Jury Duty Shows Judge How Other Half Lives

JURY DUTY 90210: “From jurist to juror,” said state Chief Justice Ronald George, an outspoken supporter of jury reform who, unlike many of us, couldn’t ignore his jury summons. “Who am I to say I’m too busy to serve on jury duty?”

But alas, his honor didn’t get on a case during his recent stint as a juror in Beverly Hills Municipal Court.

Without a doubt, this prospective juror was qualified. After all, he presided over the Hillside Strangler case and presides over the California Supreme Court.

He sailed through the juror orientation program. He even was summoned to a courtroom for a medical malpractice trial.

As he sat quietly in a back row of Municipal Judge Judith O. Stein’s courtroom, George said, the judge “sort of squinted,” and asked his name. “Oh my, we have the chief justice here,” she said.

His Honor was excused because the lawyers estimated that the trial would last at least three weeks, and George couldn’t spare that much time away from court business. He said he was somewhat disappointed.

Since he became chief justice in 1996, George has looked for ways to boost the low rate of juror participation, which dips in some courts to 6%. He has convinced the state Judicial Council to propose increases in the $5 a day jurors are paid, and to push for tax breaks for employers, as well as transportation and child care allowances. Those proposals are before the Legislature.

Now, having faced the inconvenience of jury service, George says he is an even bigger fan of a system other states use in which, on the first day jurors are summoned, they are either put on a jury or they don’t have to come back.

Other notables who have been summoned to jury duty in Beverly Hills in the past few months include former Secretary of State Warren Christopher and actor John Lithgow, a court clerk said.

STOGIE WARS: Hamilton’s Humidor opened as scheduled Wednesday night in Old Pasadena, despite efforts from an old friend to snuff out actor George Hamilton’s rival cigar emporium.

The “Love at First Bite” star had lent his face and name to a smoking salon at the Wine Merchant in Beverly Hills. But Hamilton had a falling out with partner Dennis Overstreet over royalties from a custom blend cigar named after the actor. He wants to use his celebrity to market his own cigar store.

Saying it would violate terms of Hamilton’s contract, Overstreet sought to stop Hamilton from opening any competing establishments until their months-old court dispute is resolved.

According to court papers, Overstreet got wind of Hamilton’s plans for the rival stogie shop when he received an engraved invitation to Wednesday’s grand opening. Hamilton’s lawyers were able to convince a Superior Court judge that the business in Pasadena “would likely fail” if the opening gala was called off at the last minute.

Everyone returns to court Aug. 6, when Superior Court Judge Diane Wayne is scheduled to consider the Wine Merchant’s request for a permanent injunction.

Meanwhile, employees answer the phone at the Pasadena store with a chipper “Hamilton’s Humidor,” but it is listed in the phone book simply as “The Humidor.”

Overstreet, who says his friendship with Hamilton was a victim of “too much success,” continues to pay the actor royalties. But, he added, “for actors willing to smoke, I am available.”

THEIR LOVE IS REAL MAGIC: Magician David Copperfield sued Paris Match for $30 million, claiming the Euro mag libeled him in a story that alleged he was paying supermodel Claudia Schiffer to be his fiancee.

“They are in love and plan to get married,” insisted attorney Bert Fields, who filed the suit in Los Angeles Superior Court. “Paris Match shouldn’t have passed on that very cruel rumor.”

Copperfield and Schiffer met on the job and fell in love, according to the suit. “They are not pretending to be anything to anyone,” the documents asserted.

According to the lawsuit, the French magazine’s story, titled “David and Claudia--A Love Under Contract,” was false and planted maliciously by a rival magician “who is monstrously envious of plaintiff’s success” and has waged an “obsessive vendetta” against Copperfield. The magazine stated that the couple’s romance was a publicity stunt cooked up by Copperfield’s mother, and that Schiffer didn’t even like him.

Attorneys for the magazine could not be reached for comment. Schiffer also plans to file suit, the court documents state.

THE NAKED TRUTH: That Brad Pitt, he sure does get around. First his suit against Playgirl went before a judge in Los Angeles Superior Court. Then off it went to federal court. Now it’s back in Superior Court, where Judge Robert O’Brien will decide Tuesday whether to make permanent his temporary order barring further distribution of the sold-out skin mag. In sending the case back, U.S. District Judge Kim Wardlaw noted that the local courthouse is much more used to handling celeb cases.

PLANET HONEYMOON: Bruce Willis and Demi Moore say they are still very much an item, thank you very much. Telling their lawyer they are fed up with tabloid stories that have their marriage hitting the skids, the supercouple sued the Star, a supermarket tabloid, for $5 million, plus unspecified punitive damages.

The Superior Court suit alleges that the tabloid libeled the Moore/Willises and invaded their privacy by publishing articles that falsely depicted them as “estranged, flirtatious, unfaithful to one another, manipulative and irrational both personally and professionally.” It also accuses the Star of libeling Moore in another story that said she “partied up a storm” with actor Johnny Depp.

The tabloid, according to the suit, reported that things had gotten so tense between the stars that they were “secretly heading to splitsville” and consulting divorce lawyers. They consulted attorney Martin D. Singer, who specializes in celebrity libel and slander cases.

Singer said Moore’s demands for retractions fell on deaf ears after the cover of the June 10 edition blared: “Demi & Bruce Marriage on the Rocks,” continuing inside with another headline, “Now It’s Turning into H’wood’s Nastiest Divorce in Years.” Instead of a retraction, the suit says, the Star further defamed Moore by following up with a story July 1: “Johnny Depp’s Wild Night With Demi.”

“We are not filing this lawsuit for financial gain but to protect our reputation,” Willis said through his publicist.

The Star’s lawyer in New York could not be reached for comment.

YO, I SAID CAMEO: Sylvester Stallone sued a production company for $20 million--his going rate to star in a film--claiming that his six-minute cameo in the upcoming flick “The Good Life” is being promoted as a starring role.

The “Rocky” and “Rambo” star is also asking the court to halt distribution of the film. According to the suit, the market for the works of Stallone could become glutted because he also stars in “Cop Land,” which is scheduled for release later this summer.

A spokesman for defendant D.E.M. Productions had no comment. Stallone’s lawyer, Martin D. Singer, says his client agreed to appear briefly in “The Good Life” as a favor.

The suit claims that Stallone’s written agreement states that he was hired to perform a monologue similar to Alec Baldwin’s in “Glengarry Glen Ross.” But Stallone claims that D.E.M. has displayed his name prominently in advertising materials and breached the contract by using his performance in a “promotional reel.”

The suit asserts that Stallone would have demanded “no less than $20 million” if he knew the producer was going to promote him as a featured player.

THE EX FILES: Some divorced couples squabble over the house. Others, over the kids or even the poodles. Jerry and Patti Lewis are fighting in court over “The Nutty Professor.”

The couple separated in 1982 and divorced in 1988 after 35 years of marriage. According to Patti Lewis’ recent lawsuit, the 1963 comedy is part of the couple’s marital community property. She is suing for half the $1.4 million she says he earned as a production consultant for last year’s remake, starring Eddie Murphy.

Her suit alleges that her husband’s deal for the remake was “intentionally structured to deprive Patti Lewis of her fair share of the income generated from the exploitation of the original version of ‘The Nutty Professor,’ ” which the suit claims grossed $252.7 million worldwide.

“Instead of calling it a royalty . . . he calls it a producer’s fee and gets a large fee,” said her lawyer, Walter J. Lack.

“She needs the money,” he added. “She’s basically an elderly woman living in a little one-bedroom apartment.”

But the comic actor’s lawyer, Alan L. Isaacman, said Patti Lewis already has been paid some $300,000 under an agreement hammered out long ago in front of the Superior Court judge refereeing the Lewises’ money battles.

“She got her share,” Isaacman said. “This is late in coming. She took the money that came to her under the agreement and there were no complaints.”