UPDATED, 6:12 PM: The many turns in and out of court in the equity and competition disputes between CAA and Range Media Partners has seen the legal script flipped again.

Two days ago, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied a request by the David Bugliari-, Peter Micelli– and Jack Whigham-created Range’s request for a pause in the wide-ranging lawsuit filed last October by the Bryan Lourd-run CAA. That order would have seen the former CAA agents having to testify in the ongoing arbitration the parties have been fighting for a couple of years over CAA cutting off vested equity for the Range founders when they jumped to form their own company.

On Wednesday, a judge on the Second Appellate court said that a pause was on now, at least temporarily.

“The petition for writ of supersedeas filed on January 28, 2025, has been read and considered along with the request for an immediate stay of the superior court’s December 20, 2024 order as well as the temporary opposition,” the court wrote in its order. “The December 20, 2024 order directing Range Media Partners, LLC, and Peter Micelli to comply with the hearing subpoenas issued by the arbitration panel on June 21, 2024, is temporarily stayed until further order of this court.”

“CAA’s victory dance on this petition for a stay was premature,” Range’s lead lawyer Orin Snyder of NYC-based Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher told Deadline of the shift in events. “We look forward to presenting our arguments to the appeals court.”

“CAA respects the judicial process,” Elena Baca, the agency’s outside counsel from Paul Hastings said this evening. “Despite Range’s endless efforts to delay and evade, we remain confident that these maneuvers will not ultimately succeed in court.”

How long the stay will be in place is anyone’s guess, but the Court of Appeal usually moves pretty fast in matters like this. Which means a trio of judges could take Range’s desire for a more permanent stay, at least as the parallel behind-closed-doors arbitration goes on, under consideration soon or within the next few weeks. Either way, the latest development buys time for Range in the public sphere and offers both the company and CAA time to consider a settlement in the arbitration.

Of course, as many lawyers and their clients have learned the hard way, the pendulum can swing one way as quickly as it went the other when it comes to such matters. So no one should been doing a victory dance on right now.

PREVIOUSLY, 12:33 AM: The fact is not a lot has been going on lately publicly in the legal duels between CAA and the agency’s ex-staffers over at Range Media Partners over equity, competition and the shifting line of what may or may not constitute being an agent, until Monday – when all Hell broke loose.

First of all, with a March arbitration hearing on the books, the Bryan Lourd-run CAA scored a big victory at an early morning session in Santa Monica on January 27 with LA Superior Court Judge Mark A. Young denying the David Bugliari, Peter Micelli and Jack Whigham created Range’s request to stay the litigation and slip out of giving testimony and producing documentation in the ongoing behind closed doors mediation.

“Respondents do not explain what harm would come to them from testifying and/or disclosing the records before the Panel,” Judge Young wrote in his minute order.

“Reviewing the declarations in support of the stay motion and the opposition to the petition, Respondents do not substantiate any potential privacy concerns with these records or any other similar harm to Respondents’ interests from disclosure,” he went on to say after hearing oral arguments from lawyers on both sides earlier on Monday.

“On the other hand, Petitioners will suffer harm if they are unable to secure the subject testimony and records at the set arbitration hearing dates,” the LASC judge added. “While the arbitration hearing dates could theoretically be rescheduled, Petitioners demonstrate that the arbitration panel is not likely to continue the hearings and have already denied a motion to stay or continue the arbitration.”

“Thus, Petitioners’ case risks significant prejudice if a stay is granted,” Judge Young asserted. “At worst, Petitioners would be forced to proceed without this material evidence. At the very least, what is supposed to be a speedy forum for resolution without the need for drawn out discovery proceedings would be significantly delayed.”

With the October 2020 cancelling of the former CAAer’s vested equity by CAA at the “draconian” heart of the matter under arbitration for around two years now, let’s just call this the Judge’s please-don’t-waste-my-time order. Not that Range, having been denied the stay they were betting on, weren’t then willing to put all the chips on the table for a shot at getting the September 30 bracing suit from CAA tossed out “without leave to amend.”

Last Fall, CAA took its dust-up with Range very public with claims the organization was in “pursuit of unlawful profit through deception,” and actually doing the work of a talent agency while skirting the laws that agencies have to abide by. “CAA is prepared to prove that Range Media was formed through dishonest conduct and, as reflected in other public, pending legal proceedings about Range’s failure to comply with arbitration subpoenas, has concealed evidence of its founders’ actions,” CAA counsel Elena Baca told Deadline on October 1 of the sprawling suit submitted by CAA.

Respectfully or not, “and with the motto of “if once you don’t succeed, try, try again,” Range still deeply disagrees with that POV from the uberagency — and if they can’t get a stay, they’ll ty to get the whole thing shut down or tossed out.

“This case is not a close call,” Range’s NYC and LA Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher lawyers penned in a dismissal motion filed later on Monday in LASC. Never mentioning that they lost their stay effort, the management group refer to the equity cancellation as “illegal” and are asking for an August 5 hearing on the January 27 motion.

In the meantime, it’s not like Range aren’t trying to rough heavyweight CAA up a bit in the docket and with the media and public. As a large swath of Sundance returning Hollywood wonders why both sides don’r just let it go and move on with building their businesses, the “dismissed with prejudice” seeking motion submitted to the court explains:

CAA has not explained why it waited until late 2024 to file this case if, as it alleges, Range stole confidential information and competed unlawfully four years ago, in 2020. Nor has it explained why it did not file suit two years ago when it raised these allegations in arbitration. CAA’s lawsuit appears to be a continuation of its retaliatory tactics and should be dismissed or struck without leave to replead. As set forth below, the claims are either preempted, filed in the wrong tribunal, or defective as a matter of law because CAA lacks standing to bring the claim. Each of CAA’s claims fails as a matter of law and should be dismissed or struck without leave to replead.

There has been no formal response from CAA on Range’s motion, yet. Still, with the state of affairs between the two ready to crack open further and faster than lagoon ice in March, CAA’s Baca essentially called Range’s efforts a clown show said in a statement Tuesday:

Yesterday’s court ruling makes clear that Range’s multiyear strategy of constant obfuscation and evasion will not succeed.  Companies with nothing to hide do not spend this much time and energy evading legal processes.  The court rejected Range’s most recent attempt to avoid producing documents and sworn testimony.  Range’s filing yesterday was just more deflection and distraction.  CAA’s lawsuit against Range doesn’t have anything to do with canceled equity.  Equity members who comply with the law are always in good standing and their equity retains its value.  CAA understands and welcomes fair competition.  It competes with a lot of companies every day.  CAA collaborates with legitimate managers and management companies every day.  What Range did is entirely different; emails, texts and witnesses prove it.  Range set out to create a company that does not play by the same rules as everyone else, with individuals placing their interests and those of Range above their fellow equity holders, colleagues and clients, as we set out in our Complaint.  That is the essence of unfair competition. That is CAA’s claim against Range.

Being that this is Hollywood where perception is reality over half the time, and lawyers love to snag a spotlight or two, Range’s Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher lead attorney came at CAA with some old school David and Goliath burns.

“CAA is back to its old tricks,” Orin Snyder said after the filing by “It’s trying to use its power to bully and intimidate Range and its founders …It won’t work.”

“For an agency that professes to support talent, it’s ironic that CAA is now attempting to reduce choice in the industry,” Snyder says, trying to paint one of the worst versions of the situation the agency risks falling into if they take the bait. “At the same time, CAA is sending a clear message to all of its agents that their hard-earned vested equity could be taken away forever at the whim of the agency.  CAA’s lawsuit is a publicity stunt that will not succeed.” 

It might not succeed, but it also might not be that black and white, for either CAA or Range – – as they and their lawyers likely know. We may know in August what shade of grey this could all end being in the end — unless Trump pardons everyone.