CAA Condemns Range’s Countersuit in Ongoing Poaching Dispute

The ongoing poaching dispute between the Creative Artists Agency (CAA) and Range Media Partners has escalated, with both sides exchanging counterclaims in a legal battle that has lasted over a year. CAA has taken a strong stance against Range’s recent countersuit, asserting that the competing agency used stolen proprietary information while its founding agents were still employed at CAA.

Background on the Legal Conflict

The conflict began when CAA filed a lawsuit against Range, founded by Pete Micelli, for allegations of stealing clients, trade secrets, and confidential information. In response, Range filed a countersuit on November 24, claiming CAA’s noncompete agreements are invalid. This countersuit comes nearly three years into ongoing arbitration regarding equity and compensation issues with former CAA agents now at Range, including Jack Whigham, Dave Bugliari, Mick Sullivan, and Micheal Cooper.

CAA’s Position

CAA attorney Bo Pearl stated that the evidence against Range is substantial, consisting of videos, texts, and emails that document deceptive practices. Pearl described Range’s countersuit as “devoid of merit” and aims to emphasize that the former agents forfeited their rights when they transitioned to a competing business.

Legal Counsel and Arguments

Range’s legal team, which includes attorneys Ilissa Samplin and Orin Snyder from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, argues that CAA’s legal claims have weakened significantly. They assert the JAMS arbitrator has already ruled that CAA’s noncompete agreements are illegal. They also accuse CAA of using these agreements to threaten employees considering a switch to Range.

Implications of the Dispute

• Range’s countersuit claims that CAA is violating unfair competition law.
• They seek $1 million in damages and an injunction against CAA’s practices.
• Citing public policy, Range argues that noncompete agreements hinder employee mobility.

As the legal battle continues, CAA has approximately 30 days to respond to Range’s countersuit. This timing coincides with the holiday season, indicating that a resolution may not be forthcoming until next year.

Conclusion

The dispute has revealed significant tensions in the entertainment industry regarding employee movement and competition. Both agencies are gearing up for a prolonged legal fight, with the arbitration proceedings expected to remain confidential until a definitive ruling is made. As such, the implications of this case will likely resonate throughout the industry.