Range Countersues CAA Over Noncompetes, Retaliation

Range Media Partners has sued CAA over the agency’s use of noncompetes, a countermove to an earlier lawsuit accusing the management firm of stealing confidential information and operating as a rival organization.

Range, in a countersuit filed in California state court on Monday evening, alleges CAA is maneuvering to undermine its growth by threatening to cancel equity for employees at the agency who want to work at the management start-up. It seeks a court order barring CAA from enforcing noncompetes and at least $1 million for claims of unfair competition tortious interference with economic relationships.

The filing is the latest salvo in a legal feud between the two companies, one that was — in CAA’s telling of events — set in motion after a set of high-profile agents allegedly defected from the agency with trade secrets to help CEO Peter Micelli run an unlicensed competitor.

In a statement, Bo Pearl, a lawyer for CAA, said, “The facts are clear: the former agents forfeited their rights to profit from CAA when they began a competing business using stolen CAA property for use at Range, all while still working at CAA.” He added, “It has taken years to uncover the layers of deception, but the videos, texts, and emails they so desperately have tried to hide reveal all.”

In the countersuit, Range tells a clashing version of events over the departures of ex-CAA employees Jack Whigham, Dave Bugliari, Michael Cooper and Mick Sullivan for the management firm. It says their goal was to recruit talent looking for managers. Of the 186 clients who were in the exiting employees’ rosters, 179 stayed with the agency, according to the complaint, which notes more than 150 clients are represented by both Range and CAA.

“They told every client: keep CAA as your agency,” writes Ilissa Samplin, a lawyer for Range, in the filing. “They told the press they loved their time at CAA. Range is a management company, not an agency — there was no need to choose between them.”

But the departures triggered panic at CAA, which was still reeling from the Writers Guild of America in 2019 severing ties with the agency over alleged self-dealing and the COVID-19 production shutdown that pushed the company “deeper into financial crisis,” the lawsuit says. In 2020, the agency canceled tens of millions of dollars in equity held by the former employees, claiming that they had violated noncompete provisions in their contracts by leaving for the then-six-week-old Range.

“This unlawful cancellation of equity sent a chilling message to both current and former employees: at CAA, contractual agreements and legal protections mean nothing,” the complaint states. “The only rule is the whim and greed of its leadership. And any attempt to join Range, an adversary in CAA’s view, would be met with punishment.”

Later, the former CAA agents initiated arbitration to recover their withheld equity. Range’s filing nods to findings of CAA losing the case, with arbitrators concluding that its noncompetes are invalid. It argues that CAA filed its lawsuit against the company in a play for leverage over what will have to pay.

At the same time, CAA is telling employees that it will enforce noncompetes and cancel their equity if they leave for Range, though the agency does not issue the same warning over departures for other management firms, the lawsuit claims. At least one former CAA agent who now works as manager said he chose not to work at Range due to CAA’s threats, according to the complaint.

Range asserts that CAA’s noncompetes are illegal under California law, which bars such provisions with limited exceptions.

“No amount of spin from CAA will hide the truth,” Samplin and Orin Snyder, another lawyer representing Range, said in a statement. “It bullied its own employees with illegal noncompetes and has zero defense. We look forward to holding them accountable.”

In August, a court rebuffed Range’s bid to dismiss a claim accusing the company of operating as a rival agency, potentially setting up a thorny battle challenging its business dealings.

The issue was hotly contested. Range argued that the allegation, even if true, belongs before a labor commissioner and not a court since it constitutes a dispute arising from the Talent Agencies Act. The court disagreed, finding the commissioner is “only allowed to hear controversies between Artists and Agents, not Agents versus other Agents.”