Santa Ana, California. On November 2, 2021, after 10 days of trial, Golnar Fozi, Jeremy Dwork and Daniel Modafferi secured a complete defense verdict in favor of their clients, Irvine Presbyterian Church dba The Crystal Cathedral and Crystal Cathedral Ministries.
Plaintiff, who was represented by Harold Light and Bruce Gilbert, is the daughter of the founder of The Crystal Cathedral and Crystal Cathedral Ministries. In/about 2004, Defendants authorized the production of a play entitled “The Glory of Creation”, which was written and produced by Plaintiff. The budget for the play was $15,000,000. The play ran for 82 performances in the summer of 2005, and was never put on by Defendants (or any other organizations) since. The play generated a single season financial loss for Defendants of at least $13,000,000.
When Plaintiff was notified by Defendants that the play was to be cancelled, she engaged legal counsel and advanced potential legal claims against Defendants. In order to resolve their differences, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a Settlement Agreement in July 2006. The settlement called for, among other things, Plaintiff to take ownership and possession of certain show-specific property used to mount the Creation play. At the time, all such property was being stored in either a warehouse or seven large storage trailers.
Despite taking ownership of this property in 2006, Plaintiff never inventoried, inspected or contributed to the storage/maintenance of this property for the next 13 years. Moreover, despite repeated demands by Defendants as early as 2012 for Plaintiff to take possession of her property, Plaintiff refused and instead demanded Defendants continue to store her show-related belongings. Plaintiff contended the Defendants were obligated to do so under the 2006 settlement agreement.
In/about 2018, after more than 12 years of Plaintiff refusing to retrieve her property, Plaintiff and Defendants engaged in settlement discussions regarding the property. As part of those discussions, offers were made for Plaintiff to take possession of the property as well as Defendants’ trailers in exchange for a release. Plaintiff refused and claimed that the demand for a release constituted conversion. She then sued Defendants for breach of contract, conversion and negligence.
In/about 2019, Plaintiff finally inspected the show-specific property being stored in Defendants’ trailers. Upon completing her inspection, she alleged certain property was either damaged or missing after having been maintained in storage trailers for 13 years. Plaintiff thereafter developed an inventory of allegedly damaged or missing property, which she claimed to be worth in excess of $3,500,000. She also alleged that the loss/damage to her property deprived her of remounting the show, which had not run since 2005.
Before trial, Defendants successfully moved for summary judgment of Plaintiff’s negligence claim, leaving only conversion and breach of contract for resolution at trial.
At trial, evidence was presented that after Defendants cancelled the play in 2005, it stored Plaintiff’s property in the same manner it stored its own property. Evidence was further presented that, despite Defendants’ belief that it had no obligation to store Plaintiff’s property, they did so at great expense for nearly 16 years. In fact, multiple witnesses testified that despite financial hardships confronting Defendants, Plaintiff’s property remained safely stored at multiple properties for years, without Plaintiff once contributing to the cost of storage, and without plaintiff once inspecting the property until 2018.
With respect to the alleged value of Plaintiff’s property, Defendants presented expert appraisal testimony that the property was devoid of value not long after the cancellation of the play. Expert testimony concluded that the significant financial losses attributable to the show, the show-specific customization of the property, and the obsolescence of much of the items all contributed to a fair market value of $0.
After 10 days of trial, the jury deliberated for just over an hour before reaching a verdict. In response to Plaintiff’s demand for more than $3,500,000 in damages, the jury rendered a defense verdict. The jury concluded that Defendants did not breach the 2006 settlement agreement, nor did they convert Plaintiff’s property.
For more information on how the attorneys at Fozi Dwork & Modafferi can help you, your business or organization, please do not hesitate to call (760) 444-0039.