Viacom International Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.
Plaintiff: Viacom International Inc.
Defendant: MGA Entertainment, Inc.
Case Number: 2:2015cv09621
Filed: December 14, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Charles F. Eick
Presiding Judge: Manuel L. Real
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 22, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 160 JUDGMENT by Judge Manuel L. Real: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT: (1) Judgment is entered in favor of Viacom International Inc. and against MGA Entertainment, Inc. with respect to each of the claims asserted by Viacom International Inc. in its Second Amended Complaint and each of the counterclaims asserted by MGA Entertainment, Inc. (2) With regard to its claims, Viacom International Inc. shall recover from MGA Entertainment, Inc. the sum of $14,950,757.51. (3) The foregoi ng amount consists of $13,813,445.80 in principal ($3,500,000 for the first claim, $7,378,420.75 for the second claim, $788,964.05 for the third claim, and $2,146,061 for the fourth claim), $1,110,820.14 in prejudgment i nterest through 9/6/2016 ($338,491.70 for the first claim, $475,942.49 for the second claim, $56,498.27 for the third claim, and $239,887.68 for the fourth claim), and $26,491.57 in prejudgment interest since that date ($ ;6,712.30 for the first claim, $14,150.43 for the second claim, $1,513.12 for the third claim, and $4,115.72 for the fourth claim). (4) MGA Entertainment, Inc. shall recover nothing, and its counterclaims are dismissed in their entirety on the merits. (5) Viacom International Inc. shall recover from MGA Entertainment, Inc. postjudgment interest, costs, and such other relief as may be permitted by law. (gk)
July 18, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 117 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Manuel L. Real: Viacom is entitled to summary judgment on its second claim for relief. The parties are directed to f ile additional briefing as to the amount owed by Defendant MGA under the Viacom/Beacon Agreement. The Court finds MGA breached the Haworth Agreement (third claim for relief) and orders the parties to file additional briefing as to the amount owed by Defendant MGA. Viacom is entitled to summary judgment on its first claim for relief. The parties are directed to file additional briefing as to the amount owed by Defendant MGA under the Co-Fi Agreement. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Viacom's Second Claim for Relief 29 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 52 is GRANTED. (gk)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Viacom International Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: MGA Entertainment, Inc.
Represented By: G Jill Basinger
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Viacom International Inc.
Represented By: Randall L Jackson
Represented By: Richard B Kendall
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?