Thursday, December 10, 2009

BREAKING NEWS: JUDGE GRANTS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

RADARONLINE IS ERRONEOUSLY REPORTING THAT TLC HAS WON THE WHOLE CASE AND THAT THEIR CONTRACT WAS VALID. THIS IS NOT TRUE, TLC HAS ONLY WON THEIR INJUNCTION PENDING THE CASE GOING TO TRIAL IN APRIL

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/12/breaking-news-tlc-wins-court-against-jon-gosselin

A judge has granted TLC's preliminary injunction and Jon may not make any appearances pending trial. Jon's attorneys argued that Jon's breach did not cause "irreparable harm," a requirement to get an injunction. In fact, they pointed out, TLC's ratings have been through the roof since Jon breached the contract. The judge disagreed. What does this mean for Jon? Well, he is not allowed to make any appearances, or really, do anything, pending the upcoming trial. Jon argued that his media appearances are his livelihood. TLC argued he is an IT tech and hasn't done anything to go out and get a job. The judge says no more media for Jon until the outcome of the trial.

What is a preliminary injunction?

Think of a preliminary injunction like a temporary restraining order. It is typically issued pending a judge's final decision, just as it was here. Because Jon could continue breaching his contract and causing even more harm to TLC between now and the trial date of April 19th, a judge has "restrained" him from doing anything else until he sorts this all out. Jon may still be able to make appearances after his trial, he is only temporary stopped from doing so.

Next court date April 19.

Update: Does Radaroline come over and read DGS? Tee-hee! They have now corrected their story to explain, as we did from the beginning, that the Court only granted TLC's injunction and not their whole case yet. TLC sees this as a "validation" of their contract, but it is no such thing. It is simply a restraint to prevent Jon from doing anything else until the Judge decides how to handle the rest of the case. Think of it as a "freeze."

26 sediments (sic) from readers:

Laura said...

DGA - I thought that Heller's case was built around the name change. When TLC changed the name of the show to "Kate+8" that the contract for "Jon and Kate+8" was void.

So, DGA - Is Jon's case up a creek or does he have any hope left?

Laura said...

DGA=DGS
Sorry for the typo.

pareader said...

While Jon may have not upheld his end of the contract, I can't see how "irreparable harm" was done to TLC. The ratings went sky-high after the tabloids started showing pictures of Jon with "other" women. Now, Jon preventing TLC from filming the kids--THAT certainly put the kibosh on things. Isn't that what TLC is really after? Don't they want Jon to cave and allow the children to be filmed? They have been trying to crush Jon financially and emotionally so that he will feel he has no choice but to give in to TLC.
TLC is behaving like a bully.
Really, how can squashing the spirit and income of the children's father be in their best interests? I'm sorry to use the term, but Kate is TLC's whore. Shameful.
I am not a perfect human being, but I cannot imagine doing that to my kids' father--even if I personally hated him--because doing so would hurt my kids.

Administrator said...

Pareader, that's exactly what Jon's lawyers argued. Irreparable harm, hardly! Their ratings went sky high when Jon started his antics. If Jon stayed normal and boring, they never would have reached the millions of viewers they got. Also, the show is over. How long does TLC want Jon to be slave to them controlling everything he does? Another year, 5 years, the rest of his life? This is so stupid. Just let him go and move on.

TLC IS a bully, is completely using Kate's upset at Jon in their favor (they don't really give a damn about her) and trying to squeeze out money damages from Jon is exactly the same as ripping it out of the children's hands. Why they refuse to make this connection is baffling.

TLC in one breath is saying it's Jon's responsibilty to pay for his own kids and that's why they weren't provided for in the contract, and in the other breath is saying they want money damages from him! Idiots.

Administrator said...

Laura, Jon's case is not up a creek by any means. He has simply been restrained from making appearances until the trial. He certainly still may prevail and I still predict we'll see some kind of settlement before then. Injunctions are granted all the time and the party that sought them ultimatly ends up losing. It's sort of a precaution, to put things on hold until the judge decides the trial. Obviously it would be better the judge didn't grant it, but it's not a sign he necessarily will lose.

Debbie said...

So if Jon is still bound by the terms of his contract does that mean TLC is still paying him? It seems like a catch 22 to me....Jon appears to be bound by a contract that pays him when his family is filmed but when he refuses to allow the children to be filmed then it seems to put the contract at a stand still. His income is tied up by not filming yet the rest of his life is still bound by contract with TLC. What's a guy to do.

ps does anyone else find it a pain to post a comment here? I have to tell it to post 3 times and put in a secret password of some sort. maybe I am doing something wrong.

Administrator said...

Debbie, I turned off word verification so that I hope it is a little easier to post comments. I haven't had too big of a problem so I'll turn it off and as long as I don't get spam I'll leave it off. There were a few trolls in the beginning, not sure why they even care what I'm doing here, but they seem to have lost interest.

Administrator said...

Debbie says "....Jon appears to be bound by a contract that pays him when his family is filmed but when he refuses to allow the children to be filmed then it seems to put the contract at a stand still. His income is tied up by not filming yet the rest of his life is still bound by contract with TLC. What's a guy to do."

Debbie, it wasn't exactly pulling the kids that breached the contract. He was allowed to pull the kids. That simply galvinized TLC to sue him. Even though their own contract said he could do that. The breach was his public appearances without TLC's blessing, such as on Larry King.

He is only being prevented from making appearances until the trial date. Then a judge will decide.

I truly find this so outlandish. It's clear Jon is never going to let them film him or the kids again. TLC can't do much to force him to do that. So their point in trying to own Jon's whole image and celebrity so he can never work again is what? Jon owns his own face and his own celebrity, and by the time April even gets here he will be even more of a has been. TLC is trying to prevent him from doing this out of pure spite and for no logical reason.

Anonymous said...

I think this makes sense for TLC. The "irreparable harm" does not come from low ratings vs. high ratings. It comes from what Jon actually says about the network in these interviews. When telling his side, Jon always gets digs in about TLC. He's damaging their reputation since they are all about reality shows right now. They need to muzzle Jon Gosselin to keep their image. What do you think?

Administrator said...

Yes, I think you are right it's really more about their reputation. Especially since a lot of their argument came from their belief they are a family friendly network and having Jon appear with a bunch of Vegas girls made them look foolish, in their view.

They aren't saying Jon can't work, they just want to approve what he is on. Things like Martha Stewart and the Today show I think are what they had in mind.

Still Jon's antics have brought them a lot of press and ratings and had he actually done what he was told, it's unlikely TLC would be as successful.

Laura said...

DGS - Did any of the court transcripts indicate that TLC was still paying Jon?

If TLC is NOT paying Jon then isn't it a bit cruel of the judge to issue a preliminary injunction barring him from earning a living.

That just seems a little heavy handed to me. Jon should be able to earn a living.

Laura said...

Sorry DGS - my question was asked and answered.

Administrator said...

TLC says he can go out and get an IT tech job. I guess the judge agreed. But call me crazy, I can't see Jon going back to computers anytime soon.

Debbie said...

So then if I understand correctly, Jon is still under contract but he is not being paid because he is not filming. It would seem that TLC should have to hold up their end of the agreement and pay him if they are still paying Kate. It appears they were being paid as a family unit so if Kate is still getting any money from them then a portion should be Jon's. Either way it is pretty stinky of TLC because in reality they are saying that if Jon won't film with the kids then he can't film at all..anywhere any time for any money.


Thanks for making it easier to post.

Laura said...

TLC sucks as far as I'm concerned. Jon has been vilified in the press by TLC's PR team and so the public perception is that TLC is the one doing the right thing here. So wrong.

Administrator said...

I honestly don't know if Jon is still getting paid. They haven't said unless I missed it.

I agree TLC has succeded in villifying Jon and spinning this like they are doing the right thing here.

A lot of people, althought fortunatly not everyone, don't seem to even think about how this lawsuit is hurting the children. I don't know if that's ignorance or refusal to think beyond step one or two....who even knows. To me it's basic critical thinking. Take money from the provider of the children, and you are taking money from the children themselves. Is this a difficult concept?

No Drama Mama said...

One good thing about this is it will prevent Jon from making an ass out of himself over...and over...and over again.

Scratch that... He just won't be getting paid for it!

Administrator said...

You're right, he is actually permitted to make appearances for FREE per the order. So if he's really so addicted to the attention he'll go around doing things for free, he's fair game to make an ass of himself.

co said...

DGS,

I was impressed with the questions regarding the trust Kate set up for the kids and then TLC's answer about an initial problem with it with the state that was being worked out.

It sounds to me like this trust was set up at exactly the same time as the State of PA's investigation into TLC's labor practices and the questions about the contract payments. Why else would TLC ever have anything to do with a private trust set up by a mother for her children?

I think the trust was set up (after being advised by TLC that it would be in everyone's best interests to do so) by Kate in an attempt to head off questions by critics that no money had been put aside for the kids and that it would have probably never been formed had there not been an investigation.

co said...

3 questions for you DGS -- TIA!

1. Am I correct in thinking that the judge ordered that the contract between TLC/Gosselins to no longer be sealed other than the parts that directly address compensation? I thought I read that in ROL's running commentary yesterday.

2. In the court docket it shows that Jon's countersuit against TLC requested a jury trial which is scheduled for April. Do you think Jon has a better chance pleading his case in front of a jury of his peers or with a mediator? And, can Jon further amend his countersuit (if it doesn't include this already) to include damages for lost wages while he was prohibited from doing media type work?

3. What do you think about the paragraph in ROL's post about the hearing which said that the judge refused to let Mark Heller sit at the defense table since he hadn't gotten special permission to practice in PA - he had to sit in the audience with the other visitors? Wasn't this s slap in the face to Heller? Was he trying to send a message (which I'm sure Heller received loud and clear), but why? Is this done very often? I thought it was a courtesy to let counsel be there if they didn't interfere.

co said...

DGS,

I was impressed with the questions regarding the trust Kate set up for the kids and then TLC's answer about an initial problem with it with the state that was being worked out.

It sounds to me like this trust was set up at exactly the same time as the State of PA's investigation into TLC's labor practices and the questions about the contract payments. Why else would TLC ever have anything to do with a private trust set up by a mother for her children?

I think the trust was set up (after being advised by TLC that it would be in everyone's best interests to do so) by Kate in an attempt to head off questions by critics that no money had been put aside for the kids and that it would have probably never been formed had there not been an investigation.

Laura said...

TLC sucks as far as I'm concerned. Jon has been vilified in the press by TLC's PR team and so the public perception is that TLC is the one doing the right thing here. So wrong.

Laura said...

DGS - Did any of the court transcripts indicate that TLC was still paying Jon?

If TLC is NOT paying Jon then isn't it a bit cruel of the judge to issue a preliminary injunction barring him from earning a living.

That just seems a little heavy handed to me. Jon should be able to earn a living.

Administrator said...

Debbie says "....Jon appears to be bound by a contract that pays him when his family is filmed but when he refuses to allow the children to be filmed then it seems to put the contract at a stand still. His income is tied up by not filming yet the rest of his life is still bound by contract with TLC. What's a guy to do."

Debbie, it wasn't exactly pulling the kids that breached the contract. He was allowed to pull the kids. That simply galvinized TLC to sue him. Even though their own contract said he could do that. The breach was his public appearances without TLC's blessing, such as on Larry King.

He is only being prevented from making appearances until the trial date. Then a judge will decide.

I truly find this so outlandish. It's clear Jon is never going to let them film him or the kids again. TLC can't do much to force him to do that. So their point in trying to own Jon's whole image and celebrity so he can never work again is what? Jon owns his own face and his own celebrity, and by the time April even gets here he will be even more of a has been. TLC is trying to prevent him from doing this out of pure spite and for no logical reason.

pareader said...

While Jon may have not upheld his end of the contract, I can't see how "irreparable harm" was done to TLC. The ratings went sky-high after the tabloids started showing pictures of Jon with "other" women. Now, Jon preventing TLC from filming the kids--THAT certainly put the kibosh on things. Isn't that what TLC is really after? Don't they want Jon to cave and allow the children to be filmed? They have been trying to crush Jon financially and emotionally so that he will feel he has no choice but to give in to TLC.
TLC is behaving like a bully.
Really, how can squashing the spirit and income of the children's father be in their best interests? I'm sorry to use the term, but Kate is TLC's whore. Shameful.
I am not a perfect human being, but I cannot imagine doing that to my kids' father--even if I personally hated him--because doing so would hurt my kids.

Laura said...

DGA - I thought that Heller's case was built around the name change. When TLC changed the name of the show to "Kate+8" that the contract for "Jon and Kate+8" was void.

So, DGA - Is Jon's case up a creek or does he have any hope left?

Post a Comment

Want to see your comment published? Follow a few simple rules:

1. Do not use Anonymous. Pick a name (click Name/URL to type in a name) and stick to the same name.
2. Anonymous insider stories should be emailed to us directly (in confidence). They will not be posted here unless we can verify the validity, such as with photos. This is not to discourage legitimate insiders from speaking out, but to guard against all the fake stories out there.
3. No insulting other posters or picking fights, refusing to let things go and move on. Stop with the snotty comments--they will be rejected. Treat people here like how you would talk to the person you most respect in your life, it's just pleasant that way.
4. No trash talking other blogs/bloggers here.