# Practical Magic, LLC v. Genevieve Von Petzinger

> District Court, C.D. California · August 26, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11131063

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** August 26, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11131063

## Opinion text

1

2

3

4

5

6

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

10
PRACTICAL MAGIC LLC; and No. 2:23-cv-04295-WLH(JCx)
11 ANGEL VALLEY PRODUCTIONS,
12 LLC FINAL JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs,
13
14 v.
15 GENEVIEVE VON PETZINGER,

16 Defendant.
17

18 On September 10, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs Practical Magic, LLC and
19 Angel Valley Productions, LLC’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Application for Attorneys’
20 Fees due to defendant Genevieve von Petzinger’s (“Defendant”) violations of Court orders
21 (Dkt. No. 80). On August 1, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’
22 Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant (Dkt. No. 129).
23 For the reasons set forth therein:
24 I.
25 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:
26 1. Defendant is ORDERED to pay Plaintiffs $18,480 in attorney’s fees due to
27 Defendant’s violations of Court orders.
1 II.
2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:
3 2. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs’ causes of action for
4 breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
5 intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement.
6 3. Defendant is ORDERED to pay Plaintiffs damages in the amount of
7 $466,422 arising out of Plaintiffs’ fraud claims.
8 4. Defendant is ORDERED to pay Plaintiffs damages in the amount of
9 $3,256,264, plus pre-judgment interest in the amount of $321,585.60, arising out of
10 Plaintiffs’ contract claims.1
11
12
1 “In diversity actions, state law determines the rate of prejudgment interest.” Am. Tel. &
13
Tel. Co. v. United Computer Sys., Inc., 98 F.3d 1206, 1209 (9th Cir. 1996). “California
14 law provides that prejudgment interest on a breach of contract claim begins to run from
the date of injury if the damages are certain, but from no earlier than the date of the
15
complaint if the damages are uncertain.” Ameris Bank v. Key Carrier Grp., Co., 2024
16 WL 3740093, at *7 (C.D. Cal. June 28, 2024) (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 3287). Recovery
of this interest, in other words, is dependent on whether the defendant actually knows the
17
amount owed or from reasonably available information could the defendant have
18 computed that amount.” Forbush v. NTI-CA Inc., 2025 WL 405696, at *15 (S.D. Cal.
Feb. 5, 2025) (citing Children’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Bonta, 97 Cal.App.4th 740, 774
19
(2002)). The Court accepts Plaintiffs’ proposal to award prejudgment interest on the
20 outstanding balance of the John Templeton Foundation grant in the amount of
$1,438,471, with accrual commencing on June 1, 2023, the date Defendant breached her
21
obligations under the Attachment Agreement and On-Camera Talent Agreement via her
22 counsel’s letter to the Foundation notifying it of her withdrawal from the First Signs
project. (See Compl., Docket No. 102 ¶ 150). On that date, it was certain to Defendant
23
that her withdrawal would directly result in Plaintiffs’ loss of grant funds.
24
Since the contract at issue does not enumerate a legal rate of interest, the pre-judgment
25 interest is set to 10 percent per annum. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3289(b). Accordingly, the
daily rate of interest on the $1,438,471 in contract damages for Plaintiffs’ loss in grant
26
funding, as ordered by the Court (see Docket No. 129), is $394.10. As of the date of this
27 Judgment, 816 days have elapsed since Defendant’s breach, justifying an award of
$321,585.60 in pre-judgment interest.
1 III.
2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:
3 5. The Attachment Agreement, attached to the Second Amended Complaint
4 (Dkt. No. 102) at Exhibit A, is a valid, effective, and enforceable contract under California
5 law. It is further declared that the Attachment Agreement is in full force and effect because
6 Plaintiffs obtained third party funding for the Series.
7 6. Practical Magic, LLC and Defendant entered in a valid, enforceable implied-
8 in-fact contract through Defendant’s conduct, the terms of which are set forth in the On-
9 Camera Talent Agreement attached to the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 102) at
10 Exhibit D. There are no terms of the On-Camera Talent Agreement that are excluded from
11 the implied-in-fact contract between Practical Magic, LLC and Defendant. Furthermore,
12 Defendant’s conduct created implied-in-fact assent to the On-Camera Talent Agreement,
13 a true and correct copy of which is attached to the Second Amended Complaint at Exhibit
14 D. Defendant is a party to the On-Camera Talent Agreement, as if she had provided her
15 written signature to same. She is legally bound by all of the terms contained therein.
16 7. Defendant does not hold, own, or control any intellectual property or
17 copyrights associated with The First Signs docuseries (the “Series”) (in whole or in part),
18 or any rights, entitlements, or interests thereto. Pursuant to the Attachment
19 Agreement, Angel Valley Productions, LLC owns the results and proceeds of all of
20 Defendant’s services in connection with the Series and the exclusive right to use
21 intellectual property owned or controlled by Defendant utilized in conjunction with the
22 Series, such rights to be exclusive to Angel Valley Productions, LLC in television and
23 adjacent forms of media, including but not limited to VOD, streaming, home video, and
24 EST, with the sole right to exploit same in all media throughout the world in perpetuity.
25 8. The Attachment Agreement (Dkt. No. 102 at Exhibit A) and the On-Camera
26 Talent Agreement (Dkt. No. 102 at Exhibit D) are incorporated fully herein by reference.
27
1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:
2 9. Post judgment interest shall accrue on all amounts set forth in this order at
3 || the federal statutory rate of 3.91 percent per annum.”
4
aes
5 || DATED: 8/26/2025 - ae fp a Lf -——__.
6 HON. WESLEY L. HSU
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 ||? Post judgment interest is governed by federal law. See Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 98 F.3d at
6 1209. “Such interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a
rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by
27 || the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week
28 preceding the date of the judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961 The average of the previous
week’s yields (August 15, 2025 to August 22, 2025) is 3.91.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11131063. Public record. Not legal advice.