Back in January, Johnny Depp made headlines when he sued his former management company, The Management Group, for "gross misconduct" that allegedly led him to lose "tens of millions of dollars." Shortly after that suit was filed, TMG countersued the actor, claiming he underpaid his managers. Surely you remember that news because in the lawsuit, TMG claimed that Depp spent $75 million on 14 homes, $18 million on a mega-yacht, and most mind-boggling, $30,000 on wine every month. It’s pretty hard to forget about a wine budget like that. TMG used the actor’s spending habits as proof that “Depp, and Depp alone, is fully responsible for any financial turmoil he finds himself in today," according to TMG's attorney Michael Kump. Today, however, a judge said that Depp's extravagant spending is irrelevant in this case.
Earlier today, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Teresa Beaudet dismissed the portion of TMG's countersuit that alleged Depp's spending habits had caused his financial problems. According to Variety, Judge Beaudet wrote, "TMG’s action for declaratory relief seeks declarations placing culpability for Depp’s financial woes on him, and freeing TMG of any past wrongdoing. No results or effects of such declarations on the parties’ responsibilities or duties are alleged. Accordingly, the demurrer as to TMG’s first cause of action is sustained.” This portion of the lawsuit was thrown out because it lacked relevance, but that doesn't mean the Johnny Depp came out on top today.
The judge is allowing TMG to continue its counterclaim of promissory fraud. According to The Hollywood Reporter, "TMG alleged that its employees aided in Depp's transition to a new business manager because it had been repeatedly told it would be paid after the transition was complete." Kump said, "Today’s ruling was a clear victory for The Management Group because the Court ruled in favor of our fraud claim. We intend to file an amended cross complaint for declaratory relief. All of the issues regarding Depp’s extravagant spending continue to be fully included in the case.” That means we certainly haven't heard the last on this case.