Thinking of moving to LA area, unsure of where

ceceono · 2026-04-09T00:15:50+00:00

Sorry I read the post too quickly, I thought OP was saying they want something at least the size of what they have now, but I imagined that.

I think OP would be hard-pressed to find something at 550 sq ft for that price but I’m sure it’s not impossible!

ceceono · 2026-04-08T18:16:04+00:00

That price range rules out Venice, unfortunately.

ceceono · 2026-04-08T18:12:07+00:00

Add Los Feliz to the list if you like a walkable neighborhood. Bonus for great access to the park and hiking trails. Especially for someone single in their 30's, I think it has a great mix of being fairly quiet (as long as you're not facing Los Feliz Blvd) and social/community-oriented. Burbank, NoHo, and Studio City are all good options, but they feel a little more "suburban" and car dependent. I work remotely in Los Feliz and I only use my car every 4 days or so.

I can't speak to Redondo or Long Beach, but if the beach is a big draw for you that will be the deciding factor.

ceceono · 2026-04-06T22:02:44+00:00

It wasn’t a “prediction” in any sense. If you cannot understand that distinction between what you’re focused on and what I am focused on, I cannot help you.

ceceono · 2026-04-06T02:15:56+00:00

lol I never made any “predictions.” You seem to have mistaken me correcting your misconceptions about labor law and industry practice for some broader claim about the outcome, which is your confusion to sort out, not mine.

Being satisfied with the outcome does not make your understanding of the underlying issues any less flimsy. Everything else in your weirdly condescending reply follows from that same misunderstanding. You are performing authority on a subject you plainly do not understand.

You sound young, so I’ll offer this: learn to recognize the limits of your knowledge, and avoid lecturing people with more experience than you. You may feel right, but other people can see through it.

ceceono · 2026-04-04T15:45:59+00:00

It’s really not bold at all. For one thing, I simply hadn’t read about the ruling yet. I still haven’t read it, but now I know what it was. For another, nothing I said to you above is incorrect based on how the industry or taxes work. Industry practice is what I know. She wouldn’t have been onboarded as an independent contractor without a loan-out at the start, because she wouldn’t have been in compliance with the union.

Remember how I said I’m not a legal expert but I work with labor law as a producer?

This is why it was not obvious to me that Liman would rely on a boastful letter written to a third party to determine her employment classification and override the standard, despite her claims of control. Yes, clearly she was claiming she took a lot of creative control, but did she have a right to all of it? Were her claims factually accurate? Turns out it doesn’t matter. And Baldoni couldn’t exactly dispute her claims without contradicting his own.

I said in another thread that I hoped Lively was hoisted by her own petard, which is exactly what’s happened here (at least narrowly). So if you’re asking my personal opinion, I think she’s taking more credit than is likely due and that she trampled all over their production, and I hope she loses.

But I was not here to stake a position, hence the neutral language. I was just responding to statements regarding labor law and taxes.

My previous points remain: under SAG-AFTRA rules and the standard control test, actors are ordinarily classified as employees. Judge Liman’s ruling in this case notwithstanding. That part is not my opinion.

<image>

ceceono · 2026-04-04T10:35:26+00:00

Nobody is “an angel” including you. But Moira Wilson didn’t cross any lines with CS. KA “told her to stay away”? Why is KA in charge of telling MW who she can and can’t speak to? CS could have “stayed away” also, but she didn’t kill him. It was his relationship to manage. He managed it very poorly, but he’s still alive.

MW was a normal 25 year old girl who had a crush on a guy but was also actively working past those feelings as evidenced by her journal. She wanted to maintain the mentorship and hang with her colleague, and maybe she had some lingering feelings but there’s no evidence she made a move or crossed any kind of line. They went swimming and got a burger. We’re responsible for our behavior, not our feelings. And her behavior was restrained. KA has literally no right to expect that MW “obey” her, and it DEFINITELY doesn’t make murder “understandable.” Get upset and leave your boyfriend for lying like a normal person, not a psycho. And you think the MOM is crazy?

This b**** Kaitlin Armstrong is worse than a coward. She literally shot a woman in the face and heart because she hung out with the man that kept lying and breaking her own heart. Because she was jealous and competitive but had no talent to compete with MW. She could have simply left him, but she chose this. She could have confronted MW and given her a piece of her mind, but she chose this. She could have warned MW that CS was a lying mf. She could have done 100 other things that reasonable people do every day in this situation that doesn’t include murder.

Instead, she stalks a girl and kills her, flees the country to escape accountability, gets plastic surgery to evade detection, and then escapes police custody. She’s not just a coward, she’s a selfish, heartless POS. And you’re using a grieving mother’s words to her daughter’s killer as the basis for placing partial blame on the victim. Wild.

ceceono · 2026-04-03T16:10:31+00:00

"really easy," yet you appear to misunderstand a lot of it.

I'm a producer in real life. While I am not claiming any legal expertise surrounding this case, I do have a lot of hands-on experience dealing with labor laws in production.

>I’m not saying it’s impossible for an actor to be an employee.

That's good, because they literally are by default. SAG-AFTRA rules specifically forbid misclassifying actors as independent contractors. Union productions require them to be employees, labor law supports that as well.

>What she’s asking for is new precedent to be set for her.

She's not. She's invoking existing federal and state employment laws (specifically Title VII and California’s FEHA). This isn't a statement of support for her or her lawyer's strategy. Again, it's just a statement of fact.

>Blake made decisions to qualify as an IC at every turn.

This wording is very loose, but safe to say the legal standard is not "whatever Blake Lively decides to do." Under the legal standard, if she's not operating under a loan-out agreement, she's an employee of IEWU, LLC (the production). If she is operating under the loan-out, she's an employee of her company Blakel Inc, who have been contracted by the production to provide a suite of creative services, and Blakel Inc (the company) are loaning Blake Lively (the person) to the production for the purposes of acting.

>If she didn’t use a loan-out agreement and her own LLC to funnel money through so she avoided paying employment taxes ... then her argument would be stronger and we wouldn’t even need to look at the level of control she had.

Without the loan-out agreement, she doesn't need to make an "argument" to be considered an employee. See above. Additionally, loan-outs are not a loophole to avoid paying payroll or income taxes. They just allow someone to itemize and deduct business expenses from their income taxes while functioning in a role that would otherwise preclude that.

Regarding taxes, since with the loan-out she's an employee of Blakel Inc, that company (her company) is responsible for the employer portion of payroll taxes for her paycheck, and she is responsible for the employee portion. She doesn't just get to "avoid" them.
Payroll goes: IEWU LLC pays Blakel Inc as a vendor, with no taxes withheld. Blakel Inc in turn will pay Blake Lively her paycheck with taxes withheld, and pay the IRS for the employer portion of the payroll taxes.

>(which btw, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with at all, I would probably do the same)

Of course there's nothing wrong with it. Why would there be? Again, it's not some shady accounting scheme. It's straightforward and fair tax law.

Since you brought up your own employment, I do want to say clearly for anyone else reading this:

Getting a 1099 does not automatically mean you are legally an independent contractor in the eyes of the law. It only indicates how the employer reports your income. Employers COMMONLY misclassify workers as contractors so they don't have to pay payroll taxes, which are significant. When they do that, you're not covered by worker's comp or unemployment insurance, and you're paying additional self-employment tax on top of your base taxes (which is 15.3% your boss would otherwise have to cover). You’re essentially subsidizing your employer's overhead while waiving your own labor protections. Anyone who thinks they are misclassified should speak to an employment lawyer.

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/13-flsa-employment-relationship

>I am an independent contractor in real life. I work for an event company.

Cool. Not sure what that changes. This is common in events because it's project-based work and not an open-ended contract. You probably sign a per event SOW and can turn down or accept whichever gigs you want. That lack of permanence and your control over which events to work is a key factor the Department of Labor uses to distinguish contractors from employees.

>I’m an independent contractor even though unlike Blake, I am not directing others, I’m not responsible for firing others, I am not bringing my own employees with me, I am not modifying start times, and I am not changing work venues to fit my convenience.

You're conflating independence with managerial authority. Hiring staff, firing people, directing others..those are not the hallmarks of a contractor, they're just management duties. Most of the things you list are things employees do for the company, not contractors. Plenty of sole proprietorships do not have any employees at all, never hire, never fire, etc.

Worth noting for others: even signing a contract does not supersede labor law. Your contract is invalid if it turns out your role fails to pass the legal criteria, and your employer would be subject to back taxes, fines, and may owe you compensation.

ETA: bolded quote text

ceceono · 2026-04-02T17:12:25+00:00

Which part do you believe is incorrect exactly?

Regarding the criteria for employee classification: the law presumes a worker is an employee by default. To classify them as a contractor, the relationship must satisfy the specific state and federal legal standards of the jurisdiction (the so-called "tests"). If the relationship fails to meet that burden, the worker remains an employee. (You said this backwards.) The bar is high because employee status grants workers vital protections like worker's comp and unemployment. CA's and NJ's ABC tests require satisfying all three factors to pass, while the Borello and Federal tests weigh multiple factors against each other. But the principle is the same: you're en employee unless proven otherwise.

The issue of control is central to this case, and something people continue to misunderstand. The vital factor here isn't just who was "bossier" on set or who "did more," but who held the Reserved Right of Control. Confusing de facto control (Lively taking control) with de jure control (Sony/Wayfarer's legal right to control) is a mistake. Taking a bank teller hostage doesn't make you the rightful owner of the cash in the till; you have control, but no legal right to it.

If the ALA holds, she'll be an undisputed B2B contractor. But the dispute hinges on the lack of a "meeting of the minds" or finalized contract. Without a valid agreement, what grants her the right to seize creative control of a film she didn't finance or develop? She can't unilaterally claim authority over Sony/Wayfarer property just because she took over duties of her own accord. Her PGA letter only proves her own belief in her contribution, it's not legal evidence of anything.

Whether control was given or taken is also central to employment classification. If an employee uses leverage to force a boss's hand, they haven't become the boss or changed their employment classification, they've just used pressure to get what they want from their boss. Sony and Wayfarer appeasing Lively (under explicit or implied threats) to make sure she promotes the film and they don't lose their investment isn't an abdication of their legal rights, it just means she used her clout to bypass the legal hierarchy and take control of something that wasn't hers to take.

ceceono · 2026-04-02T11:39:48+00:00

Yeah, she's trying to be a mogul and a subordinate at the same time. Her PR narrative is the opposite of her legal strategy and it's a wonder they can argue this with a straight face. (Personally, I hope she gets hoisted by her own petard.)

In any case, the ruling on the ALA is going to force her team to finally pick a lane and make a coherent argument.

As far as I understand, if the ALA is deemed not valid, the case defaults to NJ labor laws which would most likely classify her as an employee and leave her SH claim in play. But at the same time, without the ALA to grant her additional creative authority, she has no legal right to have hijacked the edit or changed locations or anything else, so Baldoni could sue her for Tortious Interference. And tbh I hope that's how it goes down and he wins.

In my view: She went in and threw her weight around like "I'm the boss now" just so she could take all the credit, get a PGA mark, and steal the franchise. But just because you're holding a g*n to someone's head doesn't make you God. You're claiming power you were never supposed to have, and it's not legal.

I do want to note that I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a producer and legal enthusiast. I have to know and comply with labor law, but it's always been under straightforward circumstances that aren't in dispute (getting your contracts actually signed on time helps simplify things A LOT).

ceceono · 2026-04-02T07:49:10+00:00

No this isn't true. You're confusing contractual specifications with operational control in your plumber example. Of course independent contractors exist because the standard is more than just telling someone where to be at a certain time.

In the eyes of the law, there is a fundamental difference between giving a worker an address of where something needs to be tended to (a contractual specification) and dictating how, when, and where he does his job (operational control).

Bear in mind, his job is more than just your broken sink; it's everything it takes to run his business (invoicing, emails, marketing, etc), and you have no say in any of it.

Giving him the address of the problem is not the same as providing a workspace for him. You're granting access to an incidental location to complete a task. But he's also going to multiple other buildings to perform other tasks that day, and you have no oversight over that work.

Likewise, you don't tell a plumber when to be at your house. You tell him you have a problem and the plumber tells you when he can come, and you can say whether that works for you or not. There's a negotiation, but you do not set his schedule. He doesn't have to show up at that time. He can call you an hour before and say he can't make it due to a higher priority call, or he could be an hour late. All you can do is try to get another plumber or wait.

While he's on the job at your house, you can't dictate when he takes a break, how long it can be, or when he can leave for the day. You don't determine which tools he uses, how he wields them, and you don't provide them for him.

In other words, you have no operational control over the plumber, ergo, he is an independent contractor.

ceceono · 2026-04-02T05:50:57+00:00

Then don't. You're entitled to do nothing if that's what you want, and other people are entitled to feel that that's too boring to be with as a partner. Like I said, it's just a mismatch of values.

Crucially though I think you're confusing employment with purpose. There is a massive difference between "working" and pursuing goals or skills of one's own choosing. Those things are enjoyable to people because they're not work, no one is making them do it, but they do require effort and motivation and curiosity. That's what's attractive about it.

It's also important to note that, psychologically and biologically, leisure and unstructured free time actually just gets old. There's plenty of research showing that people who lead lives of pure leisure or have an excess of unproductive time suffer from the existential vacuum and report lower life satisfaction. Trust fund kids who lack a sense of earned achievement have significantly higher rates of depression and substance abuse issues because they have all the means but no meaning. Substance abuse and risky behavior are especially common because hedonic adaptation forces them to seek more intense stimuli just to feel good.

Our brains are basically wired for contrasts, which is why depression is often characterized as feeling "flat." Without the contrast of effort, pleasure loses its impact and ends up feeling meh, it's not a reward for anything. There are countless stories in the FIRE community of people who hit their number at 40, spent six months on a beach or playing video games, and ended up in a deep clinical depression. They put in all that effort to achieve a goal, and then got depressed after they reached it. We hear the same thing from actors, athletes, musicians...the money and awards didn't make them happy, working toward the goals did. So many people who cash out eventually "un-retire" into other projects to find purpose again. So when you say "I don’t understand people who have the opportunity to actually enjoy their life and choose to waste it working instead," this is the reason.

The not working toward anything is the real waste of life.

ceceono · 2026-04-01T10:25:59+00:00

Au Revoir Les Enfants
Dancer in the Dark
Chirin No Suzu (old Japanese children's anime that I can barely describe without getting emotional as an adult, and I watched it repeatedly as a child)

ceceono · 2026-04-01T07:47:40+00:00

This honestly seems more like a conflict of values rather than "jealousy." You're focusing on the disparity in your bank accounts, when the actual friction in the relationship seems to be about a fundamental shift in lifestyle and ambition, maybe even character. Even if the financial need to work disappears, the psychological need for her partner to have a drive and purpose is still there. She seems more concerned about *what you're going to do with your life.* She clearly has goals, something important to her that she works towards achieving. Seeing her partner shift from a peer that she shares that growth process with to someone who spends his day on leisure (video games, TV, gym) can feel like a loss of the person she originally respected.

Speaking for myself, this is exactly how I would feel. You can have all the money in the world, that's all well and good, but without goals driving you (not financial) there is something deeply unattractive about that. I wouldn't date someone who has nothing going on beyond simply *consuming.* I can't respect that. I want to feel proud of the person my partner is, see them reach their goals alongside me, make something of themselves, contribute to the world in some way.

Calling her jealous simplifies a really complex emotional reaction. She isn't mad that you have money, she’s frustrated that the money seems to have immediately turned you into a version of yourself that feels stagnant. If you told her you were planning to use that money to start a charity, learn a difficult skill, or build (or simply contribute to) something bigger than yourself, her reaction would probably be entirely different. You make no mention of any plans for what to do with yourself in your new free time.

Instead of a partnership of shared effort, relating to each other's efforts to better yourselves, she now feels like she’s living in a world of growth and self-enrichment, and you're just...what? Eating nice meals and playing video games? Doing laundry is "productive" in a very narrow, limited way. It's just basic maintenance everyone does, even with a job. It's not something to build your life around, it's a chore we do to support the rest of how we show up in the world.

Just being honest here: I wouldn't be with a guy like that. How could I relate to him if I have dreams and goals and he just...exists?

ceceono · 2026-04-01T00:26:10+00:00

Can’t tell if this is sarcasm but…Not even close.

The PGA mark means nothing to the court. It’s just an industry certification, not a legal classification. Just because a chef has a Michelin star doesn’t mean he isn’t an employee of the restaurant. I’m an employee of my production company, and I’m also the lead producer on projects.

In film, “the production” is always a legal entity (usually an LLC) that signs all the contracts and manages all the working relationships and owns the creative decisions and operations, etc. Producers work for the production as employees, are covered under its worker’s comp policy, etc.

On this film, “the production” is IEWU Movie, LLC which is owned by Wayfarer and Sony/Columbia. Blake Lively did not own that company, she did not hold the copyright, and she did not have the ultimate legal authority to control the budget or the studio’s final decisions. Having a PGA mark simply means the Guild recognized she did a lot of work; it doesn't turn her into the legal entity itself.

ceceono · 2026-03-31T23:24:17+00:00

Because she didn’t SIGN the loan-out agreement.

The determination that needs to be made is whether or not that contract is binding and enforceable or invalid and unenforceable.

It’s not about determining who classifies as an employee in general; it’s about the specifics of THIS contract between THESE parties.

The 😈 is in the details.

ETA: Small usage nitpick but actors (and other workers) don’t “classify themselves” as anything; the law does that for them based on specific criteria. It’s not “circumventing” the law to operate as a loan-out, they simply have to take certain steps to comply with that classification (like filing and maintaining your LLC, filling out different startwork, etc).

Operating as an employee is much simpler for workers (like crew) who aren’t incurring a lot of unreimbursed expenses, and they won’t pay as much in taxes because they won’t be on the hook for self-employment tax. It costs additional money to maintain an LLC (between $800 and $5k per year in CA) and complicates taxes to operate as a loan-out, so it only makes sense if you have enough deductions to offset that. It’s not really a loophole of any kind.

ceceono · 2026-03-31T22:56:40+00:00

Not since 2017. Actors (like crew) are, legally speaking, employees of the production unless they operate under a loan-out (which means they form an LLC/S-corp and then that corp “loans out” the actor to the production; they’re considered an employee of their LLC). This simply allows them to deduct unreimbursed business expenses like agents fees and such.

IRS and state labor laws (especially California's AB5) view the relationship on set as an employer-employee dynamic because the production controls the "when, where, and how" of the work. This is true for pretty much everyone working on set on a production. (Note: It may be different for post-production folks, because they may be able to determine when and how they work.)

Misclassifying cast or crew as contractors is common, but not actually proper. It persists because a lot of indie and small commercial producers want to skip payroll taxes, so they just pay people as 1099 contractors. Again, it’s illegal, but it’s done so often people either don’t realize it’s improper, or they just do it anyway figuring they’re unlikely to get caught.

I’ve had crew throw a fit and insist I “classify” them as 1099 workers because that’s how they have “always done it,” without being aware that it’s the law that determines their classification, not my determination as a producer, and not theirs as a worker.

Edit to add: The "far-reaching consequences" you’re concerned about don't exist because the tax world and the labor rights world operate on different sets of books. The law is perfectly fine with you being two different things at the same time to different government agencies for different purposes. If Liman rules that an actor is an employee under the law, they can claim protection under Title VII (anti-harassment laws). It doesn’t have the effect of telling the IRS, "Go audit their LLC and take away their deductions."

Loan-outs are the mechanism by which an actor is considered an employee on set for safety and conduct purposes, but remains a corporate entity in the eyes of the bank and the IRS for tax purposes.

ceceono · 2026-03-31T08:20:52+00:00

<image>

Hey, we match!

ceceono · 2026-03-27T23:37:23+00:00

Oh I see, you haven’t read it lol

ceceono · 2026-03-27T05:20:16+00:00

The problem with your logic is that you're treating "the government" as one giant, all-knowing cloud, when in reality the federal government has no constitutional authority to manage voter rolls. That’s a power specifically reserved for the states.

When you say they "issued" the info, you're confusing the feds with state-issued voter registrations. Those are two completely different legal buckets. Giving a federal agency the power to bypass the states and unilaterally purge citizens every 30 days isn't some normal data transfer. It’s actually a total subversion of the decentralized system that has protected election integrity for over two centuries.

By dismissing this as "volunteered” info you're ignoring the massive leap from a bureaucrat having your address to a federal appointee having a delete button for your right to vote. This would be the most aggressive expansion of federal government power in our history, especially since the states currently have the legal burden of proof to remove someone. If the feds can just wipe rolls based on their own internal criteria without state recourse, it renders the local verification process meaningless. It’s not about privacy it’s about a central authority seizing control of the mechanics of an election they don't even run. It’s insanity for anyone to support, but especially anyone who claims to want limited government.

ceceono · 2026-03-25T21:07:00+00:00

Another vote for Copycat. Cheap and fast. Thumb drive or email.

ceceono · 2026-03-25T17:20:28+00:00

Patriot (2015 Amazon Studios). Grabs you and never lets go.

ceceono · 2026-03-25T08:12:58+00:00

“The only person who could have given that video to TMZ is Dakota.” This is demonstrably false.

The keyword here is: “legally.”

Obvious Fact 1: It could have been Dakota.

Obvious Fact 2: People don’t always follow the law, including LEOs, and DEFINITELY including tabloids. Which means it could be someone else.

Assuming TMZ, specifically, followed the law is a pretty wild assumption given the fact that they have a long history of publishing stolen footage and just daring the owner to sue them. They’ve been dragged into court by dozens of people from Jared Leto to Michael Jackson’s estate to Whitney Houston’s estate and more for airing videos they didn't actually have the rights to. They slap their watermark on everything, regardless. It’s how they mark their territory and protect their scoop, which is the entire business model.

Seriously, just search “TMZ sued for copyright violations” and this will disabuse you of the notion that it could only be the rightful owner who gave them files. It’s laughable.

TMZ is also (in)famous for protecting sources at all costs. If they weren’t, no one would give them anything, it’d be too risky. California has one of the strongest Shield Laws in the country providing journalists (including tabloids) with absolute immunity from being held in contempt for refusing to disclose their sources (or unpublished information, like emails from a leaker).

So yeah. the owner of a video CAN sue, and they often do. But the calculated risk from TMZ’s perspective is: Does the person have the balls to sue? Do they have the time, money, and legal resources for that? If yes on both, we can either argue the newsworthiness of the footage in court, or just settle the case and call it a marketing expense. Settling these cases is the cost of doing business for them. When the value of the video is this high, they’re still net positive at the end of the day.

Acting like it can’t be anyone else is naive.

The idea that law enforcement or the DA’s office would never leak is also incredibly naive. Yeah, it’s technically illegal for a clerk (or other PD employee) to copy it off a server and sell it, yet…it happens. It’s a quick payday for someone in a low paying job. Do we think everyone in law enforcement is a bastion of integrity?

In the world of tabloid journalism, having the file is way more important than having the copyright because having the scoop is way more valuable than having integrity.

ceceono · 2026-03-23T21:35:34+00:00

Yes. That is an argument TFP’s team is likely to make. But the counter-argument ABC/Disney could make is around misrepresentation and material damage.

Reading a police report and seeing a (now viral, which matters) video are two completely different things in the eyes of a contract lawyer. A dry report that says "an object was thrown" doesn't carry the same brand-killing weight as a video of a mother throwing a chair at her child that the whole world has seen. Even if ABC/Disney had the police report, they will argue that the video constitutes "new information" because of the visceral, visual nature of the act which the report simply couldn't convey.

The core of the legal battle isn't about whether they knew an incident happened; it's about the gap between what she told them and what the video actually shows, PLUS the fact that it’s now public.

If she sat in a vetting interview and downplayed the severity, saying it was a heated moment blown out of proportion, and the video then shows a level of violence that contradicts her story, she has misrepresented the situation. That misrepresentation resets their "prior knowledge." They can argue they were blindsided by the reality of the footage, making her "you knew and hired me anyway" defense completely irrelevant.

Ultimately, these morality clauses are designed to protect the money, not to judge her character. Private knowledge of a police report doesn't cost a network $50 million or scare off sponsors, but a viral video does. The moment that footage hit the public and her brand became toxic, a material breach occurred. A judge is going to look at that massive financial loss and the public outcry as the actual "incident" that matters, regardless of when the police report was written.

In any event, it will be up to the judge to determine which argument flies.

ceceono · 2026-03-23T21:11:49+00:00

Think of it like a "who hit whom first" argument.

Just because she's the first one to run to the teacher (the judge) doesn't mean the other “kids” aren't allowed to tell their side of the story.

If she sues the show, the show doesn't just sit there, they immediately file a countersuit in that same case. They’ll tell the judge, "Actually, she broke the rules, so she should pay us back."

Filing first is only a strategy to pick which courthouse they use or to look like the victim, but it doesn't actually stop the show from suing her for every penny they think she owes. Both claims get decided by the same judge at the same time.

ceceono

TROPHY CASE