Post on 02-Jun-2018
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
8/10/2019 GoDigital v. Universal Music Group.pdf
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
8/10/2019 GoDigital v. Universal Music Group.pdf
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
8/10/2019 GoDigital v. Universal Music Group.pdf
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
8/10/2019 GoDigital v. Universal Music Group.pdf
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
8/10/2019 GoDigital v. Universal Music Group.pdf
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
8/10/2019 GoDigital v. Universal Music Group.pdf
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
8/10/2019 GoDigital v. Universal Music Group.pdf
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
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
8/10/2019 GoDigital v. Universal Music Group.pdf
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
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES