Suit Sends a Sober Signal to Distiller

Getting a free Buzz . . . more Menendez karma . . . battling over “The Nutty Professor” and “Evening Shade.”

Neil Armstrong may have taken one small step for a man, but Buzz Aldrin took 12 giant steps for sobriety.

And so it is not difficult to understand why Baccardi’s use of a photo of Aldrin’s 1969 moonwalk in its latest “Just Add Baccardi” campaign might upset the retired astronaut.

Aldrin, a recovering alcoholic, has asked a federal judge in Orange County to halt the ad campaign. According to court papers, Aldrin objects to the unauthorized use of his photograph, which has been retouched to show the astronaut bathed in rum and wearing swimming trunks and fins.

Aldrin has been sober for 20 years and has used his fame to become a spokesman for recovery. He says Baccardi-Martini USA and its ad agency, Ammirati, Puris, Lintas Inc., broke a promise that they would not use the famous photograph.

“He doesn’t want to become Baccardi’s version of Joe Camel,” said Robert C. O’Brien, one of his lawyers.

Baccardi had no immediate comment.

*

MENENDI ADDENDI: Another week, another legal spinoff from the trials of the brothers Menendez. This time, two jurors from the first trial of Lyle Menendez have taken their long-running feud to a courtroom in Van Nuys.

We should note that Jude Nelson and Judy Kaplan-Zamos are probably about as different as two people can be. Nelson favored convicting the tennis-playing brothers of murdering their wealthy parents with shotguns. Kaplan-Zamos did not.

After the brothers’ first trials ended in deadlock in early 1994, the jurors hit the talk show circuit. Nelson blabbed during a contentious appearance on “The Maury Povich Show” that Kaplan-Zamos had been kicked off the jury for misconduct. She maintained that she asked to be relieved for “personal and ethical” reasons.

Then she sued Nelson. But her case imploded when previously sealed transcripts revealed that Superior Court Judge Stanley M. Weisberg had his own doubts about her conduct and “veracity.” Case closed? No such luck.

Nelson countersued Kaplan-Zamos for malicious prosecution.

Superior Court Judge Marvin D. Rowen has told jurors that they must determine if Kaplan-Zamos was motivated by personal animosity when she sued Nelson.

Among the testimony presented to that end was that Kaplan-Zamos called the burly Nelson “disgusting.” She also allegedly sniped that for Nelson, who wears his long hair slicked back in a ponytail, “Every day is a bad-hair day.”

Can’t we all just get along?

*

THE EX FILES: Patty Lewis, who says famous ex-husband Jerry Lewis cheated her out of royalties from the 1996 remake of “The Nutty Professor,” will be taking a leaner, meaner case to court in December.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Alan G. Buckner tossed out a laundry list of allegations, including breach of contract, but has said that the fraud claim can go to trial.

Claiming that the rights to the 1963 original “Nutty Professor” are community property under their 1988 divorce settlement, Patty Lewis is seeking more than $600,000 from her ex. According to court papers, the couple split the rights to the 46 movies he made between the time of their marriage in 1945 and their divorce more than four decades later.

Patty Lewis says her former husband received more than $1.4 million when he gave Universal Pictures exclusive rights to the movie, the remake of which starred Eddie Murphy and grossed $253 million.

Her lawyer, Adam D. Miller, contends in the lawsuit that the Universal deal was structured to deprive Patty Lewis of her fair share. Jerry Lewis’ lawyer, Alan Isaacman, could not be reached for comment.

*

RERUN HELL: Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Hollywood producer pals Harry Thomason and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason return to Los Angeles Superior Court this week to fend off an attempt to blow out their lawsuit over syndication rights to the Burt Reynolds sitcom “Evening Shade.”

The first friends and their company, Mozark Productions Inc., say MTM Enterprises displayed negligence by selling the syndication rights for an amount so low that their profit-sharing agreement left them no profits to share.

The Mozark suit says MTM was being sold to International Family Entertainment Inc. at the time the syndication deal was being negotiated. The producer couple accuse International Family of manipulating the show’s syndication to sell it, cheap, to the company’s own fledgling Family Channel.

Now the defense for MTM/International Family seeks a summary judgment to head off a trial, slated for August. Attorney Daniel J. Kolodziej contends in court papers that the contract gave the companies “complete authority” and “sole discretion” over the “methods, policies and terms” of marketing the show.

But the couple’s attorney, Michael J. Plonsker, maintains in court papers that the contract does not permit the defendants to “act so incompetently as to cause . . . $6 million of damage” to the couple.

Stay tuned.