★★★★★ 0/5

US judge gives the ok to Judge Judy salary

$45m a year is a lot of baloney in anyone's Brooklyn language....

9
Leave a comment

Try not to look surprised….

A US judge has said Judge Judy‘s annual mega-salary of $45m is perfectly reasonable.

Talent agency Rebel Entertainment Partners claimed that it had not received contractually-obligated payments for Judge Judy since 2010, because the show is losing money due to Sheindlin’s annual salary.

“That Judge Sheindlin is paid more than other television hosts does not establish her salary is unreasonable or that Defendants negotiated the salary in bad faith,” Judge Joanne O’Donnell wrote. “Plaintiff has presented no evidence that the salary was negotiated in bad faith or is unreasonable in light of the undisputed ‘resounding success’ of Judge Judy and the fact that without its namesake star the show would not continue.”

The case also revealed that every three years, Sheindlin sits down for a renegotiation with CBS and brings along a card with her demands.

On one occasion John Nogawski, former president of CBS TV Distribution, brought along his own envelope.

“And I said, ‘I don’t want to look at it,'” said Sheindlin. “He said, ‘Why not? Maybe it’s more than what’s in your envelope.’ And I said, ‘Well, John, if I look at your envelope, it’s a negotiation. This isn’t a negotiation.’ And he put his envelope away and they gave me what I wanted; not a whole thing, not 30 pages, three things, whatever it was, done. So to suggest that the largest profit participant, which is CBS, would pay me willingly more money is so ludicrous. Their back’s to the wall.”

Judge Judy is also at the centre of a separate lawsuit by two of the series’ original producers, over “breach of contract, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy.”

Kaye Switzer and the Sandi Spreckman Trust are suing Big Ticket Television, CBS and Judy Sheindlin, claiming they should have been paid at least $US4.75 million when the series library was sold back to the network in 2017.

Source: Variety, Hollywood Reporter

9 Responses

  1. That she can only award $5k max in the civil cases makes it even more laughable. People in their chasing $100 owed to them too just highlights the great divide in the US. Oh well, still love JJ.

  2. I find it quite hard to believe that the show isn’t profitable. Why keep it on the air, then? It’s a low-budget show with a shoestring budget with a crew that is probably working at third world wages for the sheer thrill of working on a show like it. Plus of course the international sales. Perhaps a Netflix deal should be made if it hasn’t already.

    Some Hollywood A listers get paid about that much for one movie. At least Ms Sheindlin is working all year round and isn’t performing all her stunts in front of a green screen. 😛

  3. After the first $45m I would’ve said “Thanks! That’s enough. I will work for you for another ten years, then I’ll retire.” But 45m every year is impossible for me to comprehend.

  6. This is the sort of mess that occurs when a tv star is paid a ridiculous amount of money (she’s not even in prime time!) Demands, demands, executives seem to cave in.

    1. Judge Judy has been syndicated world-wide across FTA and Pay TV. CBS can pay Judy whatever they want, as the Judge found, to keep the show on air. Just like the Cavaliers can pay LeBron $US 30m to shoot a basketball. Rebel Entertainment have been paid $US17m over 20 years because two of their employees. who they fired many years ago, found Judy Sheindlin when volunteered herself a replacement when the previous judge quit. It is paid as a share of profits, of which there are currently none because the show is losing money. They are also suing, along with their ex-employees, for a share of sales of old episodes and a spin off they are entitled to it by that “created by” credit. This is just how the Hollywood guild system distributes the spoils.

      1. “It is paid as a share of profits, of which there are currently none because the show is losing money.”

        Hollywood accounting is just magical, isn’t it?

Leave a Reply