David Bergstein Smacked Down in $50 Million Lawsuit Against Aramid Entertainment

David Bergstein Smacked Down in $50 Million Lawsuit Against Aramid Entertainment

Judge finds that Bergstein has "not established the probability of success" in his lawsuit

David Bergstein will not pass go, and will not collect $50 million.

Film producer Bergstein has been defeated in his $50 million lawsuit against Aramid Entertainment, according to court papers obtained by TheWrap.

Also read: David Bergstein Blusters: I'm a Victim! … Rrrrright

Los Angeles Superior Court judge Michelle R. Rosenblatt has sided with Aramid's demurrer in the case, and denied Bergstein a leave to amend.

Bergstein filed suit against Aramid in January 2012, claiming that Aramid had breached its agreement stemming from a loan settlement and causing his companies to go into involuntary bankruptcy.

Also read: David Molner and David Bergstein: Guilty or Not?

In his initial complaint, Bergstein alleged that Aramid "made various loans to entities associated with Plaintiffs relating to Plaintiffs' film production and distribution business." The suit went on to claim that Aramid served as co-lender in a series of loans made by D.B. Zwim & Co. to Bergstein's companies that Bergstein's affiliate companies weren't able to repay.

Bergstein claimed that he reached an agreement on the loans under which Aramid "released a broad spectrum of individuals and entities, including each of Plaintiffs and their affiliates, from a wide array of claims."

Also read: David Bergstein Sues Miramax Investors for Breach of Contract

Instead, Bergstein's suit alleged, Aramid launched "an expensive and protracted series of litigations against Bergstein an his affiliates, which included (among other things) involuntary bankruptcy against several entities affiliated with Plaintiffs."

But in her decision dated July 1, Rosenblatt found that "rather than an express waiver, the agreement sets forth, in essence, tat the release may be pled as a defense and used in an injunction against any action instituted in breach of such release."

Rosenblatt also found that Bergstein's allegations were "not based on pre-bankruptcy conduct but on the very act of filing the involuntary bankruptcy petition," which Rosenblatt counts among Aramid's "protected activities."

The judge also determined that Bergstein has "not established the probability of success in the lawsuit."

Pamela Chelin contributed to this report.