California Case Summaries

Court Approves $850K Good-Faith Settlement in Jeepers Creepers 4 Distribution Dispute (Myriad Pictures v. Infinity Films Holdings, LASC)

Case News — litigation update, not a summary of a published opinion.

Case
Myriad Pictures, Inc. v. Infinity Films Holdings, LLC, et al.
Court
Los Angeles Superior Court, West District, Beverly Hills Courthouse, Dept. 207
Judge
Hon. Michael E. Whitaker
Docket No.
21SMCV00498
Event Type
Order granting motions for determination of good-faith settlement (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6); ex parte application to permit remote trial appearance granted
Event Date
2026-04-06
Source
Court’s tentative ruling and minute order, 21SMCV00498 (Apr. 6, 2026), as adopted as the final order of the Court.

What Happened

Judge Michael E. Whitaker granted two separate motions for determination of good-faith settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 in the long-running dispute over the fourth and fifth films in the Jeepers Creepers horror franchise. The court approved a $150,000 settlement between plaintiff Myriad Pictures, Inc. and the insurer for defendants Screen Media Ventures, LLC and Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment, Inc., and a $500,000-plus settlement (with an additional payment of at least $200,000) between Myriad and the “Infinity Defendants” (Infinity Films Holdings, LLC, Brandon Farm, LLC, and producer Michael Ohoven). The court also granted an ex parte application allowing Ohoven to appear remotely by Zoom at trial.

Context

Myriad’s operative Third Amended Complaint alleges that the Infinity Defendants conspired with a group it calls the Seal/Orwo defendants — Jake Seal, Orwo Film Studios, LLC, Orwo Film Distribution, LLC, PVS Studios, LLC, and JCP4 IP, LLC — to produce and distribute Jeepers Creepers 4 and 5 with Screen Media Ventures handling international distribution, allegedly cutting Myriad out despite a contractual right of first negotiation and last refusal. Myriad asserted approximately $2 million in damages and brought claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, intentional interference with contractual relations, fraudulent concealment, and declaratory relief.

The court walked through each Tech-Bilt factor (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488). It found the settlement amounts within the “ballpark” of each settling defendant’s proportionate liability, noting that even Jeepers Creepers 3 — a reportedly more successful film than Jeepers 4 — generated only $280,000 in distribution fees. It accepted that Screen Media Ventures and Chicken Soup, which are in bankruptcy, were settling for the insurer’s payment in lieu of asset-based exposure. The court rejected the Seal defendants’ opposition argument that the deals improperly conveyed future rights MGM (which owns the “Jeepers Creepers” word mark) controls, reasoning that the financial figures alone were within range and that any rights component would only further reduce the non-settlors’ exposure. The court found no evidence of collusion or fraud aimed at the non-settling Seal defendants.

An earlier $152,500 Brandon Farm settlement was approved on February 7, 2025. With these additional approvals, only the Seal/Orwo group remains exposed on Myriad’s claims through trial, and they are barred from pursuing equitable indemnity and contribution against the settling defendants under section 877.6, subdivision (c).

What’s Next

  • Trial proceeds against the non-settling Seal defendants (Seal, Orwo Film Studios, LLC, Orwo Film Distribution, LLC, PVS Studios, LLC, and JCP4 IP, LLC), with Ohoven appearing remotely via Zoom under the granted ex parte order.
  • The Seal defendants’ cross-claims against the settlors for equitable comparative indemnity and contribution are now barred by Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (c); any judgment against them will be reduced under section 877.6, subdivision (a) by the settlement amounts.
  • Defendants were directed to give notice of the ruling and proposed orders forthwith.

Notes

Summarizes a Los Angeles Superior Court tentative ruling that was adopted as the final order of the Court at the April 6, 2026 hearing. The ruling is the primary source; no third-party reporting was used. Settlement-allocation details beyond what the court recited are not in the minute order and remain undisclosed.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top