‘Judge Judy’ Sheindlin Slams ‘Hilarious’ Lawsuit Over Her Salary

Judge Judy CBS series
Courtesy of CBS

Talent agency Rebel Entertainment Partners claims it has not received contractually obligated payments from CBS since 2010

Judge Judy Sheindlin has fired back against a lawsuit claiming that her outsize salary has driven her CBS-syndicated courtroom show into the red.

Talent agency Rebel Entertainment Partners said in a suit filed Monday that it has not received contractually obligated payments for “Judge Judy” since 2010, because the show is losing money due to Sheindlin’s annual salary of as much as $47 million.

“The fact that Richard Lawrence is complaining about my salary is actually hilarious,” Sheindlin said in a statement Monday. “I met Mr. Lawrence for 2 hours some 21 years ago. Neither I nor anyone involved in the day-to-day production of my program has heard from him in 20 years. Not a card, not a gift, not a flower, not a congratulations. Yet he has somehow received over $17,000,000 from my program. My rudimentary math translates that into $8,500,000 an hour for Mr. Lawrence. Not a bad payday. Now complaining about not getting enough money, that’s real chutzpah!”

Sheindlin renewed her deal with CBS in 2013 and signed an extension in 2015. Rebel Entertainment Partners’ successor-in-interest claims in the suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, that in “the six-month accounting period after Scheindlin’s pay raise … defendants reported net profits of negative $3,195,217.” The suit also claims that “in the six-month accounting period prior to Scheindlin’s pay raise, the show reported net profits of $3,572,195, of which 5% ($178,609) was paid to Rebel.”

The suit calls Sheindlin’s salary “grossly inconsistent with customary practice in the television industry.”

Sheindlin is not named as a plaintiff in the suit, which also claims that CBS Studios, CBS Corp., and CBS-owned Big Ticket Entertainment cut Rebel out of potential profits “by licensing the show to CBS’s corporate affiliates — television stations owned or operated by CBS — for below-market fees in transactions that were not negotiated at arms-length.”

The lawsuit also asserts that CBS was obligated to discuss a packaging fee with Rebel for any “Judge Judy” spinoffs, but did not do so before the launch of “Hot Bench,” a syndicated show created by Sheindlin. In her statement, Sheindlin added, “Since I have not spoken with Mr. Lawrence in over 20 years to suggest that he had any involvement in my creating Hot Bench is equally laughable.”

Rebel, which is seeking undisclosed damages, claims that “Judge Judy” has grossed $1.7 billion since it premiered in 1996, and that Rebel received regular payments for the show until 2010.

Attorneys Bryan Freedman and Jordan Sussman are representing Rebel. Freedman has represented Variety’s parent company PMC in multiple legal matters.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 7

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. justahunch says:

    Why on earth does this woman deserve 47 million for what she does?! No wonder Bernie Sanders is in such an uproar. This is beyond comprehension or any sort of logic. People who do important things for the world are deserving of sums like this, not a two bit judge on a crappy TV show who every time I have seen it is busy ridiculing and belittling people.

    • Tiffany says:

      lol Bernie Sanders.

    • CNU says:

      Because people tune in to watch her show, and then advertisers pay the producers to be able to have access to those viewers and the producers then pay a portion of those proceeds so she will continue to be on the show to generate views and thus more advertising dollars. you may not consider her important, but the people paying her do.

      • K.L.C. says:

        She gets a percentage of what her show profits. Lucky for her, it is VERY profitable. Why shouldn’t she get her share. Should the network get it all?

  2. TheBigBangof20thCenturyPopCulture says:

    Said plaintiff is trying to get his 5% share of 1.7 billion in profits. Another victim of creative accounting.

  3. Jimmy Green says:

    get him judy..counter sue for a frivolous lawsuit.

    • Jack says:

      It’s like guy above said. Creative accounting. It’s common in Hollywood to write off lots losses in order to keep more money.

More TV News from Variety