More information about today’s trial

The Associated Press didn’t mention everything about today’s trial, but Miami Herald and Law.com published detailed articles that might interest you.

There’s too much information to post everything here, so you’ll have to read the rest of both articles at their respective news sites.

Paris Hilton, the celebrity socialite paid $1 million to star in an $8 million movie, testified in a Miami courtroom Friday that even her knack for media exposure couldn’t save the 2006 bomb of a film.

”Any time I was on a red carpet, any time I was at an event, I was promoting it the whole time,” Hilton said of Pledge This!, which made less than $3 million. “Any project I’m involved with, I want to give it my all.”

Read the rest here.

Celebrity heiress Paris Hilton flirted with a Miami federal judge and mentioned her Zodiac sign as she testified Friday in a civil trial seeking the full production cost of the box office bomb “Pledge This!” for allegedly scanty promotional work.

Her company, Paris Hilton Entertainment, is being sued by the court-appointed receiver for Worldwide Entertainment Group, which was seized by federal regulators as a Ponzi scheme after producing Hilton’s 2006 movie.

Read the rest here.

From: juju
Time: July 10, 2009, 10:45 pm

yipes. i hope there more to the contract wording that the judge has to go on. for example, the contractual definition of “promotion” and exactly what activites the contract stasted she needed to do. if it only said promotion with no specificity then they can argue it was open to interpretation, therfore, no breach, since she did do some things.

otherwise, the judge may find her liable just due to the disrespectful behavior in his court. he may be an exception, but judges typically don’t like “cute” in their courtroom.

then there’s damages. how do you establish a causal link between the breach and losses suffered and how do you value any loss attributed to the breach.

he may see it for what it is, the plaintiffs trying to recover some money any way they can and pick paris as an easy target. i really doubt that even if she found liable it would be for the full production costs. probably just a percentage.

we shall see.

From: Django
Time: July 11, 2009, 3:22 am

The only “spoiled brat”s are the ones expecting everything about the movie to rely solely on Paris’s shoulders. I hope these assholes lose and lose big time and look as stupid as possible in the process. Conveniently bringing in Paris’s driving on a suspended licence and the “spoiled brat” comment from Goldberg is just tacky and smacks of desperation and tantrum antics.

From: Jen
Time: July 11, 2009, 6:12 pm

You would expect the judge hearing the case to have the background info involving Utsick, who is now living in Brazil – beyond the legal reaches of the US justice system.

It is typical behavior of bankruptcy lawyers to go after anything that is not nailed down, and to try and go after anyone with money.

But I hope the judge enters a fair verdict in this case.

Paris should not be held indirectly responsible for the losses of the investors in Utsick’s Ponzi scheme.
That’s really what this lawsuit is all about, isnt it.

From: JWB
Time: July 12, 2009, 3:50 am

Paris is a Goddess and must be treated as such. Not exploited because she is a Goddess. Everyone knew about this movie/DVD.