godigital v. universal music group.pdf

8/10/2019 GoDigital v. Universal Music Group.pdf

1/9

01:34:16pm 11 24 2014

13:29

TO:

136253244 FROM: 3 1 0 9 8 2 2 6 0 3 Pa g e:

A^>

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

%

It

n:>

2f

24-;

2 1

27

28

#p y i

Beverly

Hills Law Corp., PC

Sagar Pankh, Esq. (SBN 282655)

433

N. Camden

Drive,

6th Floor

Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Telephone: (310)887-1338

Facsimile: (310)982-2603

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

ttorneys ior

riamuii,

. i f A

GoDigital

Records

LLC r\Tc^ ^(V\l J

W^ V^lAt ^

FILED

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

MOV

2 4

2QH

Sherri

R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk

ay S^yr^-^-^T

Deputy

WicyAlvar82

v

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE

STATE

OF

CALIFORNIA

FOR

THE

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Case

No

BC

563

996

ODIGITAL RECORDS, LLC, a California

limited liability company.

Plaintiff,

v .

UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, INC., a

Delaware corporation;AND DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

C O M P L A I N T

FOR:

1. I N T E N T I O N A L

IN T E R F E R E N C E

WITH

CONTRACTUAL RELAT IONS

2. U N F A IR BUSINESS

PRAC TI C ES

IN

VIOLATION

O F

B U S I N E S S

A N D

PROFESSIONS CODE 17200

3.

N E G L IG E N T I N T E RF E R E N C E

WITH

P R O S P E C T I V E

E C O N O M IC

ADVANTAGE

4.

I N T E N T I O N A L I N T E RF E R E N C E

WITH

P R O S P E C T I V E

E C O N O M IC

ADVANTAGE

Plaintiff, GODIGITAL

RECORDS,

LLC ( Plaintiff')

complains

and

alleges

upon

information an d beliefas follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff is a

California

limited

liability

company,

authorized

and doing biii i|ls

in the County of LosAngeles, State

of

California.

33 TJ C 33

m

x

x m

O

--

x i i> to m o *

o z x o

m

. .

*

w.

o

r~ o

m i- .

x> -1

o o

m x>

T CO

* m

2.

Defendant

UNIVERSAL

MUSIC GROUP

( Defendant ) is v Delaw er x

o en en

corporation,

authorized

and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of

California.

~

w

3. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual- ~

corporate, associate, or otherwise, of

Defendants

sued herein

as

DOES 1 through 2jp^inclusive?

1

COMPLAINT

FOR

DAMAGES

en, o o o 5:

o o o o

*~

o o o o o

03

O

C I

CK


2/9

01:24:16p.m.

11 24 2014

*

6253244

FROM:

31 98226 3

age

1 3 : 2 9

TO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2? j

2 P

24J

2 l

2

27

28

and, therefore, sues these Defendants by such fictitious

names.

Plaintiff will amend this

complaint

to allege their true names and

capacities

when

ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and

believes and thereon

alleges

that eachof

these

fictitiously

named

Defendants is responsible in

some

manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and

that

Plaintiffs

damages,

as

herein

alleged,

wereproximatelycausedby such Defendants.

4. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereupon

alleges

that Defendants, including

those sued

herein

as

DOES

1 through 20, inclusive, and eachof them, were and are the tenants,

agents, employees, officers, directors, principals,

managing agents, managers,

members,

subsidiaries, affiliates, joint ventures, partners, subcontractors, alter egos, co-conspirators or

representatives of each other with respect to the events and transactions alleged herein.

Plaintiff

is informed, believes and thereupon alleges that Defendants, including those sued herein as

DOES 1

through

20,

inclusive,

and each of them, were involved in the

acts, transactions,

and

omissions

alleged

herein below and

are

responsible in whole or in

part

for the injuries

and

damages herein alleged.

Plaintiff is

informed, believes and thereupon allege that,

at all

times

hereinmentioned, each of the Defendants, including those named herein as DOES 1 through 20,

in addition to action forherself and itself at all material times was acting as the agent, servant,

employee

and representative of each of the other Defendants, andindoing the things herein after

alleged,

was

acting within the

course

and scope of

such

relationship and

with

the permission,

consent and ratification of each and every other Defendant. All of the references made herein

below to Defendants,and each of them, include a referenceto the fictitiouslynamed Defendants.

Defendants DOES 1 through 20 identified in the complaint are fictitiously named Defendants,

and Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this complaint to identifythose parties true names once

discovered.

//

/ /

//

//

2

COMPLAINT FOR

DAMAGES


3/9

01:24,16 p.m. 11-24-2014

Nexttvafax

1 /24 /20114 1 3 : 2 9 T O :

6253244 FROM:3109822603

Page :

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

T6

17

18

19

2


4/9

01:24

ICpm

11-24-2014

~]

7^36253244 FROM:3109822603

Page:

1 / 2 4 / 2 0 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1 6

17

18

19

2Q,

21*

22 J

23''

V

2

i t

27

28

1 3 : 2 9

TO

Defendant was

purportedly given

an exclusive license to distribute certain

El

Cartel

master

sound and audiovisual recordings subject to

a

carve-out specifically excluding

YouTube.

15.

Nevertheless, shortly

after entering

into the

distribution

and

license agreement

with

El Cartel,

Defendant

began asserting claims to and collecting revenue

from

advertisements

placed

on

website pages

on

YouTube

for the Content that

Plaintiff had

already been

exclusively

licensing and

monetizing

for nine

months.

16.

As El Cartel had already

granted

the exclusive rights to exploit the

Content

on

YouTube

to

Plaintiff in May 2011 El Cartel had no ability to

grant

the same exclusive rights to

exploit the Content on YouTube to Defendant.

17. Plaintiff brought this to the attention

of

Defendant numerous times, explaining

that Plaintiffs rights under the AdShare Agreement Plaintiff had with El Cartel superseded any

contract

that Defendant

made with

El

Cartel

with regards to licensing

the

Content on YouTube.

18. Plaintiff

even

went so far as to provide Defendant with

a

copy

of

the Adshare

Agreement inor about November

2013,

soDefendant could seeforitselfthedate of execution of

the Adshare Agreement,

what

Plaintiffs

rights

were under the Adshare Agreement, and the fact

thatDefendantwas violating the

Adshare

Agreement. ~-.--.. .,.,>,,_.-.......;........-,-,

19. Defendant was informed that by improperly asserting claims to Content that itdid

not

have the right to license, and that

were

already being licensed on YouTube by Plaintiff,

Defendant

was directly preventing Plaintiff from collecting

revenue

pursuant to

the

Adshare

Agreement.

20. As a result of Defendant's

actions,

Plaintiff

has

suffered a tremendous loss of

revenue

and

has been unable to assert the copyright

rights

to the Content

that

was exclusively

granted toitby El Cartel prior to any dealings El Cartel had with Defendant.

21. Plaintiff has

never

granted any license, permission, authorization,

or

consent to

Defendant to use or

exploit

any of

the

copyrighted

Content that has been

exclusively licensed

to

Plaintiff.

//

4

COMPLAINTFOR DAMAGES

I


5/9

01:24:16p.m.

11 24 2014

|

e

S36253244

1 24 2 14 13:29

TO:

FROM:31 98226 3

Page:

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

s16 - ;>

UnfairCompetitionAgainstAil Defendants

--.->-.-v;s.^,;..-,

27. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates each of the foregoing

paragraphs

by reference as

though fully set forth herein.

28. Defendant has

engaged

in

unfair

competition within the meaning of

California

Business and

Professions

Code

17200 et seq.

because Defendant's

business acts

and

practices

are

and were unlawful and unfair as

herein

alleged. Plaintiff was injured by Defendant's

unlawful

business

acts and suffered anactual loss ofmoney asa result of those acts.

Specifically, Defendant directly interfered with

the revenue

that Plaintiff

was collecting from its

licensing of

the

Content

on

YouTube by

making

its own claims

to Plaintiffs exclusive

nglits

to

collect

this

revenue.

// :

//

5

COMPLAINTFORDAMAGES


6/9

01:24:16p.m. 11-24-2014

O:36253244 FROM:

3109822603

Page :

1 3 : 2 9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

2Q,

2 f

22 j

2?

V

pl

t

27

28

29.

Defendant's

business

practices,

and

each

of them, are also unfair because they

offend established public policy, are immoral, oppressive, unscrupulous, and/or substantially

injurious to businesses

such

as

Plaintiff.

30. Plaintiff is informed and

believe

thatDefendant's herein-alleged conduct violates

various other ethical standards, community fairness standards,

laws,

regulations, statutes, and/or

common law duties

owed byDefendant to theconsuming public.

31. Asa

result

of Defendant's wrongful

conduct,

Plaintiffhas

incurred and

continues

to incur

expenses

and attorneys' fees and

seeks an

award

of

same

in

an

amount

subject to proof

at the appropriatetime.

TH I RD C AU S E O F AC TI O N

Negligent

Interference With

Prospective Economic

Relations Against AllDefendants)

32.

Plaintiff

adopts

and

incorporates

each

of the foregoing

paragraphs by reference

as

though fully set forth

herein.

33.

In or about May 2011,

Plaintiff

signed the AdShare

Agreement

with El Cartel,

giving

Plaintiff

the exclusive right to license the Content onYouTube.

.~^,,34.;,.~.,. Defendan-t-subsequently attempted to license the-Contenroti-YouTube, harming''

Plaintiffs rights under

the AdShare Agreement with

El

Cartel,

which itwas aware of.

35.

The AdShare Agreement between Plaintiff and El Cartel

created an

economic

relationship between PlaintiffandElCartel.

36.

This relationship

was

to provide

Plaintiff with

revenue

generated from

its

licensing

of the

Content

on YouTube in exchange for the placement of advertisements

on

the

website pages where the Content

was

displayed. Plaintiff was to receive revenue from

these

advertisements.

37. Plaintiff brought to Defendant's attention

that

Defendant was

attempting

to

license

Content

on

YouTube

that was

already exclusively licensed

to Plaintiff and was

generating advertisement

revenue for

Plaintiff.

Thus,

Defendant

was

on

notice that

ifitdid not

6

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES


7/9

01:24:16p,m,11-24-2014 I 8 I

NcxtwafiK

1 / 2 4 / 2 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

2 0,

J-.

f

lj

2f

24-;

if

it

27

28

1 3 : 2 9

TO:

6253244

FROM:31 98226 3

Page :

8

stop licensing the

Content

on YouTube and

did

not stop

asserting

claims to it, it would

be

interfering with Plaintiffs

relationship

with

El

Cartel causing Plaintiff to

lose

out on substantial

revenue.

38. Defendant was negligent

by failing

to

stop

licensing

the

Content on YouTube

even

after

being

putonnotice byPlaintiff

numerous

times.

39.

This resulted in monetary damages

to Plaintiff, as

Plaintiffs revenue

generated

from licensing the Content on

YouTube

was and continues to be greatly reduced

due

to

Defendant making claims to the same Content and deriving

advertising

revenue

from

the same

Content.

40. Defendant's

actions

and

inactions

led

to

Plaintiff losing out on the full economic

benefit

that

was to be reasonably

expected

from its economic relationship

with

El Cartel.

41. As

a

direct and

proximate

result

of

the

aforementioned conduct of

Defendant,

Plaintiff

has been

damaged as

it

suffered economic, special

and

consequential damage

in amount

to be determined at trial .

F O U R T H

C A US E O F A C T I O N

IntetionalTnterferencc With Prospective-EconomicRelatiorisAgainst AIIDefendants)

42. Plaintiffadopts and incorporates each

of

the foregoing paragraphs by reference as

though

fully

set

forth

herein.

43.

In

or

about

May 2011,

Plaintiff

signed the

AdShare Agreement

with

El Cartel,

giving

Plaintiffthe

exclusive right

to

license

the

Content

on

YouTube.

44.

This relationship

was to

provide

Plaintiff

with revenue generated

from

its

licensing of

the

Content on

YouTube

in

exchange for the

placement of advertisements on

the

website pages where the Content was displayed. Plaintiff was to receive revenue from these

advertisements.

45. Plaintiff brought to

Defendant's

attention that

Defendant was attempting

to

license

Content on YouTube that was

already exclusively licensed to

Plaintiff and was

generating

advertisement

revenue

for

Plaintiff. Thus, Defendant was onnotice that ifitdid

not

7

,___ COMPLAINT

FORDAMAGES


8/9

01:24 18pm. 11-24-2014

4 13:29

TO ]Jfc6253244 FROM:31 98226 3

age

2

3

4

5

,6

7

8

9

10

I I

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

21

21 -

h

IV

2^:;

i

-

26:i

27

28

stop licensing

the

Content

on YouTube

and

did

not

stop

asserting claims

to it, it would be

interfering

with Plaintiffs

relationship

with

El

Cartel causing Plaintiff to lose out on

substantial

revenue.

46. Defendant intentionally licensed theContent on

YouTube

evenafter

being

put on

noticeby Plaintiffnumeroustimes.

47. This resulted in

monetary damages

to Plaintiff, as Plaintiffs revenue generated

from

licensing

the Content on YouTube

was

and continues to be greatly

reduced

due to

Defendant

making claims

to the same

Content

and deriving

advertising revenue

from the

same

Content.

48. Defendant's intentional actions led to Plaintiff losing out on the full economic

benefit that was to be reasonablyexpectedfromits economicrelationship with ElCartel.

49. As a direct and

proximate

result of the aforementioned intentional conduct of

Defendant, Plaintiff has been

damaged

as it suffered economic,

special

and consequential

damage in amount to be determinedat trial.

j u iv .

. > < r

//

- PRAYER

F O R J U D G M E N T - - -

* - - -

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against

Defendants, as follows:

1. For general damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but in an amount exceedingthe

minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court;

2. For restitutionary damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

3. For special and consequentialdamages in a sum accordingto proofat the timeof trial;

4. For interest according to law;

5. For reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5, or other

applicable law; and

6. For such other and further reliefas this Court deems just and proper.

8



9/9

01:24:16p.m. 11-24-3014

j 10

ftextivafa*

109822603

1 / 2 4 / 2 0 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20,

2ir

2&

2 P

24^:

2ry

27

28

1 3 : 2 9

T O : M 3 6 2 5 3 2 4 4

FROM:

3

D EM A ND F OR J U R Y

TRIAL

Plaintiffhereby demands a

trial

byjuryin

this action.

Page :

10

Dated: 11/24/2014

RespectfullySubmitted,

BEVERLY

HILLS LAW CORP., PC

By:

IPbJt^

SagarParikh

Attorney for Plaintiff,

GODIGITAL RECORDS,LLC


godigital v. universal music group.pdf

Documents