Baker Entertainment v. Emmett Furla Oasis Films CA2/7

Filed 10/28/24 Baker Entertainment v. Emmett Furla Oasis Films CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

BAKER ENTERTAINMENT, LLC B323388 et al., (Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Respondents, Super. Ct. No. SC127979)

v.

EMMETT FURLA OASIS FILMS, LLC et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig D. Karlan, Judge. Dismissed as moot. Hamrick & Evans, Martin J. Barab, A. Raymond Hamrick, III, and Kenneth A. Kotarski for Defendants and Appellants. No appearance for Plaintiffs and Respondents. _______________________

George Furla, Emmett Furla Oasis Films, LLC (EFO), Georgia Film Fund Twenty-Nine, LLC and Higrowth (Inconceivable), LLC appeal from an amended judgment adding Furla and Randall Emmett1 as alter egos to a judgment in favor of Baker Entertainment, LLC and Baker Film Fund, LLC. Furla contends the trial court failed to “engage in a legally sufficient analysis [sic], or no analysis whatsoever” showing there existed a unity of interest between Furla and EFO, or that an inequitable result would follow from treating EFO as a separate entity. After this appeal commenced, an acknowledgment of full satisfaction of the judgment was filed as to EFO, and then another as to Furla. We conclude Furla’s appeal is moot and dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Motion Picture Agreement2 In 2015, Baker Entertainment Group (Baker) and EFO entered into an agreement to co-finance and co-produce two feature-length motion pictures titled “Inconceivable” and “Fate.” However, according to Baker, after it provided the financing for the first film, EFO failed to perform its obligations under the agreement. In 2017, Baker filed a civil action against EFO asserting causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. Baker also filed a demand for arbitration with