Joanna pacitti dating
Mean enough to make even non-orphans tremble, Carter gives a suitably broad performance, her girth providing some very funny moments as she bumps and grinds her way through the musical material.Her voice also moves around quite a bit, shifting from sweetly inflected requests to growled commands with sudden ferocity.Macy's publicized the event by placing balloons, signs, pins, and other promotional materials advertising “Macy's Search for Broadway's New ‘Annie’ ” throughout the store. Pacitti participating in “Macy's Search for Broadway's New Annie.” ․ When the Producers offered a contract to Plaintiffs consistent with the terms of the Official Rules[,] any possible obligation Macy's had to Plaintiffs was fully met. After rejecting plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, the District Court turned to their tort claims. Reasoning that each cause of action was predicated upon the assertion that Macy's offered Joanna the role of “Annie” on Broadway, and concluding that Macy's made no such representation, the District Court granted Macy's motion for summary judgment on these claims as well. If the contract as a whole is susceptible to more than one reading, the factfinder resolves the matter. On the other hand, where it is unambiguous and can be interpreted only one way, the court interprets the contract as a matter of law. In determining whether a contract is ambiguous, the court “assumes the intent of the parties to an instrument is ‘embodied in the writing itself, and when the words are clear and unambiguous the intent is to be discovered only from the express language of the agreement.’ ” Id. Further, Macy's at no point revealed-either through its printed materials or other means-that the winner of the Search would receive only the opportunity to sign a standard actors' equity contract with the producers. For these reasons, we hold that the contractual language is ambiguous, and its interpretation should be left to the factfinder for resolution. With respect to the tort causes of action, plaintiffs maintain that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment. We have reviewed orders not specified in the notice of appeal where: (1) there is a connection between the specified and unspecified order, (2) the intention to appeal the unspecified order is apparent, and (3) the opposing party is not prejudiced and has a full opportunity to brief the issues. To succeed on a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation under Pennsylvania law, plaintiffs must establish the following elements: (1) a misrepresentation, (2) a fraudulent utterance, (3) an intention to induce action on the part of the recipient, (4) a justifiable reliance by the recipient upon the misrepresentation, and (5) damage to the recipient as a proximate result. We also find it noteworthy that Macy's submitted its contract with the producers in support of summary judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court erred in limiting discovery. For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the grant of summary judgment on all claims and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.After auditioning hundreds of “Annie” hopefuls, the producers selected Joanna as the regional finalist. We do not believe that Macy's role was so “obvious” that it need not have limited its offer to public, and we find it telling that Macy's contract with the producers contained qualifications on the prize to be offered. Accordingly, the District Court erred in concluding that Macy's is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Macy's also contends that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the express release in the official rules. That paragraph simply releases Macy's from liability “with respect to the audition(s).” It does not allow Macy's to escape liability arising from this action. As noted above, the District Court dismissed these claims because it had rejected the predicate upon which each claim was based, i.e., that Macy's offered the successful participant the role of “Annie” on Broadway. Because we conclude that the contract reasonably may be interpreted to make such an offer, we reverse on these claims as well and remand for further proceedings. We now turn to plaintiffs' contention that the District Court abused its discretion by limiting the scope of discovery. See Polonski, 137 F.3d at 144 (exercising jurisdiction over order granting attorney's fees even though notice of appeal specified only the order granting summary judgment); Tabron, 6 F.3d at 153 n. As previously noted, the federal rules permit discovery of, among other things, “any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party ․” Fed. We also reverse and remand for plaintiffs to conduct discovery consistent with this opinion.Before: GREENBERG, ALITO, Circuit Judges, and STAFFORD, District Judge*ALFRED W. (argued) Drinker, Biddle & Reath 1345 Chestnut Street Philadelphia National Bank Building Philadelphia, PA 19107-3496 ALBERT C. For the reasons that follow, we reverse on both grounds and remand for further proceedings. In May 1996, the producers of “Annie,” the Classic Annie Production Limited Partnership (the “producers”), and Macy's, a retail department store chain, entered into an agreement under which Macy's agreed to sponsor the “Annie 20th Anniversary Talent Search.” See App. Specifically, Macy's agreed to promote the event and to host the auditions at its stores in the following locations: New York City, Boston, Atlanta, Miami, and King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Just get your hands on an application ․ and bring it to the audition at Macy's King of Prussia store․ Annie's director/lyricist ․ will pick the lucky actress for final callbacks ․ at Macy's Herald Square. In June 1996, Joanna, then eleven years old, and her mother picked up an application at the King of Prussia store. The official rules and promotional materials referred to the promotion as “Macy's Search for Broadway's New ‘Annie.’ ” The official rules provided that the producers and Macy's were “conducting a talent search for the new ‘Annie’ to star in the 20th Anniversary Broadway production,” and the advertisement in the Philadelphia Inquirer promised that “[t]he starring role in this 20th Anniversary Broadway Production and National Tour could be yours! Plaintiffs also appeal the District Court's order limiting the scope of discovery. The producers agreed to select one finalist from each regional store to compete in a final audition at Macy's Herald Square store in New York City. All of the promotional materials referred to the event as “Macy's Search for Broadway's New ‘Annie.’ ” See id. Plaintiffs learned of the Search from an advertisement in the Philadelphia Inquirer that stated, in pertinent part: If you are a girl between 7 and 12 years old and 4′6″ or under, the starring role in this 20th Anniversary Broadway production and national tour could be yours! Plaintiffs' interpretation-that Macy's offered the prize of performing as “Annie” on Broadway for at least some period-is a reasonable alternative to that of the District Court.
Director Martin Charnin mixes old and new elements onstage. Aldredge, for instance, are seen within a new set by Kenneth Foy.(A new song written especially for her hadn’t yet been inserted at the reviewed performance, but Carter does a fine job with the existing numbers.) In the titular role, Joanna Pacitti certainly looks the part of the cartoon heroine and has sufficient spirit to take her from the dingy orphanage to FDR’s Oval Office.Although her screeching vocal delivery is in the venerable Annie-with-Amazon-lungs tradition, she might want occasionally to ease up a bit, lest neighborhood dogs start yelping.And it certainly makes fiscal sense to provide a whole new generation of parents the opportunity to take their youngsters to see the show.The principal novelty here is the colorblind casting of Nell Carter as the ferocious head of the orphanage, Miss Hannigan.