Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
hero_prop_suit [2018/10/14 11:53] – [Selling the Enterprise-E] adds link to Propblock website Carlos Pedraza | hero_prop_suit [2019/02/19 19:16] – Updates FB discussion link Carlos Pedraza | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{:: | {{:: | ||
- | <wrap lo>The studio model of the Sovereign-class Enterprise-E from //Star Trek: First Contact// is at the center of a lawsuit over its sale, from which OWC Studios head Alec Peters claims he is owed $200,000. <wrap indent lo>// | + | <fs smaller>The studio model of the Sovereign-class Enterprise-E from //Star Trek: First Contact// is at the center of a lawsuit over its sale, from which OWC Studios head Alec Peters claims he is owed $200, |
- | ====== Company Sues Peters for Defamation in Disputed Prop Sale ====== | + | <fs x-small> |
- | **//Peters Seeks $200, | + | ====== Trial in Peters' |
+ | |||
+ | **//In Countersuit, | ||
{{TOC}} | {{TOC}} | ||
{{page> | {{page> | ||
- | OWC Studios head [[Alec Peters]] | + | A January 2020 trial awaits Axanar producer |
+ | |||
+ | Meanwhile, Peters himself filed an amended countersuit November 7, 2018, seeking $165,000 in damages, plus attorneys' | ||
- | The suit seeks at least $15,000 in damages after Peters allegedly defamed | + | Armstrong' |
- | The lawsuit was first filed in Clark County District Court in Nevada on September 21, 2018, by [[http:// | + | Her lawsuit was first filed in Clark County District Court in Nevada on September 21, 2018, naming Peters as a defendant, along with his company, [[propworx-email|Propworx]]. |
[{{ :: | [{{ :: | ||
Line 22: | Line 26: | ||
===== Legal Complaint ===== | ===== Legal Complaint ===== | ||
- | |||
- | The eight-page legal complaint details attempts by Hero Prop to broker the sale of the 10.5-foot long Enterprise-E model constructed for the TNG film, //Star Trek: First Contact//. The legal complaint was amended October 9 to address public defamatory statements Peters allegedly made about Armstrong after Peters was served in the lawsuit. | ||
<WRAP right round download 50%> | <WRAP right round download 50%> | ||
- | <wrap lo> | + | <wrap lo> |
+ | **COUNTERCLAIM** Read Alec Peters' | ||
</ | </ | ||
+ | The eight-page legal complaint details attempts by Hero Prop to broker the sale of the 10.5-foot long Enterprise-E model constructed for the TNG film, //Star Trek: First Contact//. The legal complaint was amended October 9 to address public defamatory statements Peters allegedly made about Armstrong after Peters was served in the lawsuit. | ||
==== Selling the Enterprise-E ==== | ==== Selling the Enterprise-E ==== | ||
Line 34: | Line 38: | ||
According to the suit, Hero Prop began working with Peters in October 2017, when Armstrong told Peters she had a buyer interested in purchasing the Enterprise-E model from its owner. The model' | According to the suit, Hero Prop began working with Peters in October 2017, when Armstrong told Peters she had a buyer interested in purchasing the Enterprise-E model from its owner. The model' | ||
- | The suit alleges Armstrong asked Peters if he knew the owner. Peters reportedly replied, “Yes, very well.” Though the owner is not named in the suit, Peters was briefly associated with Schneider' | + | <WRAP right round important 320px> |
+ | <fs larger>< | ||
+ | <fs smaller>The Clark County, Nev., District Court set the following schedule for the case leading up to trial:</ | ||
+ | * <fs smaller> | ||
+ | * <fs smaller> | ||
+ | * <fs smaller> | ||
+ | * <fs smaller> | ||
+ | * <fs smaller> | ||
+ | * <fs smaller> | ||
+ | * <fs smaller> | ||
+ | </ | ||
- | [{{ :: | + | The suit alleges Armstrong asked Peters if he knew the Enterprise |
Armstrong stated she told Peters the buyer was willing to pay $500,000 for the Enterprise model, and that Hero Prop would split profits from the sale, with one-third going to Peters, if he could convince the owner to sell for less than $500, | Armstrong stated she told Peters the buyer was willing to pay $500,000 for the Enterprise model, and that Hero Prop would split profits from the sale, with one-third going to Peters, if he could convince the owner to sell for less than $500, | ||
Line 47: | Line 61: | ||
Armstrong stated she was unaware of the bad relationship between Peters and the owner: | Armstrong stated she was unaware of the bad relationship between Peters and the owner: | ||
+ | |||
+ | [{{ :: | ||
> At no point prior to October 29, 2017 did Peters inform Armstrong that Peters had a very poor relationship with Owner and was in no position to arrange a sale with the Owner. Had Peters truthfully represented he had a poor relationship with the Owner, Plaintiffs would have never sought Peters’ assistance in acquiring the Enterprise-E.((Hero Prop LLP v. Alec Peters/ | > At no point prior to October 29, 2017 did Peters inform Armstrong that Peters had a very poor relationship with Owner and was in no position to arrange a sale with the Owner. Had Peters truthfully represented he had a poor relationship with the Owner, Plaintiffs would have never sought Peters’ assistance in acquiring the Enterprise-E.((Hero Prop LLP v. Alec Peters/ | ||
- | |||
- | [{{ : | ||
=== 'An Asshole' | === 'An Asshole' | ||
Line 60: | Line 74: | ||
=== The Sale === | === The Sale === | ||
- | After learning from Armstrong a couple weeks later that the buyer was willing to pay more for the model, Hunt, of his own accord contacted the Enterprise' | + | After learning from Armstrong a couple weeks later that the buyer was willing to pay more for the model, Hunt, of his own accord, contacted the Enterprise' |
+ | |||
+ | [{{ : | ||
==== 'The Seller' | ==== 'The Seller' | ||
Line 73: | Line 90: | ||
By September 12, Peters had a lawyer send a letter demanding payment, stating that “Peters/ | By September 12, Peters had a lawyer send a letter demanding payment, stating that “Peters/ | ||
- | The owner characterized his relationship with Peters somewhat differently, | + | The owner characterized his relationship with Peters somewhat differently, |
- | ==== $200,000 in Damages ==== | + | ==== Peters' |
- | According to the lawsuit, the letter from Peters' | + | Peters' |
+ | |||
+ | ==== Stolen Objects ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | In his counterclaim, Peters stated his discovery Armstrong had trafficked in stolen objects led her to retaliate: | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Upon information and belief, Mr. Peters discovered that Ms. Armstrong had sold multiple stolen objects and obtained commissions therefrom, including but not limited to objects from Marvel Studios and Warner Brothers. Once Ms. Armstrong became aware of Mr. Peters’ knowledge of her previous sales, she attempted to exclude him from all pending transactions.((Defendants' | ||
=== Propworx Bankruptcy === | === Propworx Bankruptcy === | ||
Line 121: | Line 144: | ||
</ | </ | ||
- | Armstrong and Hero Prop are represented by attorney Michael D. Rawlins of the Smith & Shapiro law firm. Peters' attorney has not yet been entered into court records. {{: | + | In his counterclaim, |
+ | <WRAP 95%> | ||
+ | * Actual and compensatory damages in excess of $165,000, plus pre- and post- judgment interest. | ||
+ | * Attorney’s fees and costs of the suit. | ||
+ | * Exemplary and punitive damages in excess of $15, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Attorneys ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Armstrong and Hero Prop are represented by attorney Michael D. Rawlins of the Smith & Shapiro law firm. Peters | ||
<WRAP tip 75%> | <WRAP tip 75%> | ||
<wrap em> | <wrap em> | ||
- | Discuss this article in [[face> | + | Discuss this article in [[face> |
</ | </ | ||
---- | ---- | ||
- | **Keywords**{{tag> | + | **Keywords**{{tag> |