Judge Judy’s $47 Million Salary Ruled Not Excessive in California Appeals Court
CBS recently earned a win in the long-running lawsuit regarding former TV host Judge Judy’s $47 million salary.
Judge Judy was a popular court TV show hosted by Judith Sheindlin. The series premiered on Sept. 16, 1996, and ended on July 23, of this year.
In 2016 talent agency Rebel Entertainment Partners Inc. and its president, Richard Lawrence, filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against CBS alleging that the network failed to pay the agency its share of the show’s profits. According to the suit, CBS didn’t pay Rebel for the past six years due to Judge Judy’s multi-million dollar salary, which caused the show to operate at a loss.
Despite the agency’s claims, however, a California appeals court has recently ruled there wasn’t anything wrong with Judith Sheindlin earning a large income for the work she did on Judge Judy.
The ruling stated:
“Any apportionment of Sheindlin’s salary to some form of profit participation would, by definition, introduce risk that Sheindlin was unwilling to accept. In any event, we have discovered no authority, and Rebel offers none, obligating an entity to reclassify a performer’s salary as something other than salary for accounting purposes.”
As previously reported, Judge Judy will be back in front of the camera soon and will star in a new show for Amazon’s IMDb TV. Judge Judy spoke on the unnamed show with The Hollywood Reporter. She said,
“I’m over the moon to be in business with Amazon Studios and continuing this incredible journey with them on a new platform is so exciting,”
She jokingly added,
“I used to yell at my husband, Jerry, for all the packages he had ordered from Amazon every day. I have enough mouthwash in the cabinets to keep the entire planet’s breath fresh until the next millennium. The doorbell never stops ringing. The dogs don’t even bark at the delivery people anymore. After I signed this deal, I apologized to Jerry. Who would have thought that the Sheindlins and Amazon would be mishpachah.”
What are your thoughts on the court’s ruling? Tell us in the comments below.