Home : Celebrity Justice, Exclusives : 'Ugly' Lawsuit Filed Against Betty's Dad

Celebrity Justice
'Ugly' Lawsuit Filed Against Betty's Dad

Posted Jul 27th 2009 9:50AM by TMZ Staff

Ugly Betty Suarez isn't the only unattractive thing in Tony Plana's life -- a lawsuit was just filed against him and it ain't pretty either.

Tony's former manager Tracy Quinn just filed suit in L.A. County, which claims ever since Tony tossed her to the curb in '08, she hasn't been receiving her cut of his "Ugly" paycheck -- a deal she claims to have brokered.

Tracy is suing Tony for breach of contract to the tune of at least $500,000.

Tags: lawsuit, sued, tony plana, TonyPlana, ugly betty, UglyBetty

Comments [10]
SHARE |
4ie6

Relevant Posts

Reader Comments

(Page 1 of 1)

1. FIST AGAIN SUCKERS!!!

Posted at 1:48PM on Jul 27th 2009 by toofastforyou!

2. A CONTACT IS A CONTRACT, PAY UP DEAD BEAT , UGLY PEOPLE NEED MONEY TOO.

Posted at 1:49PM on Jul 27th 2009 by HighwayStar

3. Honestly, I hate this part of the storyline of Ugly Betty and I wish they would write this guy off the show. I find this whole story line and this guy in particular to be annoying. Love Ugly Betty though. When the Dad comes on.....pottybreak!

Posted at 1:59PM on Jul 27th 2009 by MADRADDER

4. third

Posted at 1:59PM on Jul 27th 2009 by Dirty

5. Way to post this twice, TMZ.

Posted at 2:05PM on Jul 27th 2009 by ly9512

6. A few years ago, I happened to have a conversation with Tony Plana. He struck me as a self-absorbed, disingenuous rat. So am not surprised that he would try to welsh on any deal. Hang in there, Tracy!

Posted at 3:08PM on Jul 27th 2009 by El Conde

7. Well, he's not going to win. A contract is not a contract. You can't contract for illegal things. Managers are prohibited from procuring employment by law, so she's trying to recover on an illegal contract. She should have been more careful, actors do this ALL THE TIME.

Posted at 5:29PM on Jul 27th 2009 by Anonymous

8. To Anonymous: Respectfully, you're completely wrong. Managers are not prohibited from procuring employment from Artists, the Talent Agencies Act has just been wrongly interpreted and enforced that way by the State Labor Commissioner.

This world is about to change. What the managers currently in such controversies understand is that because the Act has no penalty clause, there can be no illegality (See U.S. v. Evans 517 U.S. 559 (1948) Trying to assign a penalty where there is no penalty “is a task outside the bounds of judicial interpretation”); BMW of America v. Gore 517 U.S. 559 (1995) “[A] person [must] receive fair notice not only of the conduct that will subject him to punishment but also of the penalty that a State may impose.” "It is uniformly held that a court may not mete out a penalty when no penalty statues exist. (See New Jersey v. Fair Lawn Services, Inc 120 A. 2d 233.)

As you can see from the above, the Labor Commission's meting out penalties has been done without statutory authority. That makes the current enforcement violative of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States.

And because the penalties the Labor Commission metes out is the wrongful impairment of contracts, the Act as applied is also violative of Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution, the Contract Clause.

Further, show business is by nature interstate commerce, and this particular case is about a guy working in NYC for a Delaware corporation trying to get out of paying a CA-based manager because she allegedly didn't have a license that only California based people can get. That makes it an unconstitutional barrier to interstate commerce.

Bottom line: while artists used to be able to get out of paying their managers with impunity, that era is now history. Once this case (or related ones, also using the same strategy) wends through the courts, Mr. Plana will have both a mid figure liability to Ms. Quinn and a six figure debt to his attorney. Hopefully his attorney, who has recently lost two high profile cases, has been forthright about this new twist in this generations-old drama and informing Tony of the downside of not quickly finding an amicable resolution.

Posted at 8:42PM on Jul 27th 2009 by Rick Siegel

9. Hey Anonymous - What do you think managers make their money from - the actors' piggy banks? They get a % of the artist's income - even if they didn't "officially" procure the work.

Posted at 10:32PM on Jul 27th 2009 by makes sense

10. Dear makes sense,

Anonymous' position is that because of the way the TAA has been enforced, managers are paid only when and if their clients feel like it.

It is a position devoid of equity or class, yet endorsed and until now enforces by the State Labor Commission. Chances are anonymous is an attorney who makes money for his (I know of no woman who's ever litigated using the 'hey, you don't have to pay the person who worked for you' ploy, perhaps saying something about the difference between the sexes) helping actors, writers etc avoid their moral and contractual obligation.

I don't blame the artist -- if you can save money legally, I get ti. The real antagonists are the attorneys.

Posted at 11:24AM on Jul 28th 2009 by Rick Siegel