## Facts

- A film-production entity contracted with Paris Hilton and Paris Hilton Entertainment, Inc. for Hilton to act in a feature film and provide specified promotional services tied to theatrical and DVD release.
- Michael I. Goldberg, acting as court-appointed receiver for affiliated entities, sued as assignee of the production entity’s contractual claims.
- The film had a limited theatrical run and did not generate profit; the plaintiff sought to recover approximately \$8.3 million in production costs, including a \$1 million payment to Hilton for executive producer services.
- The plaintiff alleged Hilton breached the agreement by failing to participate in multiple identified promotional opportunities in late 2006 and early 2007, including proposed international interviews/appearances and U.S. late-night television.
- Hilton disputed breach and causation, contending she performed adequately and that the film’s commercial failure resulted from other factors such as marketing decisions and producer inexperience.
- The court addressed the dispute through pretrial motion practice, a bifurcated approach to liability and damages theories, and a bench trial focused on breach and the legally available measures of recovery.

## Issues

1. Whether disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on alleged breach of the promotion obligations and on the validity of the assignment to the receiver.
2. Whether the plaintiff could recover film production costs as reliance (or consequential) damages for an alleged failure to promote.
3. Whether restitution (including possible recovery of amounts paid to Hilton) remained a viable remedy if reliance damages were unavailable.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ summary-judgment motions, concluding the record presented triable disputes regarding breach of the promotional obligations and the assignment.
- The court precluded reliance damages as a matter of law, rejecting recovery of the full production budget as too speculative and insufficiently attributable to the alleged promotional shortfall.
- The court directed further briefing on restitution damages, signaling that a narrower, payment-focused remedy (such as recovery of some or all compensation paid for unperformed services) might be considered.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where the evidentiary record presents genuine disputes of material fact on breach and related defenses (including assignment-based standing).
- Contract damages must be proven with reasonable certainty; damages based on uncertain, counterfactual revenue performance in a high-risk market may be deemed too speculative.
- Reliance (or consequential) damages that effectively shift an entire project’s cost to the alleged breaching party may be barred where causation and the magnitude of loss cannot be reliably tied to the breach.
- When expectation or reliance recovery is unavailable or uncertain, restitution may be an alternative remedy aimed at returning payments for benefits conferred where the defendant’s performance is alleged to be incomplete.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the contract claim to proceed past summary judgment but rejected an attempt to recoup the film’s entire production costs as speculative reliance damages, instead requiring focused briefing on whether restitution of amounts paid to Hilton could be awarded based on the alleged failure to perform promotional obligations.


Goldberg v. Paris Hilton Ent., Inc., No. 08-22261-CIV, 2009 WL 2525482 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2009)