MovieChat Forums > Rhoda (1974) Discussion > Harper sued for $2M by Broadway producer

Harper sued for $2M by Broadway producer

posted 11 years ago by pvd295
27 replies | jump to latest

Valerie Harper Sued for $2 Million by Matthew Lombardo for not Informing Him She Had Cancer
by Zayda Rivera, Bill Hutchinson / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Monday - April 28, 2014

Actress Valerie Harper has been hit with a $2 million lawsuit by Broadway bigshot Matthew Lombardo, who charges she didn’t tell him she had cancer until after she signed on to star in his play.

Lombardo charges Harper and her husband, Tony Cacciotti, hid her bout with lung cancer until it spread to her brain, forcing her to bail out of last year’s national tour of Looped. At the time she left the play he wrote, doctors had given the 74-year-old "Rhoda" star just months to live.

The suit filed in Manhattan Federal Court charges that although Harper and Cacciotti “were both aware” she had been diagnosed with lung cancer in 2009, neither bothered to disclose it to Lombardo. Harper and her husband “knowingly withheld the truth” about her cancer, the suit charges.

Lombardo’s suit was a counterclaim to one Harper filed demanding she still be paid for the production she dropped out of for health reasons. Harper could not be reached for comment Sunday.

She was in rehearsals for a national tour of Looped when diagnosed in January 2013 with brain cancer. In the production, Harper played Hollywood legend Tallulah Bankhead, a role that garnered her a 2010 Tony Award nomination.

The suit contends Lombardo sought to get Tovah Feldshuh to take on the role, but went with Harper when she insisted taking the job.

In the lawsuit, playwright Lombardo claims he didn’t know about Harper’s earlier battle with lung cancer until December 2012, just before the release of her autobiography. Prior to her brain cancer diagnosis, Harper was exhibiting signs of health problems, such as slurred speech and memory loss, that were hampering the show’s rehearsals.

Lombardo claims he urged Harper to seek medical attention. Harper dropped out of the production the same month she was diagnosed, leaving Lombardo scrambling for a replacement.

Stefanie Powers stepped in, but Lombardo and the play’s producers said they lost at least $500,000 due to having to replace Harper on short notice. Lombardo and the producers of Looped are also suing for an additional $1.5 million because they say Harper misled them.

Harper has gone on to bravely participate in ABC’s "Dancing With the Stars". She’s also returned to the small screen with a guest appearance in the Hallmark Channel series "Signed, Sealed and Delivered", which aired Sunday night.

Earlier this month, Harper denied reports that she had beat cancer and was in the clear. “I am not ‘absolutely cancer-free,’” she said in a statement. “I wish I were.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...icle-1.1770673

Read more: http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=324206#ixzz31kB6guW6

"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand

[–] SimplemindedSociety 11 years ago

'The suit contends Lombardo sought to get Tovah Feldshuh to take on the role, but went with Harper when she insisted taking the job.'
----------------------------
'insisted?'(on taking the job) Odd wording.
It doesn't make sense that Harper would expect her contract paid off; that happens if you're fired, not by quitting. I personally spoke to her one time about THIEVES, the show she left in 1974 en route to Boston

[–] pvd295 11 years ago

She didn't really quit, though. If anything, she took a 'leave of absence' due to illness. Depending on what is stipulated in her contract concerning pay when out ill, she may be very right in expecting payment for the duration of the run.

"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand

[–] amyghost 11 years ago

It would seem to me that a more tactful way of resolving the dispute could have been taken other than filing a very high-profile, very public lawsuit against a woman who's suffering from terminal cancer. Even if Harper is in the wrong, this really seems like a low road to go down.

[–] pvd295 11 years ago

It would seem to me that a more tactful way of resolving the dispute could have been taken other than filing a very high-profile, very public lawsuit against a woman who's suffering from terminal cancer. Even if Harper is in the wrong, this really seems like a low road to go down.

I agree 100%. However, this is America - and business is business.

I have heard horror stories of banks foreclosing on homes, cars being repossessed, credit cards suing for unpaid debt, IRS suing for unpaid taxes, hospitals and doctors suing for unpaid debt, etc. - when the debtor has a terminal illness (like Harper's case) as well. And the amount the terminally ill person owes is far less than $2M.

The business who is owed the money cares about one thing: getting their money back while there is still a chance (though even when the person passes away, they continue to sue the estate or survivors; whether it it legal or not).

They treat business as business, and are not about to lose thousands of dollars to a debtor, whether they are ill or not, and lose their business. In the case with Harper, the producer needs his money so he can continue on with his production company.

Do I agree with this? I really don't know. I understand it (for the reasons mentioned above), but I don't know if I agree with this.

"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand

[–] SimplemindedSociety 11 years ago

I think Harper should have left it alone.
It's fine to sue out of principle(even you don't need the money) but there are times--especially in this business--when it's best to let things slide, move on, and take equal responsibility. Either a contract stipulates something or it doesn't; it shouldn't be that murky. And if she's wrong, it's only going to reflect on her reputation like the indicident with VALERIE likely did.

[–] Atomic885 11 years ago

wouldn't they have insurance for this kinda thing anyway ?

[–] pvd295 11 years ago

They probably do, but insurance companies will never pay this. They will find loopholes and cracks in their agreements NOT to pay $2M. They would rather the two parties sue.

"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 11 years ago

That was the first thing I thought about. And actually, I think she renegotiated her contract in the middle of 'Rhoda.' It backfired on 'Valerie.' She seems to have a history of litigation. It makes you wonder if she and her husband are greedy and sue-happy, or if they are just shrewd and understand the ins and outs of entertainment law better than most. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Or if it will even be resolved in her lifetime.

[–] pvd295 11 years ago

She had a different husband when she was in 'Rhoda'. I think she may be a shrewd, smart business woman. Not uncommon for stars to renegotiate when their programs take off like a comet. Doesn't always work (Farrah Fawcett, Suzanne Sommers) but sometimes does (Carroll O'Connor, Larry Hagman).

"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 11 years ago

I think she is shrewd, too. I don't see her being very foolish. She knows how to play ball with the big kids.

[–] pvd295 11 years ago

Exactly. If she didn't she wouldn't have lasted nearly 45 years in television, still sort after (at nearly 75) and talked about.

"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand

[–] SimplemindedSociety 11 years ago

'Exactly. If she didn't she wouldn't have lasted nearly 45 years in television, still sort after (at nearly 75) and talked about'
------------------------------------
she really hasn't lasted 45 years on a consistent basis, which is why she returned to the stage. Her popularity ended in the 1980's with her being fired from VALERIE and the failure of her next series. Being shrewd is different than possibly being too demanding

[–] amyghost 11 years ago

Sheesh, I thought you'd passed into limbo along with the late, unlamented Help Board. Unfortunately, apparently not.

Reported and Ignored.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pvd295 11 years ago

The initial post in this thread is lifted from another author and publisher, and posted here.

That's called plagiarism if done in whole or a significant portion that violates "fair use".

You need to learn the definition of "plagiarism".

The original post is presented as shared information only, as it includes the original source (NY Post writer), as well as a link to the original source (published work). It also includes where the original post was found (sitcomsonline) and a link to that post, as well. So the post was shared a second time, with all the sources and information in tact for further reading and exploring. Thus, it does not violate any terms and uses since the sources are clearly included. It was never presented as "original" in any way, shape or form - which defines plagiarism.

You fail - completely.

"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand

[–] amyghost 11 years ago

'Blueghost' (a/k/a 'Bluesman SF') is a diehard troll who has haunted the site for several years now, subjecting all and sundry to his/her persistent delusion that they are some type of empowered site moderator. Their 'warnings' are usually--strike that, always--about as wrongheaded as the one posted here. Best advice for dealing with this clown is prompt and unrelenting use of the Ignore feature.

[–] Blueghost 11 years ago

I don't know who nor what you are talking about. I am NOT someone called "Bluesman SF".

I typically have given out one or two reports every few months, and I RARELY brag about it unless it's of the most severe violations.

I'd reccomend you check my IP and then compare my posting history with whoever it is you THINK I am, lest you put your OTHER foot in you mouth.

[–] pvd295 11 years ago

I typically have given out one or two reports every few months, and I RARELY brag about it unless it's of the most severe violations.

You'd be well-advised to check your facts before you think you have stumbled upon a 'severe violation'.

Why in the world would you 'brag' about finding severe violations? How low is your self-esteem, that you need to find some kind of respect here for finding severe violations (and I'm betting most of them are erroneous, like this one) ?

You need a better hobby.

"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand

[–] Blueghost 11 years ago

Such as flooding the "Rhoda" entry BBS on the IMDB.

Noted.

p.s. note that I did NOT report you, but someone, probably You, reported me.

[–] amyghost 11 years ago

Scamper away, Bluesman. There's nothing of interest for you here.

[–] pvd295 11 years ago

p.s. note that I did NOT report you, but someone, probably You, reported me.

I have much better things to do then play with psychotics on a forum. Good luck to you in life - you need it.

"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand

[–] Blueghost 11 years ago

by amyghost » 10 hours ago (Tue Jun 10 2014 03:54:54)
IMDb member since January 2011
Scamper away, Bluesman. There's nothing of interest for you here.

Whatever, lady.

What, are you in love with the guy or something? I'm not him.

BTW, I actually do have an entry on this website. I wonder if you object of affection does as well.

[–] amyghost 11 years ago

No. I recall you from the now defunct 'Help' Board. You were going by the name Bluesman SF at that point. During your tenure on that board, you changed your username to 'blueghost', most likely because of the number of abuse reports you garnered over there. Your style is unmistakeable, and hasn't changed a jot from when you were being an obnoxious pedant and wanna-be moderator on that board.

So if you want to hang around here, keep it on-topic, or you'll get yet another report for trolling.

And I note here that you are already having the "We've received sufficient reports about this user" message pop up when you're reported, which means that the real moderators here are tiring of your nonsense just as much as the legitimate posters on this thread are. And they are in a position to actually do something about it, as they've already done by deleting one of your posts.

Stick around, and perhaps you can watch them delete the rest.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Blueghost 11 years ago

reported

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] amyghost 11 years ago

Valerie Harper Sued for $2 Million by Matthew Lombardo for not Informing Him She Had Cancer
by Zayda Rivera, Bill Hutchinson / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Monday - April 28, 2014

Actress Valerie Harper has been hit with a $2 million lawsuit by Broadway bigshot Matthew Lombardo, who charges she didn’t tell him she had cancer until after she signed on to star in his play.

Lombardo charges Harper and her husband, Tony Cacciotti, hid her bout with lung cancer until it spread to her brain, forcing her to bail out of last year’s national tour of Looped. At the time she left the play he wrote, doctors had given the 74-year-old "Rhoda" star just months to live.

The suit filed in Manhattan Federal Court charges that although Harper and Cacciotti “were both aware” she had been diagnosed with lung cancer in 2009, neither bothered to disclose it to Lombardo. Harper and her husband “knowingly withheld the truth” about her cancer, the suit charges.

Lombardo’s suit was a counterclaim to one Harper filed demanding she still be paid for the production she dropped out of for health reasons. Harper could not be reached for comment Sunday.

She was in rehearsals for a national tour of Looped when diagnosed in January 2013 with brain cancer. In the production, Harper played Hollywood legend Tallulah Bankhead, a role that garnered her a 2010 Tony Award nomination.

The suit contends Lombardo sought to get Tovah Feldshuh to take on the role, but went with Harper when she insisted taking the job.

In the lawsuit, playwright Lombardo claims he didn’t know about Harper’s earlier battle with lung cancer until December 2012, just before the release of her autobiography. Prior to her brain cancer diagnosis, Harper was exhibiting signs of health problems, such as slurred speech and memory loss, that were hampering the show’s rehearsals.

Lombardo claims he urged Harper to seek medical attention. Harper dropped out of the production the same month she was diagnosed, leaving Lombardo scrambling for a replacement.

Stefanie Powers stepped in, but Lombardo and the play’s producers said they lost at least $500,000 due to having to replace Harper on short notice. Lombardo and the producers of Looped are also suing for an additional $1.5 million because they say Harper misled them.

Harper has gone on to bravely participate in ABC’s "Dancing With the Stars". She’s also returned to the small screen with a guest appearance in the Hallmark Channel series "Signed, Sealed and Delivered", which aired Sunday night.

Earlier this month, Harper denied reports that she had beat cancer and was in the clear. “I am not ‘absolutely cancer-free,’” she said in a statement. “I wish I were.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...icle-1.1770673

Read more: http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=324206#ixzz31kB6guW6

Hey idiot--er, blueghost. Now you can report me for plagiarism, too. Keep sending in those phony abuse reports, and we can all sit back and have a good laugh watching you blow your account up. Again.