## Facts

- Rob Fusari ran a music production company and was searching for “the female equivalent to the lead singer of The Strokes” to sign and develop.
- Fusari told Wendy Starland that if she found a singer Fusari approved, the two would work together to write songs and produce an album for the singer.
- Fusari also told Starland they would split revenues from the artist project 50/50.
- Starland located and introduced Stefani Germanotta, later known as Lady Gaga, and Fusari signed and worked with her.
- After Lady Gaga’s career generated substantial revenues connected to Fusari’s project, Starland contended Fusari never paid her the promised share.
- Starland sued Fusari and Rob Fusari Productions, LLC, asserting claims including breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.
- Fusari disputed liability and, after trial, challenged the amount of damages, arguing the jury’s award was unsupported and should be reduced.
- A jury returned a verdict for Starland and the court entered an amended money judgment of $7,340,696.50.
- Post-trial, Starland sought entry of final judgment and requested an equitable remedy—a constructive trust over defendants’ future revenues tied to the Lady Gaga project.
- Defendants sought remittitur of the damages award and requested a stay of execution with security.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should impose a constructive trust over defendants’ future revenues from the Lady Gaga-related project based on the jury’s findings.
2. Whether the jury’s damages award should be reduced through remittitur as excessive or unsupported by the trial record.
3. Whether execution of the money judgment should be stayed, and if so, whether a bond equal to the judgment was required as security.

## Decision

- The court denied Starland’s request to impose a constructive trust on defendants’ future revenues.
- The court denied defendants’ motion for remittitur, leaving the damages award intact.
- The court entered a money judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict and resolved post-trial requests for relief consistent with that judgment.
- The court granted only a limited stay of execution and required defendants to post a bond in the amount of the total judgment ($7,340,696.50) within a short deadline; failure to post the bond would result in the stay being vacated upon plaintiff’s filing.

## Legal Principles

- A constructive trust is an equitable remedy intended to prevent unjust enrichment; it is generally reserved for situations where a legal remedy (such as a money judgment) is not sufficient and where the circumstances involve wrongful conduct that makes retention of the benefit unjust.
- Even when a plaintiff proves contractual and fiduciary-duty violations, an additional equitable remedy such as a constructive trust is not automatic; the court considers whether the existing monetary relief already addresses the harm and whether the requested trust would extend to uncertain future proceeds.
- Remittitur is appropriate only when a jury’s damages award is so excessive or so lacking evidentiary support that it cannot stand under the governing standard (often framed as whether it “shocks the judicial conscience”).
- In deciding remittitur, the court gives substantial deference to the jury’s assessment of damages when the award is supported by the record, including stipulations and trial evidence.
- A court may condition a stay of execution of a money judgment on the posting of security, and requiring a bond in the full amount of the judgment is a standard method to protect the judgment creditor during post-trial proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the jury’s $7.34 million verdict by entering judgment and rejecting defendants’ effort to reduce the award, while also declining to impose an added equitable constructive trust over future project revenues; it granted only a short, conditional stay of execution that required defendants to secure the full judgment with a bond.


Starland v. Fusari, 2015 WL 1220218 (2015)