IBJNews

Live Nation seeks dismissal of Murat lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Live Nation Worldwide Inc. is seeking to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Murat Shriners over a naming-rights deal for the Murat Centre in downtown Indianapolis.

The Shriners believe Live Nation, which leases the iconic venue at 502. N. New Jersey St., needed permission to change the facility's name to the Old National Centre, as part of a three-year deal with Old National Bank. The Shriners affiliate that owns the Murat, the Murat Temple Association, filed suit March 26, seeking an injunction to remove signage and receive unspecified damages.

Beverly Hills, Calif.-based Live Nation is represented in the lawsuit by Shawna Eikenberry, a construction and real estate attorney for Indianapolis-based Baker & Daniels. In a brief filed April 14 in Marion Superior Court, Eikenberry said the Murat lease grants "rights that are broad in scope." Eikenberry went on to note that the assocation's complaint "cites no provisions in the lease that prohibit Live Nation from changing signs on its leased premise, or otherwise change the name of the buildings Live Nation has leased. That is because the lease contains no such provisions."

The Murat lease was struck Sept. 1, 1995, and runs for 100 years. It covers the main public spaces within the complex, including the Murat Theatre and Egyptian Room. Eikenberry notes that the lease also covers, "all appurtances, rights, privileges and interest" belonging to or related to the leased areas, or "derived therefrom."

The only naming restriction in the document refers to the 100-year-old Murat Theatre. Live Nation did not change the name of the 2,500-seat theater or the Egyptian Room, so it's in compliance with the lease, Eikenberry said in the brief.

The lease also allows Live Nation to change or add signs to the building, as long as they are legal and are removed at the end of the lease, Eikenberry said. The only time the lease requires Live Nation to seek permission to put up a sign or make other changes to the building, Eikenberry noted, is if there's a change to the "external appearance and structural integrity of the improvement." Otherwise, the lease states, "consent of the lessor shall not be required."

"Changes to both appearance and structural integrity are required in order for Live Nation to need consent," Eikenberry wrote. "MTA has pleaded itself out of court, and its complaint should be dismissed."

Legal experts say the case is likely to come down to the language in the lease.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • I'm no lawyer, but.....
    Seems the lease covers "the main public spaces within the building" and so maybe the promoters should move their sign to "within" the building. Looks to me like the Shriners retain control of all other features of the building. I'll send them my bill.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. these guys only skill was to steal from other's hard earned savings.

  2. I voted for him last time and it WAS the LAST time. He needed to to quit running around the world on useless trips, and giving our $$ away to sports teams. I'll vote for anyone but Ballard next time. BTW...we gave $40M to the Pacers and cannot even watch the games on TV.

  3. For the people concerned about traffic, you should know that mixed-use projects (like the one being proposed), actually allows for and encourages more people to walk and bike, thereby mitigating additional automobile traffic. If we continue to design and build suburban-type projects in the City (i.e. automobile-oriented projects), we are not offering anything different from what the suburbs offer, which means we will continue to lose jobs/people to the suburbs. The reason Broad Ripple is somewhat successful today is that people want to live in a place that offers the convenience of being able to walk/bike to restaurants, retail, nightlife, the Monon, etc. Why would you not want to support a project that is complimentary to what already makes the area desirable? The real argument with this project should be its lack-luster design and layout, not the density.

  4. It is unfortunate that there is a perception that celebrities validate an event. The Indy 500 stands on its own, especially for those coming in from out of town. It was always so disturbing to read the gushing descriptions of Ashley Judd threaded throughout the local coverage. Very happy that era is at an end.

  5. Good ole' Obamacare. Thanks liberals and those who didn't bother to vote.

ADVERTISEMENT