Posts by Ricardo Cestero

Ricardo Cestero represents a diverse group of clients in entertainment, real estate and business disputes. Mr. Cestero has particular expertise in First Amendment issues, such as defamation and restraint of speech, as well as extensive experience handling motion picture and television production and distribution disputes.



Thank You, Steve Jobs

It’s not even news anymore to report that yesterday, the world lost a visionary and a true inspiration — Steve Jobs. Personally, I was devastated by the news. Although I didn’t know Steve Jobs personally, I nevertheless feel a sense of personal loss now that he has passed. Why am I so saddened by the death of someone I never knew?

Maybe it’s because I’ve been an Apple guy ever since I played my first computer game on my neighbor’s Apple IIe. I bought my first Macintosh computer in 1987 (a Mac Plus with a single floppy drive and no hard drive). Even through the dark years after the company stupidly fired its heart, soul and creative genius, I was still an Apple guy and tried to convince everyone else that Macs were the best computers around. Back then, people thought I was crazy (not one of the good “Crazy Ones” Apple highlighted in this classic ad to revive the company in the late 90s, just a real crazy one). Thanks to Steve Jobs, nobody calls me crazy anymore — well, at least not because of my love of Apple products.

But I’m clearly not alone in feeling that sense of personal loss. The Internet is already rife with comparisons of Steve Jobs’ loss to the deaths of rock stars like John Lennon and Elvis. Why? Maybe it’s because Steve Jobs is largely responsible for changing so much about how we live our lives. Continue reading the full story . . . »



Married to J-Lo: Gravy Train or Dead End?

Remember the good old days when Jennifer Lopez made headlines for harmless things like bold fashion choices and a semi-legendary backside? These days, though, it seems like J-Lo makes news less for her talents as an actress/singer/Paula Abdul replacement, and more for her divorces. In the midst of swirling gossip about the demise of her marriage to Marc Anthony, J-Lo has been battling in court, trying to stop her first husband, waiter-turned-chef-turned-professional celebrity-ex/litigant Ojani Noa, from selling the rights to a series of home videos made during their short-lived marriage. (This is, in fact, the second time Noa has tried to sell rights to the story of his ill-fated marriage to the Puerto Rican starlet; apparently, a permanent injunction and a $500,000 damages award didn’t teach him a lesson).

Some quarters of the Internet were no doubt crushed to hear that, unlike last time, Noa is now reportedly hawking home videos of a rather G-rated variety. And while the newest headlines about J. Lo’s ongoing battle with Noa vaguely trumpeted a J-Lo victory, behind the A-list names in the headline (or rather, the one A-list name and the ex-husband of the A-list name) was a legal issue only a lawyer could love — whether the dispute between Lopez and Noa would have to proceed via private binding arbitration or in court (Lopez succeeded in pushing the case to arbitration, shielding any salacious tidbits that might come out of this nasty battle from public view). But of course, the idea of the public release of celebrity home videos (whether G or XXX rated) always piques the interest of our voyeur culture.

Of course, J-Lo is in a better position than many celebrities trying to keep their private lives private, in that her long and sordid legal history with Noa has created a paper trail of contractual agreements between the two on which she can now rely (more on that later). But putting aside the quirkier aspects of the Lopez/Noa dispute, the general question remains: can a famous celebrity like J-Lo stop a gold-digging ex from profiting off home videos made during the relationship? Continue reading the full story . . . »



Agents vs. Talent: Money For Nothing?

A little over a year ago, I wrote about a rash of lawsuits brought by managers against former talent clients. If 2010 was, as I suggested, the year of managers suing their ex-clients for unpaid commissions, then 2011 appears to be year of agents suing their ex-clients for the exact same thing. This time, though, the agents are in the driver’s seat.

Last week, one of the biggest agencies in the world, United Talent Agency, sued Adam Herz, a writer and producer on American Pie 3, for at least $700,000 in unpaid commissions. A few days later, a story broke about Paula Abdul firing UTA and refusing to pay UTA commissions on her income from X-Factor. UTA seems ready to fire off another lawsuit against Paula. So, what gives? Why is UTA all of a sudden getting stiffed (or, to quote the terrible pun making its way around the Internet, “Stifler’d”)? Continue reading the full story . . . »



Coming Soon to a Theatre Near You: The Social Network II

Monday brought two interesting developments in the never-ending saga of people trying to pry shares of Facebook from Mark Zuckerberg. First, the lawsuit that spawned the uber-successful film The Social Network — and a damn fine blog post about the same— seemingly came to an end. (I assume Zuck clicked “Like” next to the story.) And second, the lawsuit that will inevitably spawn The Social Network IIsuddenly got a lot more interesting. (And maybe now Facebook will take those long-standing calls for a “Dislike” button more seriously.)

“At Some Point, Litigation Must Come to an End. That Point Has Now Been Reached.”

First, something the wunderkinds at Facebook can party about. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the attempts of Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss (not-so-affectionately referred to as the “Winklevii” in the movie) to set aside a settlement agreement which purported to resolve their claims against Facebook. Apparently, the Winklevii will have to live with $165 million (based on current estimates). And although Judge Alex Kozinski’s opinion rejecting their appeal isn’t nearly as sexy and exciting as Aaron Sorkin’s depictions of the heated depositions during the case — all in favor of just having Sorkin write real life for the rest of us, say aye — there are some legal concepts worthy of note, as well as a few choice samples of judicial snark. [Ed. Note: Aye.] Continue reading the full story . . . »



No, It’s Not 1984, but, Amazingly, Everyone Is Again Asking: Where’s the Beef?

You’ve probably heard about the recent class action lawsuit filed against Taco Bell, alleging that their tacos don’t really contain beef (or, rather, contain only 33% beef, plus a variety of “extenders” and “non-meat substances” ranging from “autolyzed yeast extract” to silicon dioxide, a.k.a. sand). (Presumably, this will be an easier plaintiff class to recruit than the potential plaintiffs in the YouPorn/“History Sniffing” lawsuit we reported on last month. But maybe I’m overestimating people’s willingness to admit eating Taco Bell.) According to the lawsuit, Taco Bell is misleading the public by saying its products contain “real beef” when, in fact, the products only contain the appetizingly-named “taco meat filling.” Although I find it hard to believe that anyone might have actually decided to go to Taco Bell thinking their taco was going to be 100% beef (it’s fast food, people!), these types of lawsuits are quite common, and the legal foundation of the claim is fairly straightforward.

Boiled down to its essence, Taco Bell is accused of trying to mislead the public about the quality of its product. Legally, Taco Bell’s statements about its meat are considered “commercial speech” — Taco Bell is trying to get people to buy tacos (well…“tacos,” anyway). The First Amendment provides limited protection for commercial speech, and rule #1 is: you have to tell the truth. So, the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission can pass laws restricting what fast food chains can and cannot say about their food. The same is true for other products, like vitamins, weight loss supplements and the like (hence the lawsuits against the makers of Men’s One-A-Day and Airborne, as well as trainer/TV personality Jillian Michaels, endorser of Calorie Control). So the question for Taco Bell is simple: did it comply with applicable regulations when touting its tacos as having “real beef” in them?

Taco Bell’s response, on the other hand, was fascinating. Taco Bell took out full-page “Thank You For Suing Us” ads in major newspapers across the country denying the allegations in the complaint. That’s not too surprising. But, Taco Bell did more than just offer facetious thanks and deny the allegations. Continue reading the full story . . . »



Happy 18th Birthday Miley! Time to Get High?

Driving to work on Friday morning, I happened to be tuned to KROQ and heard a story about a video of Miley Cyrus going to town on her favorite piece of smoking paraphernalia. Although Kevin, Bean, Ralph and company were reveling in what seems to be the rapid downward spiral of another teenage superstar, it occurred to me that, ever since Seth Rogen and James Franco’s daring “did-they-or-didn’t-they” promotion for stoner action-comedy Pineapple Express during the 2008 MTV Movie Awards, celebrities have become increasingly open about their use of a certain medicinal/recreational herb.

First, Olympic hero Michael Phelps was photographically compelled to admit to “engag[ing] in behavior which was regrettable and demonstrated bad judgment” (but which made for greatjokes about Phelps’ Olympian lung capacity and munchie-induced 12,000-calorie-a-day diet). Then Zach Galifianakis memorably — and hilariously — illustrated the subject matter of the California Proposition 19 debate on Real Time With Bill Maher. Now Miley and her “tobacco water pipe” — full of what her reps say was merely the California-legal hallucinogen salvia(and our eyes roll now) — has prompted one blogger to agonize over whether she or Phelps is “the bigger idiot” (spoiler alert: Miley wins).

Perhaps neither Miley nor Zach realize that Proposition 19 failed, but marijuana use remains illegal in California. In fact, depending on the quantity of cannabis in a person’s possession, it can still be prosecuted as a felony. So the obvious legal question is: could a celebrity caught smoking dope on camera be prosecuted? The short answer is, theoretically, yes…but don’t bet on it actually happening. Continue reading the full story . . . »