James Van Der Beek v. Stitcher
James Van Der Beek v. Stitcher
James Van Der Beek v. Stitcher
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
573934.5
COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff James Van Der Beek (“Plaintiff” or “Van Der Beek”) hereby alleges against
2 Defendants Stitcher Media LLC (“Stitcher”), Sirius XM Radio, Inc. (“Sirius XM”), and DOES 1
4 NATURE OF ACTION
5 1. Plaintiff James Van Der Beek is a renowned actor, writer, and producer, famous for
6 multiple iconic television and film lead roles, including Dawson’s Creek and Varsity Blues. To
7 date, Plaintiff has appeared in over 20 movies and 30 television series and has received multiple
9 2. In late 2021, Plaintiff began to pursue an opportunity for creating a podcast based
10 on his longstanding acting career, onscreen characters, and life as a husband and father of
11 six. Plaintiff would serve as the podcast’s host, conducting interviews, providing commentary and
12 behind-the-scenes insight on past work, and share the kind of unique perspective as an artist,
13 seeker, and public figure that has become the hallmark of his social media presence. This was a
14 lucrative business opportunity that undoubtedly would have been a huge commercial success,
16 3. Plaintiff had several options and formal offers from buyers to choose from in
17 deciding who to partner with for the production of the podcast. Ultimately, however, Plaintiff
18 chose to go with Defendants. In the spring of 2022, the material terms of the deal were
19 extensively negotiated, agreed upon orally and confirmed in writing in a series of phone calls and
22 with Defendants. Pursuant to that agreement, the parties agreed that Plaintiff would participate as
24 guarantee. The emails reflect a meeting of the minds on every material term and constitute a
25 valid, binding and enforceable written contract. The fact that this deal was closed is confirmed by
26 Sirius XM and Stitcher’s April 28, 2022 e-mail, which stated: “we are ready to call terms
27 officially closed.” There is no nuance to the words “terms officially closed,” nor to the promise of
573934.5 2
COMPLAINT
1 5. As explained below, Plaintiff had other offers and potential partners to choose from
2 in order to develop this project. However, relying on the contractual agreement reached with
3 Defendants, Plaintiff stopped negotiating with other buyers and affirmatively rejected those other
4 offers (as well as other acting opportunities) in order to devote his full time and attention to
5 creating the podcast with Defendants. The agreed-upon deal even provided Defendants with a
6 first look so that Plaintiff could not work on any other podcasts. Yet, after the project was green
7 lit and several subsequent actions had been taken by Defendants to set the podcast up, Sirius and
8 Stitcher reneged on the agreement and told Plaintiff that they would not perform.
9 6. Although now they want to skirt their obligations, Defendants made this deal and
10 their contractual obligations are clear. Defendants’ refusals to fulfill their end of the bargain have
11 caused Plaintiff to incur significant damages. Plaintiff brings this suit to hold Defendants
12 accountable for their conduct and to recover for the losses sustained as a result of Defendants’
17 8. On information and belief, Defendant Stitcher Media LLC (“Stitcher”) is, and was
18 at all times relevant hereto, a limited liability company, organized under the laws of the State of
19 Delaware and conducts business in Los Angeles, California. Stitcher is a company that specializes
21 9. On information and belief, Defendant Sirius XM Radio, Inc. (“Sirius XM”) is, and
22 was at all times relevant hereto, a Delaware corporation that conducts business in Los Angeles,
23 California.
24 10. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as
25 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names.
26 Plaintiff will amend this Complaint, by leave of Court if necessary, to allege their true names and
28 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that at all times relevant to
573934.5 3
COMPLAINT
1 this complaint, each defendant is and was the agent and servant of the other defendant and at all
2 times was acting within the scope of said agency and is jointly and severally obligated to the
3 remaining defendants.
4 12. This Court has jurisdiction to hear the subject matter of this Complaint pursuant to
5 the California Constitution, Article VI, section 10, and California Code of Civil Procedure section
6 410.10. The negotiation of the agreement at issue in this lawsuit took place in Los Angeles,
7 California. Plaintiff’s transactional attorney that led the negotiations is located in Los Angeles,
9 13. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to California Code of Civil
10 Procedure sections 395(a) and 395.5. Defendants maintain offices, transact business, have an
11 agent, or are found in the County of Los Angeles and are within the jurisdiction of this Court for
12 purposes of service of process. The unlawful acts alleged herein had a direct effect on and were
14 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
15 A. The Parties’ Agreement
16 14. In or about April 2022, Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendants for the
17 production and execution of a podcast featuring Plaintiff. As described below, the material terms
18 were all agreed upon and memorialized in writing in a series of emails exchanged by all parties’
20 15. Plaintiff and his transactional attorney, Danny Miller, began contract negotiations
22 between Plaintiff, Plaintiffs’ lawyer, and Defendants’ representatives to discuss the project, Leah
23 Reis-Dennis, Associate Director of Business Development at Stitcher and Sirius XM, stated in a
24 November 19, 2021 e-mail that Defendants “loved our conversation with James last week and the
25 whole Stitcher team is really excited about creating and selling this show.” Ms. Reis-Dennis
26 confirmed that an offer would be coming shortly. Defendants’ proposal was sent by e-mail on
28 16. On December 17, 2021, Plaintiff’s lawyer responded by e-mail to Defendants’ offer
573934.5 4
COMPLAINT
1 outlining the material points to be negotiated.
2 17. The following month, another follow-up creative call was held in or around January
3 2022 between Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s lawyer, and Sirius XM and Stitcher’s representatives. After this
4 call, Leah Reis-Dennis sent an e-mail on January 26, 2022, in which she responded directly to the
6 18. More specifically, Ms. Reis-Dennis attached a chart to her January 26 e-mail, in
7 which Defendants specifically responded to each of the material terms that had been outlined and
8 identified by Plaintiff’s lawyer on December 17. The terms provided by Ms. Reis-Dennis
9 included (i) Defendants’ offer of a $700,000 minimum guarantee in exchange for 40 episodes, (ii)
10 the agreement to add a visual component to the podcast as Plaintiff requested, (iii) the agreement
11 that the co-host guarantee would be subject to Plaintiff’s approval and paid entirely by Stitcher,
12 and (iv) the agreement that Plaintiff would have approval over creative aspects of the podcast,
13 including the title. On or about February 2, 2022, Plaintiff’s lawyer, Danny Miller, responded in
14 writing to Ms. Reis-Dennis’s January 26 e-mail outlining Defendants’ position on the key terms.
15 He informed Sirius and Stitcher via e-mail that Plaintiff agreed to the material terms of the deal,
17 19. The material financial terms of the deal were as follows: (i) $700,000 as a
18 minimum guarantee and 50% share of net ad revenue (gross revenue less hosting fees, ad sales
19 commissions, production, and marketing budgets) for Plaintiff providing hosting services; (ii) 40
20 podcast episodes, delivered by Plaintiff on a weekly basis; (iii) Plaintiff would promote the
21 podcast weekly across all of his social media channels; (iv) the production budget would be
22 $153,000 recouped against revenue, with the budget subject to consultation with Plaintiff, (v) the
23 marketing budget would be $50,000 recouped against revenue, with the budget subject to
24 consultation with Plaintiff; and (vi) payment would be made to Plaintiff’s loan-out company.
25 20. After closing on the financial terms, the only remaining issues were lining up on
26 creative and advertising. These issues were subsequently agreed upon as well.
27 21. The agreement was finalized when Defendants’ representative, Leah Reis-Dennis,
28 unequivocally stated in an April 28, 2022 e-mail: “Great news – the call with James went really
573934.5 5
COMPLAINT
1 well on both the sales and content side, and we are ready to call terms officially closed and
3 22. As such, there is no doubt that a meeting of the minds on every material term was
4 achieved. This meeting of the minds is reflected and documented in the parties’ email
5 correspondence.
8 formed. On May 2, 2022, Defendants’ representative, Leah Reis-Dennis, asked for payment set-
9 up information so that payments pursuant to the agreement could be made to Plaintiff. She wrote:
10 “Could one of you please send over James’s loanout info (LLC name and mailing address), as well
11 as the best email for us to send supplier/payment setup info?” In reliance on the parties’ contract
12 and his terminated negotiations with other competitors, and in response to Defendants’ request for
13 the supplier profile, Plaintiff set up an entity named VanderPod LLC. Obviously, Defendants
14 would not have asked for Plaintiffs’ payment information, and Plaintiff would not have set up the
16 24. The parties also began pre-production and took certain steps to prepare for the
17 execution of the podcast project. These steps included, among other things, beginning to search
18 for a potential co-host, as was specifically provided for in the parties’ contract.
19 25. Plaintiff and Defendants also negotiated and agreed upon terms regarding
20 advertising during their phone calls and e-mails. As reflected in writing, the parties ultimately
21 agreed that Plaintiff would have approval over 80% of Stitcher’s 100 highest-spending advertisers.
22 Consistent with this agreement, Defendants sent Plaintiff a list of their top 100 advertisers and
23 asked Plaintiff to go through each of them, one-by-one, to make sure he was aligned. This was a
24 painstaking process, which required research on Plaintiffs’ end and that took so long that Stitcher
26 26. Once the deal was done, Defendants also asked Plaintiff to take a number of other
27 specific actions to proceed with the project. These tasks included asking Plaintiff to (i) develop a
28 list of guests and episode ideas, (ii) listen to specific podcasts suggested by Defendants for tone
573934.5 6
COMPLAINT
1 inspiration, (iii) put in writing, in Plaintiff’s own words, a condensed version of exactly what the
2 podcast would be so that Defendants could approach advertisers, (iv) prepare a list of brands
3 Plaintiff currently uses and loves, again so that Defendants could approach those brands as well
4 for advertising, (v) scout and photograph locations for a studio on Plaintiff’s property, and (vi)
5 obtain bids for the construction of a studio or retrofit for an existing structure. All of which
6 Plaintiff did.
7 27. In sum, all subsequent behavior by all parties—from creative calls to initiating
8 payment profiles to beginning pre-production, as well as the many tasks and specific actions
10 C. Defendants’ Breach
11 28. At all times, and as has been communicated to Defendants, Plaintiff was and
12 remains ready, willing, and able to perform all terms of the parties’ agreement.
13 29. However, on or around July 8, 2022—two and half months after Defendants
14 confirmed the deal—a Zoom conference was held between Plaintiff’s lawyer, Danny Miller, and
15 Defendants’ representatives, including Rena Ayer, Daniel Osit, Defendants’ legal counsel Seth
16 Funk, and Vice President of Business Affairs Lindsay Bowen. During this call, Defendants
17 reneged on the deal, claiming that they a new policy of having their finance team review the deals,
18 and the finance team rejected this deal. This was contrary to what Defendants said during
19 negotiations when they represented to Plaintiff that the deal terms were created in conjunction
20 with the finance, creative and sales departments’ input and approval. This was just a pretextual
22 30. Following this conference, Danny Miller sent Defendants an e-mail on July 8,
23 explaining that Sirius XM and Stitcher remain obligated for the guaranteed payment of $700,000.
24 Referring back to the parties’ prior correspondence, including Ms. Reis-Dennis’s April 28, 2022 e-
25 mail confirming the deal was “officially closed,” Mr. Miller further explained that Defendants are
26 obligated to pay because there was no doubt that there was a meeting of the minds on every
28
573934.5 7
COMPLAINT
1 D. Damages to Plaintiff
2 31. As explained above, Plaintiff is a renowned and iconic actor, writer, and producer.
3 He had other formal offers and interested buyers to do the podcast, but declined those offers in
4 light of the agreement reached with Sirius, which was going to be Plaintiff’s exclusive podcasting
5 home according to the agreement reached with Defendants. Plaintiff’s decision was based upon
6 the promised $700,000 minimum guarantee, as well as the value of using Defendants to build a
7 brand and audience for this particular podcast series, as well as serve as Plaintiff’s gateway into
8 the digital/podcasting space. This concept was enthusiastically supported by Defendants. Plaintiff
9 and Defendants both agreed that the $700,000 guarantee was meant to be a floor and they
11 32. More specifically, and relying on the unequivocal language sent on April 28, 2022
12 by Defendants that “we are ready to call terms officially closed,” as well as the subsequent actions
13 detailed above, Plaintiff notified the other parties bidding on this project that he was passing on
15 33. Defendants’ actions are in violation of their clear, contractual obligations. The
16 parties entered into an agreement which was confirmed by emails—it constitutes a binding
17 contract under the law. Common sense, law, and public policy confirm that an agreement was
24 35. As set forth above, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a valid and binding
26 36. Plaintiff performed all the obligations, conditions, covenants, duties, and promises
27 required by him to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement.
28 37. Defendants breached the agreement with Plaintiff by failing and refusing to
573934.5 8
COMPLAINT
1 perform their promise to pay Plaintiff a minimum $700,000 guarantee, as well as 50% share of net
2 ad revenue (gross revenue less hosting fees, ad sales commissions, production, and marketing
3 budgets) among other things, in exchange for the hosting and other services that Plaintiff would
6 with Plaintiff, resulting in the loss of the minimum guarantee as well as the value of using
7 Defendants to build a brand and audience for this particular podcast series, as well as serve as
8 Plaintiff’s gateway into the digital/podcasting space. As a result, Plaintiff has been damaged in an
15 40. California law implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in all contracts.
16 This covenant provides that each party will act in good faith and deal fairly with one another, and
17 not do anything that frustrates the other party’s rights to the benefits of the contract.
18 41. As set forth above, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a valid and binding
19 agreement on or about April 28, 2022.
20 42. Pursuant to the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff and Defendants
21 had a duty to each other to do everything that their contractual relationship presupposed they
23 43. Defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by denying the
24 existence of the parties’ agreement, by refusing to fulfill their contractual obligations, including
25 but not limited to refusing to pay Plaintiff his $700,000 minimum guarantee, and by refusing to
28 that the contractual relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants presupposed it would do to
573934.5 9
COMPLAINT
1 accomplish its purpose. As a result, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at
8 (4) For any further relief that the court deems just and proper.
11
12
By:
13 A. SASHA FRID
Attorneys for Plaintiff
14 JAMES VAN DER BEEK
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
573934.5 10
COMPLAINT
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.
6
By:
7 A. SASHA FRID
Attorneys for Plaintiff
8 JAMES VAN DER BEEK
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
573934.5 11
COMPLAINT