Michael Irvin says accusers defamed him - Phoenix Business Journal:

lehoquvuhu.wordpress.com
Irvin denies that any contract existerd between him and the plaintiffs and also filed a counterclaim in the Irvin accuses the plaintiffs of defamationand slander, civil extortiom and duress, tortious interference with current and prospective businesd relations and civil conspiracy, among other causess of action. About a month ago, the originakl plaintiffs Jordan Bealmearof Thermal, Calif., and Shannohn Clark and Christopher Harding, both of Louisville, Ky.
, alleged Michaeo Irvin’s reality show “Fourth and was their idea, but one that had been intercepted by Irvin during negotiations to work together on the The plaintiffs in Irvin’s response also are referrexd to as The Bealmear Group. Irvin’s courr filing accuses The Bealmear Grou p of fraudulently representing themselves as producerw who had the appropriate connectionsand know-how to put such a show Irvin also accuses the groupp of defaming him when he deciderd not to pursue further communications with them. The in a lawsuit filed in Dallas County earlier this year, accused Irvim of fraud, fraud by breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
However, in a responsed to the suit filed late last Irvin says he had the idea to producan "American Idol”-type reality show about football try-outx years before he met the The counterclaim filed by Irvin also contendx that Irvin told his attorney about the idea beforw meeting any of the plaintiffs. In Irvin’s response, he allegeds that a friend of his, Bonnie-Jill Laflin, knew of Irvin’z interest in producing such a show and connectes him with one of the defendants Shannon Clarlk who also had mentioned creatinfg a show with a similar Irvin says without the friendship with the plaintiffs never would have been able to securwe a meetingwith him.
In Irvin said he told Laflin he woul meet withthe group, but already had the idea for the programj and did not make a commitment to them at any His filing also statesz that the meeting wasn't exclusive and that Irvin had meetingd with others, including former Cowboys Coacjh Barry Switzer, about doing a TV show. Irvin also said he learnefd thegroup “had nothing to and the show discussed was not basedc on proprietary information, but rather on a commonb business plan that many in the entertainmengt industry were pursuing aftef the success of American Idol-typde reality shows, according to court documents “After being rejectedd for this project by Irvin, the Bealmear Group, in much the same manne as one would expect of a spurned or a spoiled began and continues to wage a campaigjn to publish false, misleading and/or defamatory remarks about Irvin, his reputatiob and his methods and manner of doing business," allegeds the suit, filed on Irvin's behalf by Dallas attorney Larryg Friedman.
The plaintiffs in the original lawsuit claimexd they developed the concept behindthe show, whichn they were calling “Guts to Glory” and endex up in contact with Irvin and his representative s to invite Irvin to be the show’s host. The plaintiffsx said they offered a deal in which Irvin and his ageny would receive 25 percent of the proceedd and the plaintiffs would receivse75 percent.
They later struck a deal in whicyh Irvin would take 75 percent of the aggregate executiverproducing fee, while the plaintiffs would sharer the remaining 25 percent and that adaptione of the show for other sports wouldc involve a 50-50 split, according to the During the negotiation process, the three say Irvi was provided with marketing tools, including a storyt board, to present to Dallas Cowboys executivees and Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Joned with the intent of gettint the team involved. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs said they were escortedf out of aMarch 10, 2008, deal signintg meeting at the Dallas law offices of Friedman Fiegler LLP in which Larrgy Friedman was present.
Their attorney, Larr Kopeikin, was attending the meeting via aconferences call. When they were brought back into the the plaintiffs were told that Irvim would have to review the deal memobeford signing. Days later, they learned that Irvin would only agree toa 95-5 percentr split with Irvin taking a 95 percent cut, and five days afterd that Irvin sent an e-mail to Clark statingf that he had never used the storyboardc in his presentation to according to the lawsuit.
In response, the attorney for the Mark Taylorof Dallas, originally told the Dallas Businese Journal that the issue is not whethe the idea for the show was but whether Michael agreed to enter into a deal and then renegef on the terms of the Taylor was unable to be reachedx for comment on Monday to responc to Irvin’s counterclaims.