Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV31353, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: February 27, 2025

Case Name: Sony Pictures Television, Inc., et al. v. CBS Studios Inc., et al.

Case No.: 24STCV28777

Matter: Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Sony Pictures Television, Inc., Jeopardy Productions, Inc., and

Califon Productions, Inc. 

Responding Party: Defendant CBS Studios Inc. 

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect.  If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

On October 31, 2024, Plaintiffs Sony Pictures Television, Inc., Jeopardy Productions, Inc., and Califon Productions, Inc. filed the operative Complaint against CBS Studios Inc. (“CBS”) for breach of contract.  

Plaintiffs allege that they produce and finance the television shows Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy! and that CBS, through distribution agreements, licenses these shows; however, Plaintiffs have determined that CBS has been entering into unauthorized licensing agreements that unfairly benefit it.  Among other things, Plaintiffs contend that “CBS has licensed the Shows at below-market rates; has failed to maximize advertising revenue; has undercut Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune through self-preferencing; and has rendered itself incapable of administering its obligations under the agreements, including by its far-reaching layoffs that have decimated teams responsible for the Shows’ distribution, marketing, and advertising sales and its decision to abandon its partnership with ratings provider Nielsen, whose ratings are critical for CBS to maximize advertising sales and syndication licenses.”

On January 2, 2025, CBS filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint alleging various claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief. 

Plaintiffs now seek leave to file a first amended complaint in which they (1) assert additional claims for breach of contract and (2) include factual allegations in support of these additional claims. 

The Court may, in the furtherance of justice, and upon any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 473, 576.)  In general, California courts liberally exercise discretion to permit amendment of pleadings in light of a strong policy favoring resolution of all disputes between parties in the same action.  (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)  “[T]here is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.”  (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296.)  Pursuant to this policy, requests for leave to amend generally will be granted unless the party seeking to amend has been dilatory in bringing the proposed amendment before the Court, and the delay in seeking leave to amend will cause prejudice to the opposing party if leave to amend is granted.  (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490; Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.)  The decision on a motion for leave is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court.  (See generally Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2014) ¶¶ 6:637 et seq.)

CBS has filed a notice of non-opposition.

Because it is not apparent that there would be any resulting prejudice, the Motion is granted.  

The FAC must be filed within 5 days.

Moving party to give notice.