Legal battle of Netflix with Fox, Disney Over Exec poaching his last legs – Deadline

(UPDATE WITH DECISION ATTEMPTING IN FINAL SUMMER) It seems that Netflix has invoked Olivia de Havilland in her long legal dispute with Fox and now Disney against the leaders of the group, a few years ago, and that the employment contracts have retreated against the contract of employment have done as much good as the conflict between the winner of two Oscars and FX on Quarrel.

"This court does not believe that the general intention of the labor code under section 2855 (a) of the Labor Code would be governed by the general decision that Netflix seeks, a decision that would prohibit all contracted employees in any activity or context that has been working continuously with the same employer for more than seven years, "wrote Wednesday a provisional decision of a judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles.

Arriving just before a hearing in Santa Monica this morning, Judge Marc Gross's left-hand grumble is reprimanding the still-controversial argument of the Reed Hastings-led company that the agreements now concluded by Netflix with Marco Waltenberg and Tara Flynn had their former employers at Fox were enforceable.

It's not over yet, but with some difficulty and a potential call to deal, what happened on Wednesday basically sends Netflix to the carpet for this one.

"Netflix is ​​asking this court to consider only the length of each employee's tenure with Fox as a determinant," the attempt adds. "However, Netflix, in presenting this argument, ignores the difference between a person's working time for a company and the length of a specific employment contract."

Neither Netflix nor Fox Studio, now owned by Disney, has responded to Deadline's request for today's developments. At the present time, the trial began early next year and it appears that the banner is doing well despite Judge Gross's attempt to make a final decision. While Fox was not paying enough attention to convince the judge that they had found real damages from the two employees who were searching for pastures, Netflix also had the opportunity to plead again in the repository. a new counterclaim against Fox. contracts and declaratory judgment.

Distinct from a more recent conflict and similar nature with Viacom, this clash between Netflix and the studio owned by Rupert Murdoch began in September 2016. At that time, Fox was attacked by the streamer , alleging that he had illegally photographed the Waltenberg and Flynn rulers and, in doing so, encourage the duo to break their work contracts – a viewpoint that Gross has accepted today.

With a response almost at the speed of lightning, Netflix filed a counter-lawsuit claiming that Fox was itself engaged in illegal and anti-competitive business practices. Highlighting California law and policy in the spotlight as well as De Havilland's famous seven-year-old precedent, Netflix argued that Fox tied his staff to restrictive fixed-term contracts limiting mobility. These were agreements with the potential employer that Netflix considered invalid, which, if true, would require a major change in the management of California employee contracts.

An almost constant stream of filings and hearings, Fox's misconduct dismissed during his visit to the California Court of Appeals, a change of ownership on the Fox side, summer judgments in February, and a promise that the original plaintiff would only ask for a dollar the damages have reigned until now in the lawsuit – where things could go in a very definitive direction.

The Fox / Disney assets are represented by Daniel Petrocelli, Molly Lens and David Marroso of O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Netflix's outside board consists of teams from Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.