## Facts

- Sophia Loren and a corporation holding exclusive rights to her services contracted with producers/distributors of the motion picture *El Cid* regarding her credit billing.
- A written agreement dated Oct. 14, 1960 required that, in all paid advertising, Loren receive second-star billing above the title, with her name in the same line, size, and prominence as Charlton Heston’s, and in type and size matching the film title.
- The film opened at a New York City theater on Dec. 14, 1961 and was drawing capacity audiences.
- Plaintiffs alleged the theater’s illuminated upright signs and related advertising placed Loren’s name below Heston’s and used type smaller or different from the title, contrary to the agreement.
- Plaintiffs claimed that noncompliant billing would cause loss of prestige and professional harm and sought an order compelling defendants to change advertising and signage during the lawsuit.
- Defendants disputed breach and asserted compliance, relying in part on later contractual language and contesting plaintiffs’ interpretation of the billing obligation.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs showed a clear right to interim equitable relief enforcing the asserted billing provision during the pendency of the action.
2. Whether a preliminary injunction was appropriate where the requested order would require affirmative changes to existing advertising and effectively grant much of the ultimate relief before trial.
3. Whether plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable injury that could not be adequately addressed by a prompt final adjudication and remedies after trial.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court concluded plaintiffs had not established a sufficiently clear contractual entitlement on the motion record to justify extraordinary interim relief.
- The court found the requested injunction would go beyond preserving the status quo by mandating immediate alterations to ongoing signage and advertising.
- The court directed that the case be set for an early trial, placing it at the head of the General Equity Calendar.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and generally requires a clear showing of entitlement and irreparable harm pending trial.
- Courts are reluctant to grant a preliminary injunction that is effectively mandatory in nature and compels affirmative changes rather than maintaining existing conditions.
- When substantial contractual interpretation disputes remain, interim relief that would substantially award final relief is generally disfavored, and expedition to trial may be the proper course.

## Conclusion

The court refused to compel immediate changes to film advertising to enforce disputed star-billing terms because plaintiffs’ right and need for mandatory interim relief were not clearly established; instead, it ordered an expedited trial to resolve the contractual dispute on the merits.


Loren v. Samuel Bronston Prods., Inc., 32 Misc. 2d 602, 224 N.Y.S.2d 959 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1962)