[his] right[s]." Steve Harvey's Step Daughter Lori Harvey Charged In Hit And Run Case The accident happened in October 2019. That evidence has the same effect here. If the movant on summary judgment bears the burden of proof on a claim or defense, he must produce evidence that establishes "beyond peradventure" the elements of that claim or defense. 151, Cooper MSJ 8. 162, Cooper Resp. 53-54 [hereinafter Harvey App. Element 1: Whether a Valid, Enforceable Contract Exists. See Doc. It is true that he has adequately pled that (1) Anderson's statements to Golland constitute a published statement, and that (2) Golland could have understood Anderson's statementswhich directly contradicted Cooper'sto imply that Cooper was lying to and/or trying to defraud MVD. "Under Texas law, a valid contract requires an offer, acceptance, mutual assent, execution and delivery of the contract with the intent that it be mutual and binding, and consideration." For the reasons discussed above, see Part III(B)(3)(iii)(a), the Court finds Cooper has adequately pled that (1) Harvey published a statement that was (2) defamatory to Cooper. DALLAS (CN) - A federal jury rejected a videographer's $50 million claim against comedian and talk show host Steve Harvey, who refused to release video of his old comedy routines containing embarrassing material. The man used the alias Dan Cooper, but . 29, Second Am. According to TMZ, Lori Harvey was able to avoid jail time for her hit-and-run case from last year. Id. In determining whether a genuine issue exists for trial, the court will view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant. 10/1/2022 12:20 AM PT . (citing Doc. U.S. ex rel. "Rather, ambiguity exists only if the contract's 'meaning is uncertain,'" or if the language is 'susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations.'" The Court's conclusion here is guided largely by its earlier analysis in Part III(B)(3)(i), where it concluded that there was a genuine issue of material fact about whether there was a reasonable probability that Cooper and MVD would have entered into an agreement, absent Harvey's alleged interference. . in Supp. 48-51, 57-58, Seaman Dep. 29, Second Am. Life Ins. In addition to moving for summary judgment on Cooper's claims and his own affirmative defenses, Harvey asks this Court to grant summary judgment in his favor on his misappropriation counterclaim. 58, (6) attorneys' fees, id. The son of AFL games record holder Brent managed eight games for the Knights this season and worked his way into a stacked Victoria Metro line-up for the U18 National . From this, Cooper argues that Harvey has sued him in tort, but Texas law limits attorneys' fees to breach of contract awards. Thus, the Court's analysis focuses primarily on this issue. San Antonio, L.P. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ga., Inc., 995 F. Supp. 14-15, 17, Cooper Dep. 154, Harvey MSJ 22. Doc. 802 & 402). . "A contract may be the subject of an interference action even though it is unenforceable between the contracting parties. MVD CEO Ed Seaman's deposition is clear on this point: 3. R. 7.2(e). Prosecutors allege White woman charged with calling 911 on Black birdwatcher in Central Park also falsely claimed the man tried to 'assault' her By Shayna Jacobs October 14, 2020 at 10:57 a.m. EDT to [him] for use as study material." Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition 29 (1995). 154, Harvey MSJ 18. Thus, waiver does not bar his claim. According to Cooper, Harvey's venue, the Comedy House, was struggling in early 1993, so he approached Cooper to tape performances there to help promote the venue. . 'As the investigation is ongoing it would be inappropriate to comment further,' the statement reads. Answer, Defs. 09:58 GMT 28 Nov 2019 ); (2) the Agreed Order from the 1998 lawsuit, id. Doc. Innova Hosp. WALTERBORO, S.C. (WCSC) - An 18-year-old man is behind bars in connection to a deadly Saturday shooting at a restaurant chain in Walterboro. --------. See id. But, assuming he does make this argument, he cannot prevail. Spice, Spice Baby! (3) But Anderson's comments to Golland were made under qualified privilege, negating the third element of this tort and rendering Cooper's business disparagement claim inactionable. To prevail on a claim for tortious interference with an existing contract, a plaintiff must show "(1) an existing contract subject to interference, (2) a willful and intentional act of interference with the contract, (3) that proximately caused the plaintiff's injury, and (4) caused actual damages or loss." Michael J. Harvey, owner of the now-defunct Able Energy solar . "Nor is a contract ambiguous 'merely because the parties disagree on its meaning.'" All the latest news and videos from the 2022 AFL Draft, Episode two takes you behind the scenes of the match simulation against Richmond - the Roos' first hitout against AFL opposition after a gruelling summer, North Melbourne will bring members and fans closer to the club than ever before with episode two of its brand-new pre-season documentary, Inner North, North Melbourne AFL senior coach Alastair Clarkson sits down with Channel Seven's Tim Watson, North Melbourne will bring members and fans closer to the club than ever before with the latest episode of its brand-new pre-season documentary, Inner North, North Melbourne senior coach Alastair Clarkson has penned a letter to Tasmanian AFL fans as tickets go on sale for the Kangaroos' first two matches at Blundstone Arena, The AFL has outlined changes made to the AFL Tribunal Guidelines, General manager of football Todd Viney speaks to the media following Tarryn Thomas' return to the club. 165, Harvey Resp. Accordingly, Cooper is left with nothing more than his unsupported allegations and conclusions that are insufficient to support his Motion. at 13 (citing Doc. 84); (6) the Court's order granting Harvey's Motion to Extend Time to Designate Experts (Doc. It is understood the video was sent via text and then posted to a social media app. See Doc. 2014) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). See Fed. . The First Basis for Independently Tortious Conduct: Business Disparagement. Ctr. 11. [hereinafter Harvey Reply]. View the profiles of professionals named "Harvey Cooper" on LinkedIn. Other than by operation of law. To choose one version over the other would require a credibility determination by the Court which is prohibited at the summary judgment phase. Doc. 01-91-00840-CV, 1994 WL 525819, at *5 (Tex. Env't Tex. Id. . 151, Cooper MSJ 14. But Cooper makes clear that he is not suing Harvey for anything that occurred before 2013. "'Independently tortious' does 'not mean that the plaintiff must be able to prove an independent tort'"; rather, a plaintiff must "prove that the defendant's conduct would be actionable under a recognized tort." . 16.501. . Add the Kangaroos' AFL, AFLW, VFL and VFLW fixtures to your calendar. Get to know North Melbourne's fourth and final selection of the 2022 AFL Draft, Cooper Harvey. Civ. Inj. Tex. And when Harvey evidently violated the 1998 restraining order, Cooper did not sue. agreed to release any rights to the footage videoed at his comedy club," since, again, "[i]t was always [his] intent . . For this reason, there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Harvey signed the document, and thus whether there is actually a valid, enforceable contract. 2015)). Thus, there is no claim for Harvey to move for summary judgment upon, and the Court finds his motion MOOT on this point. 60-61, Seaman Dep. . Harvey says Cooper cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability, under the attending circumstances, that he would have entered into an agreement with MVD but for Harvey's alleged interference. Brett Lackey For Daily Mail Australia to Pl. Rather, he entered into a temporary restraining order, in which he agreed not to: Harvey objects to the Court considering this evidence based on the fact that it is hearsay, irrelevant, and unduly prejudicial. 2006, pet. 1, Video Contract). 162, Cooper Resp. for Injunctive Relief 5). See Doc. 22. Cooper's response is somewhat cursoryhe simply notes that Harvey is "choosing to ignore the March 20, 1993 Video Contract, and the Original Petition and the Agreed Order in Harvey v. 2, Aff. I can't really answer that fairly. Current Stock High quality used cars at competitive prices Harvey Cooper is a car dealership based in Ripon, North Yorkshire, which specialises in high-quality used vehicles from the most sought-after manufacturers. 's Objs. As a preliminary matterand contrary to Cooper's assertionthe Court finds that the contract is ambiguous. In Texas, the elements of a breach of contract claim are: (1) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract; (2) performance or tendered performance on the part of the plaintiff; (3) breach on the part of the defendant; and (4) damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's breach. Harvey alleges that Cooper's breach of contract claim fails for two reasons. v. Fin. Doc. See Impala African Safaris, LLC v. Dall. In one of the game's final passages of play, the 18-year-old rose high in the goalsquare, claimed an important mark, and kicked the sealer for his side. See Doc. Doc. Element 2: Conscious desire to prevent a relationship or knowledge that conduct was certain/substantially certain to result in interference. 24:24-25:23. (citing Doc. 46-47; (2) tortious interference with contractual relations, id. Sept. 9, 2014) (dismissing a tortious interference with prospective relations claim where the harm to the plaintiff, if any, would not occur until after the complaint, amended complaint, and opposition to the motion to dismiss had been filed). A talented teenage athlete and son of an AFL great has been arrested after allegedly 'digitally raping' a 14-year-old girl who was passed out at a party. Nor does Harvey point to any evidence to suggest otherwise. 151, Cooper MSJ. However, Defendant's argument is not convincing as to Plaintiffs' claims regarding their relationship with, A plaintiff must "show more than speculation or the bare possibility that [it] would have entered into a. Id. Last up is Harvey's statute of frauds affirmative defensethat Texas law requires he and Cooper's purported agreement be memorialized by a writingwhich he moves for summary judgment upon, based on the fact that Cooper cannot produce such a writing. Victoria Police confirmed to Daily Mail Australia they are investigating after a video recorded on October 12 was posted online. Rather, Cooper seems to offer the agreement only to demonstrate that Harvey signed the 1993 Video Contract and later breached it. 's Objs. A man is under arrest after police discovered his girlfriend's body in the kitchen refrigerator of their Rhode Island apartment. According to him, this agreement is memorialized in a "signed . The Court cannot say whether Harvey's alleged interference proximately caused Cooper's damages. He prides himself on understanding the corporate culture of the client, which enables him to offer practical options and advice. Standing at 180cm, Harvey's noteworthy, contested marking ability is a key part of what makes him such an intriguing prospect. 130:8-10). tortious interference with prospective business relations." 62); (2) Cooper's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. , updated See generally Doc. 152-1, Cooper App. . v. Cont'l Nat. 1); (2) Harvey's original (and now moot) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. The laches inquiry is fact-intensive, and is often inappropriately disposed of on summary judgment. This Court does not reach the substance of Cooper's arguments, however, because Cooper fails to comply with the Court's procedural requirements for filing summary judgment motions, namely that parties must cite to specific pages of their appendices to support their assertions. 's Objs. . J. Evid. (1) "It is understood [Cooper] is the exclusive videographer, and other taking videos [sic] will be permitted at our discretion" and (2) "[Cooper] reserves the right to use the original tape and/or reproductions for display, publication or other purposes. Super-Sparkly Safety Stuff, LLC v. Skyline U.S., Inc. Unless the contract is illegal or otherwise against public policy, the defendant may not raise unenforceability of the contract as a defense." 152-1, Cooper App. Cooper, when asked, "Have you ever negotiated a contract where somebody was giving up their copyrightable works," did indeed reply, "Not to my knowledge." 136, Order). 2d 587, 609 (N.D. Tex. But this amount was lower than Cooper's customary rate, in part because Cooper knew that he would own the rights to the potentially-lucrative videotapes he created. 162, Harvey App. 2011). Though he characterizes this as a misappropriation counterclaim in his summary judgment motion. A 180cm midfielder/forward, Cooper Harvey possesses clean hands around the contest and has a sturdy frame that allows him to bustle his way into traffic and extract the football. "Waiver . 2009) (citations omitted). This is a long-standing dispute over who owns the rights to a series of stand-up comedy performance videos taken at a comedy club over twenty years ago. To support this position, Harvey points to his own affidavit, where (1) he indicated that MVD initiated all contact with him and his representatives, who, in response, only notified MVD that they had no relationship with Cooper, nothing more, id. R. Civ. at 63-65, Exs. of Def. 's Second Set of Interrogs. Meadows v. Hartford Life Ins. 's Objs. 156, Harvey App. My son Cooper is playing football now. Cooper, however, refutes ambiguity, and instead suggests Harvey did convey rights in the videotapes to him, and therefore breached their contract when he contacted YouTube and MVD. 15, 2013), rep't and rec. 127). 2004) (unpublished) (per curiam). Doc. In context, then, it is entirely plausible that Cooper understood the question about copyrightable works as asking whether he had ever negotiated a contract, other than the one in question, in which someone gave up their copyrightable works. Accordingly, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to this element. 2001)). 162, Cooper Resp. CHICAGO (CBS) -- Two pregnant women accused a South Suburban Harvey police officer of serious misconduct, even beating one of them and causing her to . Next, Harvey says that Cooper cannot prove breach because he never granted Cooper ownership rights to the tapes, meaning he could not have breached the contract. Because Cooper is a private citizen, the third and last element the Court must examine is whether Harvey acted with negligence regarding the truth of his statement. 154, Harvey MSJ 17. (citing Doc. R. Evid. "Under Texas law, [o]ne who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy." . J. Prac. 's Objs. Doc. 3, 6-7. 2, Cooper Aff. Doc. Harvey also moved for summary judgment, Cooper responded, and Harvey replied. Code 26.01. But the writings that Cooper has presentedi.e. See N.D. Tex. 's Objs. On July 6, 2015, Cooper filed his Second Amended Complaint, now the operative pleading in this case, suing Harvey for: (1) breach of contract, Doc. Under Texas law, a defamation claim requires the plaintiff to prove the defendant: "(1) published a statement; (2) that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff; (3) while acting with . iii.. This portion is not relevant to the Court's analysis here, however, so it need not make an evidentiary finding. at 3-4. Answers to Pl. See Korndorffer v. Autumn Hills Convalescent Ctrs., Inc., No. Indeed, the Court already denied Cooper's declaratory judgment request. 123); and (8) Harvey's supporting brief for his original (and now moot) partial summary judgment motion (Doc. If true, Cooper's allegationthat Harvey signed the contract and therefore conveyed rights in the tapes to Cooperwould establish that Harvey "knew or should have known" that his "defamatory statement"that Cooper did not own the tapeswas false. . 165, Def. 's First Am. Tex. 's Req. Here, Harvey has not prevailed on his misappropriation claim, therefore he cannot demonstrate the requisite success on the merits to warrant a permanent injunction. See 17 U.S.C. R. Evid. Like a true Shinboner, Harvey isnt afraid to put his head over the ball and his body on the line. Harvey marshals the same argument to urge this Court to grant summary judgment in his favor upon Cooper's request for a permanent injunction to prevent Harvey from further infringing upon his alleged copyrights. 11, 16; id. Father-son selection Cooper Harvey and North Melbourne great Brent face the media after the 2022 AFL Draft, North Media chats with Cooper Harvey and dad Brent after the Kangaroo great's son was drafted to the club, North Media takes you inside the Harvey household as Cooper, the son of League games record holder Brent, became an AFL player, AFL games record holder Brent Harvey discusses son Cooper at the Kangaroos' 2016 Father-Son Day, Meet pick No.56 Cooper Harvey from the Northern Knights, Check out the highlights of 2022 NAB AFL Draft prospect Cooper Harvey, Cooper Harvey, the son of AFL games record-holder Brent, wants to create his own legacy at the top level, Get to know North's newest father-son selection, The newest Harvey has officially arrived at Arden Street after North Melbourne used pick No.56 in the 2022 AFL Draft on Cooper, the son of Kangaroos great, Brent, North Melbourne will nominate Cooper Harvey as a father-son prospect in the upcoming AFL Draft, You are currently logged in to Club Exclusive access. "[T]he justification defense can be based on the exercise of either (1) one's own legal rights or (2) a good-faith claim to a colorable legal right, even though that claim ultimately proves to be mistaken." 62-2, Orig. 2006)). 10:36 GMT 28 Nov 2019. Indus. N. Cypress Med. Harvey, for his part, does not mention the YouTube incident in his Motion, but concedes that Anderson spoke to MVD's counsel, Michael Golland ("Golland")though Harvey insists Anderson never threatened legal action. 162, Cooper Resp. in negotiating any type of entertainment contracts." The Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities Rating Scale (HQRS), sometimes Cooper-Harper Rating Scale (CHRS), is a pilot rating scale, a set of criteria used by test pilots and flight test engineers to evaluate the handling qualities of aircraft while performing a task during a flight test.The scale ranges from 1 to 10, with 1 indicating the best handling characteristics and 10 the worst. 802, 402 & 403). I know that I didn't feel good about things. 162, Harvey App. Harvey's purported transfer of copyrights would, of course, occur instantaneously. (citing Doc. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). AFL Draft 3 months ago. & Rem. Instead, section 16.501 applies. See Fed. 223:22-224:10). Thus, if Cooper wants to prove that Harvey conveyed copyrights, he must come up with another agreement, in writing, to show that this occurred. Having effectively put forth no evidence to support summary judgment on any of his claimsfor which he clearly bears the burdenthis Court DENIES Cooper's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in its entirety. In support, he points to Cooper's deposition, where he says Cooper admits that he did not try to commercially exploit the videos between 1994 and 1997. 66-93, Expert Rep't of Scott A. Varnes, CPA, CFF, CGMA, Dec. 3, 2015). 154, Harvey MSJ 24. Moving on, the Court examines whether summary judgment is appropriate on Cooper's request for a declaratory judgment. 152-3, Cooper App. The Court addresses the parties' evidentiary objections in footnotes throughout its order. that discuss that [Cooper] has the right to commercially exploit Harvey's rights through selling and distribution." v. Fin. Brett Lackey For Daily Mail Australia, Student who was a victim of revenge porn when she was just 14 details her devastation after her naked pictures were published online as she launches march to end the cruel practice, 'I felt imprisoned for years': YouTuber who was victim of revenge porn reveals the impact it had on her mental health (and how fans turned their backs on her when the video leaked), Pupils take to TikTok as they stage protest at Shenfield High School, Huge urgent police search for missing baby of Constance Marten, King Charles hosts von der Leyen at Windsor Castle, Gabor Mat: No Jewish state without oppressing local population, Putin spy plane before being 'destroyed by pro-Ukraine Belarus group', Amplified jet stream could lead to 'disruptive snow in places', Shocking video shows machete fight playing out in broad daylight, Dashcam captures moment two cars collide on a roundabout, Putin orders intelligence service to find 'scum' who oppose him, Moment supermarket cashier is attacked at work in New York, Police search allotment sheds for Constance Marten's missing baby, Dramatic moment police cars chase driver moments before smash. Search. Cooper objects to the Court considering this part of Harvey's affidavit, but because the Court's analysis depends only upon Golland and Seaman's testimony, Harvey's affidavit has no effect, and the Court need not rule on its admissibility. Harvey objects to the Court considering the purported contract because it is (1) hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 802 and (2) unduly prejudicial under Rule 403. Harvey objects to the Court considering this, however, because his answer constitutes an unsworn pleading, and is therefore not competent summary judgment evidence. 7. The question before the Court is whether Harvey has demonstrated that no reasonable jury, looking at the evidence, could find Cooper suffered damages because of Harvey's purported interference. Specifically, Harvey argues that Cooper has not pointed to an actual contract with which Harvey could have interfered. Id. Funeral info: 708-383-3191. 154, Harvey MSJ 13-20. Cooper, for his part, argues that Harveythrough his statements to third parties that Cooper has no right to sell or distribute the videoseffectively "accuse[d] [him] of attempting to defraud [such] pe[ople]. Thus, the Court need not determine whether Harvey's affidavit is admissible. 42 (citing Doc. . If Harvey can show no reasonable jury could find for Cooper on one of these elements, then Cooper, by definition, cannot establish his claim, and the Court must rule in Harvey's favor. Civ. 218). 14); (4) his own Second Motion to Compel (Doc. Harvey's account, not surprisingly, is different. So, you know, typically if I don't feel good about something, I don't do it. See Flying Crown Land Grp. Original videotapes remain the exclusive property of [Cooper]." 152-2, Cooper App. The cab owner, William Bruso, was out gathering supplies in preparation for the category 4 hurricane, and when he returned to his car, there huddled a frightened bird on his passenger seat. 136, Order 3. Therefore, this defense fails, and the Court moves on to the next element of the claim. He used cash to buy a one-way ticket on . 204(a); 17 U.S.C. 19 (citing Doc. The Restatement shields an individual from liability on a misappropriation claim if he can show an agreement demonstrating that the owner of the likeness consented to its use. & Rem. Partial Summ. Mar. Doc. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 48-51; and (3) tortious interference with prospective business relations. A former executive director of the Harvey Park District, already facing charges of stealing more than $100,000 from the Cook County assessor's office, has been accused of swiping money from the . Indeed, examining Harvey's interrogatory response, the Court sees nothing to suggest he suffered undue hardship. of Ed Seaman 24:24-25:23 [hereinafter Seaman Dep.]). 45 (citing Doc. 59:7-9), as well as (2) the actual contract, which, according to Harvey, merely indicates Cooper would "record 'promotional material' that would be used 'for continuous play before, during, and after show performances,'" and contains "no provisions . To prevail on his Motion for Summary Judgment on Cooper's breach claim, Harvey need only show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact in his favor, as to one of the four elements. 154, Harvey MSJ 12-13 (citing Tex. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Watkins v. Cornell Cos., Inc., 3:11-CV-0260, 2013 WL 1914713, at *7 (N.D. Tex. at 35-38, Cooper Dep. Thus, Harvey denies that he ever entered into the Video Contractor made any other agreement with Cooper, oral or writtengiving him the rights he now claims. Thus, the only relevant evidence he presents is Seaman's deposition excerpts, discussed earlier, where Seaman indicated Anderson's comments were a "contributing factor" to his decision to not pursue an agreement with Cooper. . "To prove special damages, a plaintiff must provide evidence of direct, pecuniary loss attributable to the false communications of the defendants." 801(d)(2). i. Texas's four-year statute of limitations on breach of contract claims. The Court is not sure what this means, so it cannot consider this argument. instrument called the Video Contract" ("Video Contract"). Cooper points to Harvey's Original Petition and Application for Injunctive Relief in the 1998 lawsuit to support his argument. 's Resp. 2016) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). [paid][him] to prepare promotional materials from the presentations"as demonstrated by the "copy of the contract" Harvey indicated was "attached [to his answer in that suit] as exhibit 'A.'" Code 38.001(8), which, according to Cooper, permits attorneys' fees for oral contract claims, inapplicable here; (2) DP Solutions, Inc. v. Rollins, Inc., 353 F.3d 421, 433 (5th Cir. Bryant said they had consensual sex. As to Harvey's Motion, the Court: CIVIL ACTION NO. Coinmach Corp. v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp., 417 S.W.3d 909, 923 (Tex. to Pl. The Court does not consider Cooper's affidavit, nor need it do so to determine that summary judgment is inappropriate here. Harvey must establish each element of his statute of frauds affirmative defense in order to prevail. 161, Pl. Harvey Cooper Cars Limited is an Appointed Representative of AutoProtect (MBI) Limited for Insurance Distribution activities. Waiver is a question of law when the facts that are relevant to a party's relinquishment of an existing right are undisputed." Harvey objects to the Court considering portions of Cooper's affidavit, as well as his own Original Petition and Application for Injunctive Relief from the 1998 lawsuit. Prosecutors seemed to have a strong case. Cooper offers a number of arguments for why the Court cannot consider this evidence. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The 2019 Writing Prize will be given to a student who has written an exemplary essay or research paper on an American subject . Southern District of Mississippi (601) 965-4480. Id. 156, Harvey App. 154, Harvey MSJ 22-23. 1-2 [hereinafter Harvey Resp.]. Doc. 1996)). The alleged assault was filmed and posted on a social media app, police say. Doc. Id. Id. See Part III(B)(3)(i). 1, Video Contract. Nowhere does he cite his appendix. Doc. 154, Harvey MSJ 20 (citing Doc. Dubbed the "First Lady of Radio," Harvey's sixty year career in radio transformed American radio and television news format. He says no reasonable jury could find Cooper demonstrated: (1) there was a reasonable probability that he would have entered into a business relationship with MVD absent Harvey's interference; or that (2) Harvey contacted MVD with a conscious desire to prevent a business relationship between MVD and Cooper (or with knowledge that his conduct was certain or substantially certain to result in interference); (3) Harvey engaged in independently tortious conduct (business disparagement and/or defamation); (4) Harvey's contact with MVD proximately caused Cooper's damages; or (5) Cooper suffered damages at all. 1998) (citation omitted). Harvey's responses are admissible as a party-admission. 170, Def. 26 (citing Doc. Before the Court are (1) Plaintiff Joseph Cooper's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. It is somewhat ambiguous as to whether Harvey argues that no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding damages. Orig. 1, Video Contract. . JOSEPH COOPER, Plaintiff, v. BRODERICK STEVEN "STEVE" HARVEY, Defendant. . . 13, Cooper Dep. 156-1, Harvey App. at 15 (citing Doc. Cooper cannot do that. 7, Aff. If Harvey promised to convey copyrights to Cooper, the statute of frauds would cover this promise. Second, even if he did, the language in the document did not grant Cooper rights to the tapes. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. Through his eight games with the Northern Knights in the NAB League this season, Harvey managed 20.1 disposals and three inside-50s per game and in his final three matches he averaged 25.7 disposals, 11.3 contested possessions, six clearances and 0.7 goals.