Andrew Gilden and Adult Entertainment Contracts Revisited

August 15, 2008 in Freak Show Trial by Freak-Show-Trial

If a breach were found, awarding compensatory damages would require the court to undertake an analysis of the commercial value of Lockhart’s sexual performance, and granting specific performance would in all certainty betray the public policy against compelling “personal services.” In addition, the specter of furthering prostitution looms over any favorable treatment of the plaintiff’s contract claim, and enforceability of this contract is highly problematic Andrew Gilden, Sexual (Re)consideration: Adult Entertainment Contracts and the Problem of Enforceability

Back when Bryan Kocis turned up extra crispy, the “going given” with all of the people commenting on blogs about the Cobra Video/Lockhart Lawsuit was that Bryan Kocis had a strong case against Sean Lockhart for breach of contract and that Kocis/Cobra Video would have won the lawsuit had Sean Lockhart, Grant Roy et. al. not settled. Of course, all of the retards claiming that Kocis was destined to win a lawsuit he filed in FEDERAL COURT had probably never set foot in Federal Court.

The fucking chances of a Federal Judge ruling in favor of a fucking Bryan Kocis on any fucking thing were about equal to the chances of me eating out Barbara Walter’s Puzzy.

If Sean Lockhart and Grant Roy had had a lawyer expert on Federal Litigation, they would have responded to Kocis’ lawsuit with A Motion To Dismiss in which they would have made a point to Inadvertently mention that Kocis was caught having sex with a 15 year old boy, that Kocis was a gay bareback porn producer and, that Lockhart was 17 years old when the contract in dispute was signed. Bryan Kocis’ idiot ass lawsuit should have lasted all of about 30 seconds in Federal Court.

The ultimate proof that Bryan Kocis himself knew that his lawsuit was bullshit lies with Kocis apparently creating A Shell Company in Delaware through which Kocis filed the lawsuit. In theory, a shell company in Delaware as the plaintiff in the federal lawsuit would have provided Kocis with some degree of asset protection should / when the Federal Judge ruled against Kocis (i.e., the court would have had to “pierce the corporate veil” of the Delaware LLC in order to get at Kocis’ personal assets.

I’ve said this before and I will keep saying it: “it took TALENT for Lockhart and Roy to actually NOT get a lawsuit filed by a gay pornographer in Federal Court dismissed”. In fact, it is so fucking STRANGE that Kocis’ lawsuit did NOT get dismissed, one has to seriously wonder if maybe Lockhart and Roy didn’t want Kocis’ lawsuit dismissed (like maybe Lockhart and Roy viewed settlement of the lawsuit as a good alibi to Kocis’ murder).

Here is the “Cobra Video / Sean Lockhart” related text from Andrew Gilden’s Sexual (Re)consideration: Adult Entertainment Contracts and the Problem of Enforceability.

Nevertheless, litigation over contractual disputes is beginning to arise, and courts must inevitably address the difficult question of enforceability. A recent lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California both directly presents this question before the court and illustrates the tensions inherent in such inquiry. Cobra Video, a gay adult entertainment company, brought suit against a former exclusive performer alleging breach of contract as one of its claims (Note 31). In his answer, defendant Sean Lockhart claims as an affirmative defense that the contract in question is unenforceable due to public policy (Note 32). Although what stage of litigation this suit will reach is unclear, it provides an excellent starting point for addressing the problems and pitfalls of enforceability. The facts of the case are such that even the most liberal of courts would, at the very least, take pause at enforcing the terms of the contract. The contract provided that Lockhart, who was only 17 years old at the time (Note 33), would perform in six “action video scenes” (Note 34) and one “non-action” video scene in consideration for a used Volkswagen Jetta, a set of tires and rims, transportation costs, car insurance, and gas money (Note 35). In a legal system that has almost universally found a strong public policy against rewarding prostitution or quasi-prostitution, these terms are quite likely to elicit at least a hesitancy to enforce. If a breach were found, awarding compensatory damages would require the court to undertake an analysis of the commercial value of Lockhart’s sexual performance (Note 36), and granting specific performance would in all certainty betray the public policy against compelling “personal services.” (Note 37). In addition, the specter of furthering prostitution looms over any favorable treatment of the plaintiff’s contract claim, and enforceability of this contract is highly problematic.

Notes
31. Complaint at 12, Cobra Video, LLC v. Lockhart, No. 06cv0293-J(LSP) (S.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2006).
32. Answer at 10, Cobra Video, No. 06cv0293-J(LSP) (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2006).
33. See Complaint, supra note 31, at 6 (alleging that Lockhart had provided false identification); Counterclaim, supra note 25, at 7 (admitting that Lockhart had been underage). While Lockhart’s minor status may ultimately be dispositive in this case, it is tangential to the issue of contract enforceability squarely addressed in Lockhart’s answer. See Answer, supra note 32, at 9.
34. Complaint, supra note 31, at Ex. 3. Although “action video scenes” are not specifically defined in the contract, Lockhart’s answer avers that the contract was for the “performance of sexual services” with the president of Cobra Video, and for “sexual acts to be filmed” at his direction. Answer, supra note 32, at 9–10. Therefore, for the purposes of this Note, “action scenes” will be presumed to mean scenes involving sexual acts with another person.
35. Complaint, supra note 31, at Ex. 3.
36. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 347 (1981) (general guidelines on measuring compensatory damages)
37. See id. § 367 cmts. b, c (prohibiting the specific performance of a promise to render “personal services” as an application of the general rule against compulsion in contravention of public policy, and identifying actors as “[a]mong the parties that have been held to render what are personal services within the rule”)
Andrew Gilden, Sexual (Re)consideration: Adult Entertainment Contracts and the Problem of Enforceability