The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation resolved this Tuesday, unanimously, that the civil court that intervenes in the succession of Diego Armando Maradona must also resolve a statement by his ex-wife Claudia Villafañe in relation to the rights to the TV series “Maradona, blessed dream”, from Amazon Prime.
It is for an action to repair damages by Villafañe against several people, including Maradona himself before his death on November 25, 2020.
Coincidentally, the Court, unanimously, resolved that the Civil and Commercial Court No. 20 of the Judicial Department of La Plata intervene in this new case of the trial for the assets of the former number 10 of the Argentine soccer team.
In this way, the Court today resolved cases on gender issues, the use of medical cannabis and other issues of general interest and little close to issues of a political and institutional nature.
On April 3, 2019, Villafañe filed an action requesting BTF Media SA, BTF Media LLC, Amazon Prime Video and Maradona to show and deliver a copy of the rights assignment agreement and all the scripts for the series -which at that time moment was being filmed-, called “Maradona, blessed dream”.
The request, he said, was preparatory to a preventive action and, secondarily, to an action to repair damages that was going to be directed, among others, against her ex-husband. Maradona died on November 25, 2020, during the processing of the case.
As a result of this, the National Court of First Instance in Civil Matters No. 61 and the Civil and Commercial Court No. 20 of La Plata, province of Buenos Aires, disagreed on which should understand Villafañe’s action. These are courts of different jurisdictions.
The first declared himself incompetent and ordered the proceedings to be sent to the provincial court in charge of the succession of the soccer star’s assets.
He considered that Maradona was a passive subject of the proceedings, and highlighted the existence of Contractual obligations resulting from an image rights assignment agreement and the eventual intervention that could be applied to the heirs and/or the designated administrator in the succession.
For its part, the La Plata court rejected the case on the grounds that the addressees of the eventual action for damages were not established that Villafañe was going to present.
In his opinion, the provisional Attorney General of the Nation, Eduardo Casal, understood that the jurisdiction of attraction of the universal judgment is operative. He said in other terms: that the pre-existing trials to the death of Maradona and in process, they had to come together in the court that intervenes in the probate trial.
CSJ 1973/2021/CS1 “Villafañe, Claudia Rosana v/ BTF Media SA and others on preliminary proceedings”
Don’t Trust On this News and Website Maybe it’s Fake
Reference from clarin www.clarin.com