From the Department of Dubious Defenses: Have you seen that Seinfeld episode?
Jerry Seinfeld is stuck in a bit of a legal mess (and it’s not the first time). He and his wife have been sued by cookbook author Missy Chase Lapine, who claims that Jessica Seinfeld plagiarized her recipes for the best-selling Deceptively Delicious Cookbook. Deceptive, indeed.
Then Jerry went on David Letterman and made jokes about Ms. Lapine, comparing her “to ‘wackos’ who had stalked Letterman. Seinfeld added that the ‘hysterical’ Lapine was a ‘three-name woman’ and ‘if you read history, many of the three-name people do become assassins.’” So then Lapine hit him with a slander lawsuit. It’s a Seinfeld episode gone horribly, horribly wrong. Kind of like the last, really unfunny episode of the series, which also took place in a courtroom.
Now, Jerry is seeking summary judgment claiming that “his remarks were consistent with a ‘recurring theme’ of his comedy and not slanderous.” Here’s an excerpt from the motion from Smoking Gun:
So his defense is along the lines of, “Have you seen that one episode of Seinfeld?” Seinfeld references usually work among friends, but will they do the trick in the Southern District of New York?
Cosmo Kramer, Exhibit A [The Smoking Gun]
Earlier: Rich Celebrities Trying To Stiff Their Broker: “What’s the Deal With That?”
(52) 
Comments
FIRST - SUCK IT
LONG LIVE THE UNIVERSITY OF PENN STATE
Second. Hofstra 5L
pretzels
That last episode of Seinfeld still haunts me. It's so f-ing depressing when they replay it on TV.
I was disappointed with the final episode when it first ran, but I have to say that it grew on me later. One might argue that it is "real and spectacular."
Women with three names, like the dead, cannot be defamed.
Explain to me again, why is Seinfeld funny?
I actually thought Lapine's case against Jerry's wife was pretty strong.
Seinfeld should have indefinite immunity; his value to society is too great.
8 - Lapine's case against Mrs. Seinfeld is not strong. Please take a copyright class.
Laid off lawyer.
How did this get past the pleadings. Seinfeld should have been able to 12(b)(6) her ass. This isn't slander at all, as a matter of law.
Did anyone read the actual motion though...it lists "AKA the Sneaky Chef" as the plaintiff.
What exactly qualifies one as a "sneaky" chef?
I'm out.
10--was 8 referring to the copyright case or the slander case?
Neither of which is strong, but if 8 was referring to the slander case, I think a copyright class would be of marginal use in assessing the viability of that claim.
Common sense would, but not copyright.
what's up with the back-to-back "For example" in paragraph 12? can't they get an associate to proofread the thing.
these pretzels are making me thirsty
That post must have been referring to the copyright case, because it mentioned the case against Jerry's wife. The action against her is for infringement of copyright and trademark (also weak). The claim against Jerry is for slander.
I think that the claims against the two are only loosely connected. I don't even know if she'd get Jerry into federal court if she weren't piggybacking the slander claim with the claims against Mrs. Seinfeld.
Laid off lawyer
No slander for you bubble girl.
14 - Good catch on the "for example." The first one could have been omitted.
Laid off lawyer.
Kash post = more interesting than those posted by MysTTTal.
14- def. Also used the phrase "mock the litigious nature of society twice in a row."
More substantively, how is comparing someone to the murderer of great civic leaders mocking the litigious nature of society? Seems more like, I dunno, slander.
Last Seinfeld episode is great. Perfect capstone to the series, and perfect statement on the series itself. Sure, it's not as purely FUNNY as any given weekly installment was. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I'm sorry Ms. Lapine, no soup for you!
Agree with 11, a 12(Bee)(6) motion should clear this right up.
This motion is really poorly written.
You're probably right that the case is legally weak, but I do think what Ms. Seinfeld did is pretty sketchy. There is no way that work's her own. Mr. Seinfeld is an absolute asshole, in any event.
Hellooo Neuman!
So did the first year associates working on this case get to bill watching episode after episode of old Seinfeld episodes to find the ones with a litigious theme?
Or did that geek living with his mom in jersey who spent the last five years memorizing every line from every episode get called in as a consultant?
So Seinfeld's defense is "I'm Seinfeld"? Kind of like "I'm Keith Hernandez"? OJ should have used this one - I'm OJ and my defense is I commit crimes, everybody knows this and should accept it.
This is case is outrageous, egregious, preposterous.
28: Good point.
My lawyer, Art Vandelay, says it is legally impossible for Lapine to prevail. He suggests that she may want to publish a coffee table book—that actually turns into a miniature coffee table.
What is a Hofstra??
31 = NOT (emphasis) FUNNY
32 - That joke is older than your mom's snatch.
You put the second for example in? Who told you to put the second for example in? I didn't tell you to put the second for example in. Why'd you put the second for example in?
That is one of the worst drafted pleadings I have seen. Paragraph 12 begins the first two sentences with "for example" and the first sentence merely repeats paragraph 11. Can' he afford real lawyers like Jackie Chiles?
36: Maybe she can at least find out if Bob Sacamono is available.
Missy Chase Lapine: Jackie. I mean, do we have a chance?
Jackie Chiles: Do we have a chance? You get me one person who has eaten chocolate cake with beets on that jury, you gonna walk outta there a rich woman.
Simon Benet Robins Oppenheimer Taft Simon Benet Robins Oppenheimer Taft Simon Benet Robins Oppenheimer Taft
seinfeld used frank costanza's lawyer for this one.
On the original copyright infringement, plagiarism is not the same as infringement, and for instructional things like recipes it becomes even more complicated (might there have been a moral rights infringement re authorship rather than classic copyright infringement?). I'm not familiar enough with the original case to opine like poster 10, though I am otherwise qualified (both educationally and as a former IP lawyer); but regardless of whether or not there was infringement, Seinfeld and/or his wife behaved very badly.
Similarly with the alleged slander; I am not familiar enough with defamation actions and defences to opine substantively (and is the cookbook author a "public figure"?), but whether or not it was slander, it was still atrocious behaviour, and on that level I'm glad Seinfeld's being sued.
14 - it was proofread by mysTTTal
john wilkes booth
lee harvey oswald
sara jane moore
mark david chapman
...?
Simon Benet Robins Oppenheimer Taft Simon Benet Robins Oppenheimer Taft Simon Benet Robins Oppenheimer Taft
John David Stutts (Most Likely to Kill Buckwheat)
Personally, I liked that in a "statement of Jerry Seinfeld", Jerry Seinfeld didn't even sign it. Nothing says these are unassailable facts like a lawyers signature.
Kash to EIC!
That's some terrible drafting, btw. I don't know who his lawyers are, but form drafting doesn't have to use "for example" eight times in a row, or be repetitive.
43, we only know their middle names b/c they succeeded. If Ronald Regan had died, I'm pretty sure we'd know John Hinckley's middle name.
-Mel Gibson
43 -- James Earl Ray
James Earl Jones.
Ever heard of confirmation bias, 43?
Carl Wayne Bishop, let's give him the gas! On second thought, I say we fry his ass!