A popular syndicated radio air personality self-described as “one of the most influential, engaging radio personalities” may be one step closer to defeat as a jury will ultimately decide a more than three-year-old lawsuit filed in a Texas Federal court against the host by the nation’s second-biggest radio broadcasting company by number of stations.
That’s because Sam A. Lindsay, Dallas-based U.S. District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, on June 13 “narrowed significantly the issues to be tried” and has called for a jury to decide a bitter matter over a $1 million “overpayment” made to Michael Baisden by former distribution and production partner Cumulus Media.
The legal dance for Baisden and Cumulus Media began in May 2014, when the host was sued by the nation’s No. 2 radio broadcasting company, by total number of stations, for receiving $1 million Cumulus claims he wasn’t supposed to receive.
Baisden’s syndicated African-American targeted talk program, The Michael Baisden Show, enjoyed a production and distribution agreement with Cumulus from 2008-2013. At dispute are payments made to Baisden during the final 15-month period of their pact; Cumulus says the $1 million given to Baisden is the result of an accounting error.
While a settlement was in the works in fall 2014, those talks broke down. Then, in February 2015, Baisden filed suit in the Dallas-based Federal District Court claiming breach of contract on the part of Cumulus.
That was followed by a Jan. 20, 2016 counter-claim by Cumulus claiming breach of contract on the part of Baisden — in addition to restitution and “fraudulent transfer” of funds under Texas Business and Commerce Code 24.005.
In November 2016, motions for summary judgement from Baisden and partial summary judgement from Cumulus were filed with Lindsay’s court.
On June 13, Lindsay denied the motion for summary judgment, and granted — in part — Cumulus’ motion.
In Lindsay’s Memorandum Opinion and Order, he noted that for the final 15-month period of Baisden’s agreement with Cumulus, reflecting the period of January 2012 through March 2013, Radio Networks agreed to compensate BEI (Baisden’s company) in an amount equal to the greater of the guaranteed amount of $7,250,000 or 50% of Net Program Income for the period.
Pursuant to the agreement, Radio Networks paid Baisden and BEI the $1 million advance for the Final Contract Period in July 2010. Radio Networks began paying the remaining amounts owed when the Final Contract Period commenced in January 2012, and paid BEI and Basiden the full $7,250,000 over the remainder of the Final Contract Period, rather than only the remaining $6,250,000 of the “Guaranteed Amount.”
BEI did not deny that there was an overpayment when Cumulus requested in March 2013 it be returned the cash. But, it requested an audit for the Final Contract Period.
Following the audit, however, BEI made transfers to Baisden — and not to Cumulus — of funds tied to the disputed overpayments.
Given the counterclaims and flow of the dollars, Lindsay is unable to move forward on a judgement and will instead impanel a jury.
He said, “While it appears doubtful to the court based on the evidentiary record before it that more than the Guaranteed Amount was owed to BEI and Baisden, the court cannot rule out this possibility on a motion for summary judgment. Whether the defendants were owed more during any particular quarter of the Final Contract Period is an issue of fact to be resolved by a jury.”
Thus, while Cumulus appears to be heading toward a victory, a win will require further litigation.
The court then quashed Baisden’s counterclaims.
“The court determines that this claim fails as a matter of law because the agreement provided the plaintiffs the option to match third-party offers, and not an obligation to do so,” the judge noted. “Further, [the] defendants have failed to produce summary judgment evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact that [the] plaintiffs had an obligation to match third-party offers under the agreement.”
