The bitter breach-of-contract battle between comedian Rosie O’Donnell and her ex-publisher over the folding of Rosie magazine ended on Wednesday with no clear winner. The judge declared neither side had made its case.
Reuters reports Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Ira Gammerman called publishers Gruner + Jahr USA’s suit “ill-conceived” as the two-week trial ended, saying it was never made clear whether Rosie–a makeover of the women’s magazine McCall’s–would ever make money.
“It seems to me on the issue of damages, neither side has proved any. Damages assume that the magazine would have been successful in the future and none of that has been established. Indeed the contrary seems true,” Gammerman told Reuters.
Gammerman, however, said he would rule on damages and liability after submissions by both sides on Dec. 17 but cautioned he was unlikely to award substantial damages, Reuters reports.
Rosie made a splash on the newsstands when it launched in 2001 but sales quickly faded. The lawsuit duel started when Gruner + Jahr USA Publishing sued the former TV talk show host first for $100 million, claiming she breached her contract by walking away from the venture in September 2002. O’Donnell, who, at the same time, was also shutting down her successful talk show, countersued for $125 million, saying the publisher had taken away her editorial control.
The backbiting got some additional media attention when the publisher branded O’Donnell an “uber-bitch” who alienated editorial staff, and the entertainer accused the publisher of staging a “coup d’etat” by taking away her editorial control, Reuters reports.
“I’m happy with the fact that it is finally over,” O’Donnell told reporters on the courthouse steps. “I never wanted this war.” O’Donnell added that if any damages were awarded her they would go to charity after payment of attorneys’ fees, believed to be about $8 million, Reuters reports.
The lawyers for both sides told Reuters they felt good about the judge’s remarks. “Beyond question we demonstrated this morning there was no evidence of financial manipulation, no evidence of financial wrongdoing,” said Marty Hyman, who represented G+J, while O’Donnell‘s lawyer, Lorna Schofield said, “We’re thrilled. The judge said that this was an ill-conceived lawsuit. It’s great news to hear after being sued for $100 million.”
