Planeless Pictures LLC and a company representative can move forward with their lawsuit against YouTube personality Logan Paul and his company, Maverick Media Inc., concerning Planeless’ $3 million loss of a licensing deal with Google, a judge has ruled.
Although Santa Monica Superior Court Judge Mark A. Young dismissed Planeless’ claims against both defendants in June, he did not toss the actual complaint filed in December 2020. The judge instead allowed amended lawsuits to be brought in a “derivative” manner by Planeless agents on the company’s behalf. Planeless manager Jonathan Orenstein filed his case on July 7.
The new complaint alleges breach of contract, negligence and that Paul and Maverick put their interests ahead of those of Planeless. Attorneys for Paul and Maverick filed court papers arguing for dismissal of the revised suit claims, but on Monday the judge denied the motion.
According to Orenstein’s court papers, Planeless was formed in 2015 for the purpose of making a movie titled “Airplane Mode.” Orenstein alleges the fallout from an unrelated video Paul posted in 2017, appearing to show the body of an alleged suicide victim in Japan, caused Google to back out of the licensing deal.
“Paul and Maverick owed Planeless the absolute and complete duty of fidelity,” Orenstein’s court papers state. ” In particular, Paul and Maverick had a duty not to interfere or sabotage or involve themselves in a conflict with Planeless and its development, production and exploitation of `Airplane Mode.”’
Planeless members trusted Paul and depended on him for the development, completion, promotion and distribution of “Airplane Mode” and its success depended mostly, if not entirely, on him, Orenstein’s court papers further stated.
In December 2017, Paul videotaped and broadcasted on Maverick’s YouTube channel an image of someone who had hanged themselves in Aokigahara, Japan near Mount Fuji, which Planeless alleges led to Google nixing the $3 million deal.
“Paul and Maverick knew, or recklessly disregarded the fact, that the broadcast of the suicide would have a substantial impact on his followers and would also have a seriously adverse impact on Planeless…,” Orenstein’s court papers state.
In their court papers, lawyers for Paul and Maverick maintained that all of the Orenstein complaints were barred by the statute of limitations and exceeded the scope of what the judge authorized and that the businessman and his attorneys originally chose not to bring a derivative action.
“This is because Orenstein did not want his name attached to a complaint,” the Paul-Maverick attorneys argued in their court papers. “That gamble failed and the applicable statute of limitations has run. Yet, Orenstein and his counsel, who gambled and lost, want a do-over. That should not be permitted.”
The judge did, however, grant a defense motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees.