 to toll the statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s claims would violate the commerce clause.”  (For more information, read Judge Nguyen’s opinion.)

In 2011, Mr. Kump also represented Mark Koops in a confidential arbitration against Reveille Independent LLC.  Mr. Koops is the co-creator and an executive producer of NBC’s television hit series “The Biggest Loser” and was for many years a Managing Director of Reveille.

Since 2001, Mr. Kump has represented Greg Garrison, the longtime producer, director and part owner of the Dean Martin television shows, and his Executor and Trustee (after his death), in several disputes and lawsuits over the rights to the shows, including two separate copyright infringement actions in federal court and three separate civil actions in state court.  One of the state actions filed by Mr. Garrison’s heirs alleged they should be awarded an interest in valuable property based upon an alleged forged agreement (Los Angeles Country Superior Court Case No. BP 100614).  After a six-day trial in late 2009 and early 2010 handled by Mr. Kump, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Reva Goetz ruled in favor of Mr. Kump’s client (see Court’s opinion).

When a third party sought to discover financial information concerning the clients of a top entertainment transactional law firm, Mr. Kump obtained an important ruling for the law firm in the California Court of Appeal that barred the discovery on the grounds that it invaded the clients’ constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy. (Ziffren, Brittenham, Branca, Fischer, Gilbert-Lurie & Stiffelman, LLP v. Superior Court, Case No. B167832, 2003 WL 22138574 (Cal. App. 2d Dist., Sept. 17, 2003).)

Trade Secrets Litigation

     Over the past decade, Mr. Kump has served as West Coast litigation counsel for USI—a diversified insurance and financial services firm that is the eighth-largest insurance brokerage in the United States—in numerous misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition actions filed throughout California against insurance producers who left to join competing firms.  In these actions, Mr. Kump moved quickly to obtain injunctive relief to protect USI’s trade secrets and to enforce USI’s restrictive covenants, which resulted in the cases settling on favorable terms for USI.  Mr. Kump also counsels USI on a broad range of trade practice issues, including trade secret protection and the enforceability of contractual covenants governing competition.

     Film & TV Profit Participants Litigation 

     Mr. Kump has represented profit participants in several matters against studios and television and film companies to recover monies contractually owed to his clients.

In 2007-2008, Mr. Kump represented the creator (Nia Vardalos) and the executive producers (Tom Hanks, Rita Wilson, Gary Goetzman) of the film hit “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” against the film studio.  (CLAVIUS BASE, INC., a California Corporation, GARY GOETZMAN PRODUCTIONS, INC., a California Corporation, MYPENZATTA, INC., a California corporation, vs. BIG WEDDING PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Canadian corporation, BIG WEDDING, LLC, a California limited liability company, GOLD CIRCLE FILMS, LLC, a South Dakota limited liability company, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 375442).

In 2008-2009, Mr. Kump represented the creators of the animated television comedy “King of the Hill” against Twentieth Century Fox Television.

At present, Mr. Kump is representing the creators of the award winning television series “Smallville” against the vertically-integrated media conglomerate Time Warner.  (KILLARA PRODUCTIONS, INC., a California corporation f/s/o Miles Millar; LEONARDTOWN PRODUCTIONS, INC., a California  corporation f/s/o Alfred Gough; TOLLIN/ROBBINS PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company vs. WARNER BROS. TELEVISION, a division of WB STUDIO ENTERPRISES, INC.; THE WB TELEVISION NETWORK PARTNERS, L.P.; WB COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; THE CW NETWORK, LLC; WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; TIME WARNER, INC., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 434445).

     Vivendi Universal Litigation 

     In 2003 and 2004, Mr. Kump represented Vivendi Universal in a breach of contract action filed by USA Networks in the Delaware Chancery Court, which sought over $600 million in damages arising out of the parties’ creation of Vivendi Universal Entertainment (VUE).  This dispute was resolved favorably when InterActive Corp. f/k/a USA Networks sold its stake in VUE to NBC Universal.

     Merle Norman Cosmetics Litigation 

     For fifteen years, Mr. Kump represented Merle Norman Cosmetics, a national franchisor of cosmetics studios, in several federal and state actions covering a broad array of claims.  In 2001, after years of multi-state discovery, Mr. Kump successfully represented plaintiff Merle Norman in a four-week civil RICO and fraud trial filed in New York federal court against an advertising company.  The presentation of Merle Norman’s case involved the testimony of eighteen witnesses and over 700 exhibits presented digitally.  At the conclusion of the trial, the jury awarded a multimillion-dollar verdict to Merle Norman.

     Antitrust Litigation and Counseling 

     Mr. Kump’s practice encompasses antitrust litigation and counseling.  For over ten years in the ’80s and ’90s, Mr. Kump successfully represented Merle Norman in a series of related state and federal actions, defending the company against alleged violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, while prosecuting the company’s trademark and Lanham Act claims.  (Acton v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc., 163 F.3d 605 (9th Cir. 1998) (Table, Text in WL, No. 97-56269);  Acton v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc., 1995-1 CCH Trade Cases 71,025 (C.D. Cal. 1995);  Acton v. Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc., 1994-2 CCH Trade Cases 70,784 (C.D. Cal. 1984);  Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., Cent. Dist. of Cal., 856 F.2d 98 (9th Cir. 1988).)  During this litigation, Mr. Kump successfully defended the company in a five-week jury trial on antitrust issues and in a bench trial on causation and damages, while also recovering favorable settlements in two bad faith actions brought against the company’s insurers.

Mr. Kump also represented International E-Z Up, Inc., the originator and manufacturer of instant portable canopies, against antitrust counterclaims filed in the company’s patent infringement case.  After creating and implementing a targeted discovery plan, Mr. Kump brought a motion for summary judgment, which the federal court granted in a published opinion.  (Carter v. Variflex, Inc., 101 F.Supp.2d 1261 (C.D. Cal. 2000).)

Professional Recognitions

Mr. Kump is listed in BestLawyers‘ 2012 edition of The Best Lawyers in America.

Mr. Kump has been recognized as a “Super Lawyer” by Super Lawyers magazine every year from 2006 through 2011.

Mr. Kump has been named one of the top 100 trial lawyers in California by The National Trial Lawyers.

From 2002 to 2007, Mr. Kump served on the Board of Governors of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers (ABTL).

Education and Admissions

Mr. Kump was born and raised in Northfield, Minnesota.  He is a graduate of Grinnell College (B.A. 1974, Phi Beta Kappa), The University of Michigan Department of Philosophy (M.A. in Philosophy, 1976, Ph.D. in Philosophy, 1979), and The University of Michigan School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 1981).  Mr. Kump was admitted to the California State Bar in 1981, and is admitted to practice before each of the United States District Courts in the states of Arizona and California, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Ninth Circuit and the Second Circuit, the United States Tax Court, and the United States Supreme Court.

Professional Presentations, Publications and Media Quotes

Mr. Kump has spoken and written extensively, and been quoted in leading newspapers and periodicals, on current topics in his areas of expertise.

Mr. Kump was quoted extensively in the press during the McCourt trial in August and September 2010, and more recently in a Los Angeles Times article profiling the cost of the McCourt divorce.  The following are links to some of the press accounts quoting him during the trial: 

On April 28, 2011, Mr. Kump gave an evening presentation entitled “Lessons From the McCourt Case Regarding Post-Nuptial Agreements” to the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles. 

For the past several years, including in January 2010 and 2011, Mr. Kump has been a regular speaker on “Recent Developments in Contract Litigation” at the annual CLE Int’l Film and Television Law Conference. 

On November 13, 2008, CIO published its interview with Mr. Kump on intellectual protection and trade secret protection in the employment arena.

On September 25, 2008, Mr. Kump presented an audio teleconference for 150 human resources professionals sponsored by the Employer Resources Institute on “Noncompete Agreements: California Supreme Court Sounds Death Knell for Noncompetes: What Employers Should Do Now to Protect Themselves.”

Other representative articles by Mr. Kump include the following:  “Businesses Should Pursue Nonacceptance Injunctions,” Los Angeles Daily Journal, Feb. 24, 2004, p. 7;  “The Rule of Proportionality in Civil RICO Suits,” Los Angeles Lawyer, Dec. 2002, Vol. 25, No. 9, p. 12;  “New Amendments Give Losing Party Another Bite at the Apple,” Los Angeles Daily Journal, Dec. 3, 2002, p. 7;  “The Reasonable Particularity Requirement in Trade Secret Actions,” ABTL Report, Fall 2002, Vol. XXV, No. 1., p. 10;  “Businesses Shouldn’t Rely on Nonacceptance Provisions,” Los Angeles Daily Journal, Aug. 29. 2002, p. 7.

Representative quotations by Mr. Kump include the following:  “Suit Against Clear Channel Over Racing Goes to Jury,” New York Times, March 21, 2005;  “Clear Channel Loses Case With Rival,” New York Times, March 22, 2005;  “Clear Channel Antitrust Probe Continues,” San Antonio Express News, March 22, 2005;  “Down in the Dirt,” New York Times, August 30, 2004.

Comments are closed.