Attorney for Plaintiff, Gerald E. Heller. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DISTRICT

Transcription

1 MICHAEL R. SHAPIRO, ESQ. (SBN 0) LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL R. SHAPIRO, APC North Sepulveda Blvd.. Sute Los Angeles, CA 00 Tel.: (0)-00 Fax: (0)-00 Emal: ^asp ^ ORIGINAL oa 0 0 SfremR.Carte.g»eOffcer/Clerk 0 " '? Attorney for Plantff, Gerald E. Heller. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA GERALD E. HELLER, an ndvdual, Plantff, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DISTRICT NBCUNIVERSAL, INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF COMCAST CORPORATION; F. GARY GRAY, an ndvdual; O'SHEA JACKSON SR, PKA ICE CUBE, an ndvdual; ANDRE YOUNG, PKA DR DRE, an ndvdual; THE ESTATE OF ERIC WRIGHT, PKA EAZY E, an ndvdual; TOMICA WOODS-WRIGHT, ndvdually and as the personal representatve ofthe ESTATE OF ERIC WRIGHT; COMPTOWN RECORDS, INC., a corporaton; MATT ALVAREZ, an ndvdual; SCOTT BERNSTEIN, an ndvdual; LEGENDARY PICTURES, a corporaton; XENON PICTURES, INC/XENON ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, a corporaton; JONATHAN HERMAN, an ndvdual; ANDREA BERLOFF, an ndvdual; S. LEIGH SAVIDGE, an ndvdual; ALAN WENKUS, an ndvdual: and Does -00, Defendants. Case No.: FOR: BC 0 DEFAMATION (LDEL & SLANDER) TRADE LIBEL FALSE LIGHT MISAPPROPRIATION OF LIKENESS INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH A PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH A PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE BREACH OF CONTRACT (SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT) BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT) BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (ORAL CONXBA&B CONVERSION o COPYRIGHT INFRINGE ~~ o o o n rn a> gc x- X "Z> S w n m.. w o en --. _ '--t o o Plantff Gerald E. Heller (sometmes referred toas "Jerry" or "Plantff) submta-thes \0 ~- I-* en :* > IT) TJ.. # IT o « M '-> o o cn g> o '- U O O o o O

2 H 0 0 -, ". ;; Complant and alleges, upon nformaton and belef as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE. As noted more fully n the FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS secton ofths Complant, ths acton arses out of act of defamaton, converson and other tortous behavor and breach of a Settlement Agreement between PlantffGeraldE. Hellerand Defendant Tomca Woods-Wrght and Comptown Records, Inc. and Does -0, and certan scenes, words, mages, mplcatons and nnuendo wthn a theatrcal Moton Pcture enttled, "Straght Outta Compton" that all Defendants noted nthe capton above and Does 0-0 created, wrote, drected, produced and dstrbuted globally to the detrment ofplantffgerald E. Heller.. All ofthe above transactons and actvtes took place nthe County oflos Angeles wthn the jursdcton of ths Court. Al ndvdual Defendants resde n the County oflos Angeles, wthn the jursdcton of ths Court. Defendants NBCUnversal, Inc., a subsdary ofcomcast Corporaton and Defendant Legendary Pctures have ther prncpal places of busness n the County of Los Angeles, wthn thejursdcton of thscourt. ;. Venue s proper n ths Court under Calforna Code ofcvl Procedure Secton as many of the wrongful conduct alleged heren occurred n thscounty, all of the ndvdual Defendants resde n Los Angeles County and as noted above, both NBCUnversal, Inc., a subsdary of Comcast Corporaton and Defendant Legendary Pctures mantan busnesses n ths County and all partes are ether located n ordo busness nths County oflos Angeles, State ofcalforna. PARTIES. Plantff GERALD E. HELLER, an ndvdual, as to the events outlned n ths Complant, s and was a resdent of the County of Los Angeles, State of Calforna. Defendant NBCUNIVERSAL, INC., a subsdary ofcomcast CORPORATION, a corporaton, does busness and has tsprncpal place of busness nthecounty of Los Angeles, State of Calforna.. Defendant LEGENDARY PICTURES, acorporaton, does busness and has ts prncpal

3 place of busness nthe County of Los Angeles, State of Calforna.. Defendant XENON PICTURES, INC/XENON ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, a corporaton, does busness and has ts prncpal place ofbusness nthe County oflos Angeles. State ofcalforna. 0 0 'I' > : f' ) '-. M. F. GARY GRAY, an ndvdual, as to the events outlned nths Complant, s and was a resdent of the County of Los Angeles, State of Calforna.. Defendant O'SHEA JACKSON SR., PKA ICE CUBE, an ndvdual, as to theevents outlned n ths, s and was a resdent ofthe County of Los Angeles, State of Calforna. 0. Defendant ANDRE YOUNG, PKA DR. DRE, an ndvdual, as to the events outlned n thscomplant, s andwas a resdent of the County of LosAngeles, State of Calforna.. Defendant THE ESTATE OF ERIC WRIGHT PKA EAZY E,s resdent n the County of Los Angeles, State ofcalforna.. Defendant TOMICA WOODS-WRJGHT, an ndvdual and as the personal representatve of the Defendant ESTATE OF ERIC WRIGHT, asthe events outlned nths Complant, s and was a resdentof the County of Los Angeles, Stateof Calforna.. Defendant COMPTOWN RECORDS, INC., a corporaton, does busness and has ts prncpal place of busness n the County of Los Angeles, Stateof Calforna.. Defendant MATT ALVAREZ, anndvdual, as to the events outlned nths Complant, s and was a resdent of the County of Los Angeles, Stateof Calforna.. Defendant SCOTT BERNSTEIN, an ndvdual, as to the eventsoutlned n ths Complant, s and was a resdent ofthe County of Los Angeles, State ofcalforna.. Defendant JONATHAN HERMAN, an ndvdual, as to the events outlned n ths Complant, s and was a resdent of the County of Los Angeles, State of Calforna.. Defendant ANDREA BERLOFF, an ndvdual, as to the events outlned n ths Complant, s and was a resdent ofthe County of Los Angeles, State of Calforna.. Defendant S. LEIGH SAVAGE, an ndvdual, as to the events outlned n ths Complant, s and was a resdent of the County of Los Angeles, State of Calforna.. Defendant ALAN WENKUS, an ndvdual, as to the events outlned n ths Complant, s and was a resdent of the County of Los Angeles, State of Calforna.

4 0 0 < _.0. Plantff GERALD E. HELLER s not aware of the truenames andcapactes of the Defendants sued heren as Does -00 nclusve and therefore suethese Defendants by ther fcttous names. Plantff wll seek leave of Court to amend thecomplant to reflect the true names and capactes of sad Does -00, nclusve when these have been ascertaned. Plantffs nformed and beleves that sad fcttously named Defendants, and each of them, wereresponsble n some manner for the harm sustaned by Plantffas set forth heren.. PlantffGERALD E.HELLER alleges that each Defendant was the agent, prncpal and/or employee of each other n the acts, conduct and omssons alleged heren and therefore ncurred lablty to Plantff GERALD E. HELLER for all such acts and/or omssons. Plantfffurther alleges that all such Defendants were actng wthn the course and scope ofther employment and/or sad agency. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS. Plantff s a hghly successfl and respected busness professonal n the musc ndustry, snce the late 0's and I0's, functonng as both a creatve and busness executve.. Through a set of crcumstances, n -, Plantff met Defendants Erc Wrght(pka "Eazy E"), Andre Young (pka "Dr. Dre"), and O'Shea Jackson (pka "Ice Cube"). Subsequently, n early, Defendant Eazy E formed an ndependent Record Company called RUTHLESS RECORDS ("Ruthless"). Under hs ManagementContract wth Ruthless, Plantff was enttled to a 0% nterest n Ruthless.. Ruthless entered nto an exclusve Recordng Contract wth Defendants EazyE, Dr. Dre, Ice Cube,and others and formed a group called N.W.A. Addtonally, Ruthless arranged forplantff to provde management servces to the members of N.W.A., except IceCube, for a standard 0% commsson rate. Under hs Management Contract wth Ruthless, Plantffsuccessfully managed N.W.A., (apartfrom Ice Cube) for several years, w '. v. Ruthless also entered ntoa seres of exclusve musc publshng contracts wth Defendants Eazy E, Dr. Dre and Ice-Cube, enttlng Ruthless to a percentage of gross musc publshng revenues generated bymusc compostons wrtten n whole or n partby U

5 :! j 0 0! " I -. ^CO I w! " M these three artsts. Those publshngdesgnees of Ruthless were and are "RUTHLESS ATTACK MUZICK" and "DOLLARZ N SENSE MUSICK.". UnderPlantffs management, N.W.A. became hugely successful. Plantffs nformed and beleves, and thereon alleges, that N.W.A. contnues to generate many-mllons of dollars n revenue from multple revenue streams ona global bass. The Screenplay and The Book. In or around May,00, Plantffentered nto an oral contract for the servces of Defendants, S. Legh Savdge and Alan Wenkus ofxenon Pctures, Inc./Xenon Entertanment Group ("Xenon") to collaborate wth Plantffto wrte an orgnal screenplay relatng the story of Ruthless and N.W.A. In furtherance of ths agreement, Defendants Savdge and Wenkus worked wth and met wthplantffand prepared at least four draft screenplays, ncludng November, 00and August,00 screenplays enttled, "Straght Outta Compton.". At all tmes, under hs agreement wth Defendants Savdge/Wenkus/Xenon, the screenplays were Plantff's property, and n exchange for ther servces, Defendants Savdge/Wenkus/Xenon were to receve equal credtand equal compensaton thatplantff would receve as a wrter and producerof any flm based upon the screenplay that Plantff commssoned them to wrte.. In or around 00, Plantffalso began to wrtea book relatng the story of Ruthless and N.W.A. thatcontaned smlar substantve content as the screenplays that Defendants Savdge and Wenkus were draftng. 0. In 00, Smon and Schuster publshed the book wrtten by Plantffand hsco-author, Gl Reavll, enttled "RUTHLESS. AMEMOIR,"; "copyrght byjerry Heller." (See Exhbt A attached) The Flm: "Straght Outta Compton". On August, 0, n LosAngeles, Calforna, a theatrcal moton pcture enttled "STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON" (the "Flm") premered and, subsequently, on

6 0 0 h; "' ^ ^' -' August,0, the Flmwas released throughout the Unted States; the Flm was released throughout Germany on August, 0; the Flm was released throughout the Unted Kngdom onaugust, 0, the Flm was released throughout South Korea on September 0, 0; and the Flm was released throughout Brazl on October, 0.. Plantff s nformed and beleves, and thereon alleges, that theflm wll soon be released n Japan on December, 0, n Russa onnovember ; and, subsequently, nmost countres n the world.. Plantffs nformed and beleves, and thereon alleges, that the Flms basedon the screenplay drafted by Defendants Savdge and Wenkus, and that Defendants Savdge/Wenkus/Xenon sold the screenplay, behnd Plantffs backand wthout Plantffs authorty or consent, to New Lne Cnemas (who n turn soldthescreenplay to Defendant NBCUnversal. Inc.).. In theflm, the character "Jerry Heller" (.e., Plantff) s played byactor Paul Gamatt. Plantffdd not authorze anyone to use hs name and lkeness or otherwse consent to ths portrayal n.the Flm.. At notme was Plantff compensated by any Defendant nany way for hs rghts, hs name and lkeness that wereutlzed n the Flm wthout hs consent, nor has Plantff receved any benefts of the Flm. In fact, no ndvdual assocated wth the Flm, ncludng any ofthe Defendants, ever bothered to contact Plantff before the Flm was produced.. The Flm s lttered wth false statements that harm thereputaton of Plantff andamto rdcule and lower hm n the opnon of the communty and to deter thrd persons from assocatng or dealng wth hm.. A non-exclusve lst of examples of some of the defamatory statements n the Flm nclude, wthout lmtaton: Heller s de "bad-guy" n the move who s solely responsble for the demse ofn.w.a.; Heller sa sleazy manager who took advantage ofdefendants Eazy E, Dr. Dre and Ice Cube; Heller steered Defendants Dr. Dre and Ice Cube away from hrng an attorney to revew any contracts sothey could never get pad; Heller ntentonally

7 0 0 ''" r ;* ~ ^ c_ : wthheld a $,000 check from Defendant Ice Cube that rghtfully belonged to Defendant Ice Cube; Heller fraudulently nduced Defendants Dr. Dre and Ice Cube to sgn unfavorable contracts; Heller made sure le was pad more than hs far share to the detrment of the other members of N.W.A.; Heller dd not pay numerous blls and expenses of N.W.A., rather, he pad hmself frst; Heller ntentonally kept the members ofn.w.a. n thedarkregardng fnances; Heller was enjoyng "lobster brunches" whle thecontracts ofdefendants Dr. Dre and Ice Cube were "stll beng fnalzed"; Plantff was fred by Defendant E^azy E.. In addton, these defamatory statements n the Flm are attrbutable to Defendant Tomka Woods-Wrght(Eazy E's wdow) and also consttute a clear breach of the nondsparagement clause under the Settlement Agreement and Releases between Plantff and Defendant Woods-Wrght.. Moreover, a sgnfcant amount ofthe Flm's content that sfactually accurate s blatantly lfted, converted and stolen from Plantffs copyrght protected and publshed book and/or from the screenplays that Plantff owns. 0. A non-exclusve lst of examples of someof the scenes n the Flm lftedfrom Plantffs book and/or from hs screenplays nclude, wthout lmtaton: The pvotal scene at the Torrance recordng studo where the polce are forcbly detanng the members ofn.w.a.; The pvotal scene where Maron "Suge" Knght uses physcal force tocompel Defendant Eazy E to sgn away the exclusve contractual rghts concernng Defendant Dr. Dre owned by Ruthless.. The nsdousness ofdefendants' behavor s underscored by the fact that the Flm may well become the largest globally grossng musc-story based flm ever. The larger the success of the flm, thegreater thedamages to Plantff, who has been andcontnues to be defamed, rdculed, and robbed ofhs personal and fnancal rghts to the extent that the ntentonal and egregous behavor ofdefendants demands the mposng ofpuntve damages, as alleged below. t- =

8 0 0 I' ^ ^-" " M FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION [Defamaton (Lbel CC & Slander CC )] (Aganst AH Defendants and Does - ). Plantff re-alleges heren by ths reference each and every allegaton contaned n paragraphs through, nclusve, as though fully set forth heren.. Plantff frst became aware n or about August 0 of Defendants' malcous publshng of false, defamatory, and dsparagng statements about Plantff n the Flm. These statements, authored and publshed by Defendants, are easly accessble to the general publc, ncludng Plantffs potental and actual busness partners, connectons, acquantances, venturers and contacts, wth whom Plantff transacts busness or plans to transact busness.. Through the Flm, Defendants have actvely, recklessly, malcously, and aggressvely dstrbuted false and defamatory nformaton about Plantff to mllons of ndvduals, ncludng persons n the State ofcalforna, and around the world. The object sto destroy Plantffs exemplary professonal reputaton, to make hm theobject of rdcule, hatred, and personal attack, and to negatvely nfluence other persons and enttes and dssuade them from dong busness wth Plantff n the future, based onthe defamatory nformaton n de Flm.. Gven the uncontroverted nternatonal dstrbuton and success of the Flm, t s clear that Defendants' false and defamatory statements about Plantff are tremendously detrmental, and can easly cause, and have caused, serous damages to the excellent professonal reputaton whch Plantff has worked trelessly to establsh.. At varous tmes, n varous combnatons, Defendants, and each ofthem, conspred wth each oder to engage u the acts, as alleged nths Complant.. Plantffs ablty to pursue hs professonal endeavors depends heavly on hs reputaton for competence, hgh ntegrty, credblty, and honesty.. All ofthe defamatory statements n the Flm, ncludng those lsted n paragraph, above,

9 0. 0 ~ '. K are false, n ther entrety, as they pertan to Plantff. All of sad are slanderous because the audences who watched the flm heard the statements descrbed n paragraph above and understood that Defendants were portrayng Plantff as a sleazy, greedy, selfsh, personal manager that took advantage of the members of N.W.A. and caused the demse ofn.w.a.. All ofthe statements alleged n paragraph, above, are also lbelous because they expose Plantff to hatred, contempt, rdcule, and obloquy n that they nsnuate that Plantff s a sleazy, greedy, selfsh persona! manager that took advantage of the members ofn.w.a. and caused the demse ofn.w.a. 0. The large number of factual errors, ncorrect speculatons, nnuendo, and out-and-out false statements contaned n the statements alleged n paragraph, above, ndcate that Defendants utterly faled to nvestgate the facts pror to publshng these statements nthe Flm, and shows a reckless dsregard or lack of concernfor the truth ofsad statements.. The above-alleged defamatory statements n the Flm were seen, or could be seen, potentally, by mllons of people who resde n Calforna, and elsewhere. Defendants made these defamatory statements ntendng to causeplantffs busness nterests to suffer fnancal harm and have, n fact, caused such harm. Defendants made such statements ntentonally, knowng and/or havng reason to know that the publc and potental and actual clents and busness partners, venturers, and assocates ofplantffwould rely on these defamatory statements andcease dong further busness wth Plantffas a result.. The above-alleged defamaton was commtted wth express malce, hatred or ll-wll, done recklessly, and made to advance Defendants' own selfsh and pecunary nterests. Defendants, and each of them, publshed the above-alleged defamatory statements ether wth knowledge that they were false and defamatory ofplantff, or wth reckless dsregard for ther truth or falsty and the defamatory nature of the statements and the attendant harm caused.. As a proxmate result of the above-descrbed publcatons, Plantff has suffered loss of

10 0 0. s ' v! and damage to hs exemplary professonal reputaton, and credtworthness, all to hs general damage nan amount to be determned accordng to proof at tral, but nan amount well n excess of ths Court'sgeneral jursdcton.. The above-descrbed defamatory statements were publshed by Defendants, and each of them, wth malce, oppresson and fraud, and because ofther feelngs ofhatred and ll-wll toward Plantff, and wth wllful and conscous dsregard for Plantffs rght to conduct hs busness, thereby justfyng an award of puntve damages aganst Defendants, and each of them. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Trade Lbel) (Aganst AllDefendants and Does - ). Plantffrepeats and re-alleges each ofthe allegatons contaned n paragraphs through '. nclusve, as though fully set forth heren.. The above-alleged statements nparagraph are false and, therefore, consttute trade lbel and trade dsparagement ofplantffs busness.. Plantff s ahghly successful and respected busness professonal n the musc ndustry, snce the late 0's and 0's, functonng as both a creatve and busness executve.. Defendants recklessly, wllfully and malcously made numerous false statements as above-alleged, to countless thrd partes about the supposed mproprety and lawlessness wth whch Plantff operates hs busness.. In fact, Defendants' above-alleged publshed statements lsted n paragraph are false. 0. The above-alleged statements sgnfcantly dsparaged Plantffs busness, and Defendants made the above-alleged statements ntendng to cause Plantff and hs busness to suffer substantal fnancal harm and have, n fact, caused suchharm.. Plantff s nformed and beleves and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew that the above-alleged statements were false, deceptve, and msleadng when they were made. Such false statements were ntended by Defendants, and each ofthem, to mslead, and, n 0

11 0 0 ^ -. ^' M fact, dd mslead, the publc, as well as Defendants made such statements ntentonally, knowng and/or havng reason to know that the publc and potental and actual clents, busness partners, venturers, and assocates would rely on these defamatory statements and cease dong further busness wth Plantffas a result.. As a drect and proxmate result of the above-alleged statements, Plantff has suffered and wll contnue to suffer substantal monetary and other damages, ncludng but not lmted to, the expense of measures reasonably necessary to counteract the false statements, n an amount accordng to proofat tral.. Plantff s nformed and beleves and thereon alleges that the above-alleged defamaton was commtted wth express malce, hatred or ll-wll and made to advance Defendants' own selfsh and pecunary nterests. Defendants, and each of them, knew ther statements were false when they were made and/or made such statements n reckless dsregard ofther truth or falsty. Defendants knew that the above-alleged statements could and would cause Plantffsevere harm and ntended that they cause Plantff such harm.. Plantff s nformed and beleves and thereon alleges, that n commttng the despcable acts set forth above, Defendants, and each of them, acted wth malce, ll-wll and wth the ntent and desgn of damagng, oppressng and destroyng Plantffs busness enterprses wth reckless dsregard of hs rghts, all on account of whch Plantff s enttled to an award ofpuntve damages aganst Defendants and each ofthem. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (False Lght) (Aganst All Defendants and Does - ). Plantffrepeats and re-alleges each of the allegatons contaned n paragraphs through, nclusve, as though fully set forth heren.. Defendants publshed the above-alleged reckless, false and defamatory statements regardng Plantffn the Flm.. By attrbutng the statements alleged above to Plantff, Defendants placed Plantff n a.

12 0 0 " ^ :' false lght beforethe publc.. Defendants, by ther false representatons, have placed Plantff n a false lght, whch would be hghly offensve to anyreasonable person.. Plantff s nformed and beleves and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew of the falsty of the statements or acted n reckless dsregard as to the truth or falsty of the statements andthe false lght n whch Plantff would be placed by publcaton of the statements. 0. Defendants gave publcty to the statements by publshng the statements n the Flm, whch makes those statements accessble worldwde to potentally mllons of ndvduals.. Plantff s nformed and beleves and thereon alleges, that Defendants ntended to depct Plantffs n a false, fctonalzed and sensatonalzed lght n order to beneft themselves through promotng the dea that Plantff was a sleazy, greedy, selfsh personal manager that took advantage of the members of N.W.A. and caused the demse of N.W.A. The statements, as set out above, falsely portray Plantff as corrupt, decetful, crooked, and fraudulent.. As a result of the publcaton of the above-alleged statements, Plantff has suffered njury to hsexemplary professonal reputaton and has been threatened wth dsrupton ofhs busness actvtes and opportuntes, resultng n a substantal loss of ncome and loss of the value of hs busness. Although the full nature, extent, and amount of these damages are currently unknown, ths Complant wll be amended at or before tral to nsert such nformaton f such an amendment s deemed necessary bythecourt.. h addton, Defendants' above-alleged conduct was done wth a conscous dsregard of the rghts ofplantff, and was done wth the ntent to njure Plantffs exemplary professonal reputaton. Defendants' acts consttute oppresson, fraud, and/or malce, enttlng Plantff to an award of puntve damages nan amount approprate to punsh or set anexample of the Defendants, to be determned at tral. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Msappropraton of Lkeness) (Aganst AH Defendants and Does I - )

13 0 0 ^ " ' - M. Plantff repeats and re-alleges each of the allegatons contaned n paragraphs through, nclusve, as though fully set forth heren.. Wthout Plantffs consent, Defendants used Plantffs exact dentty n the Flm.. In the Flm, "Jerry Heller" s played by actor Paul Gamatt. Plantff never approved to ths portrayal. Defendants dd not even bother to gve the character a fctonal name, lke "Gary Belter," for example.. Instead, Defendants blatantly used Plantffs lkeness n the Flm for ther advantage, commercal or otherwse.. Defendants msapproprated Plantffs lkeness wth actual malce.. Defendants' conduct s a substantal factor n brngng about the nvason of Plantffs rghts, ncludng wthout lmtaton, hs prvacy rghts.. Plantffsuffered the nvason of hs rghts, ncludng wthout lmtaton, hs prvacy rghts, enttlnghm to legal damages, accordng to proof at tral. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentonal Interference wth Prospectve Economc Advantage) (Aganst AH Defendants and Does - ) 0. Plantff repeats and re-alleges each of the allegatons contaned n paragraphs through, nclusve, as though fully set forth heren.. Plantff has aneconomc relatonshp wth hsclents, whch has theprobablty for future economc beneft to Plantff.. Plantffs nformed and beleves, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew of these economc relatonshps, and ntentonally engaged n wrongful and deceptve acts wth the desgn to nterfere wth ordsrupt the prospectve economc advantage that would nure to Plantffs beneft as a result, of these economc relatonshps.. Plantff s nformed and beleves, and thereon alleges, thatdefendants' actons have actually dsrupted or nterfered wth these relatonshps and made the performance of those relatonshps more burdensome and expensve for Plantff.. M

14 ! ;! ;! 0 ^ I! I! j 0! j ^'? '"' < '"''', ; fo. Plantff s nformed and beleves, and thereon alleges, that as a drect and proxmate result of Defendants' conduct and the dsrupton ofthe economc relatonshp between Plantff and tscustomers, Plantff has suffered sgnfcant legal damages, n amount that s presently unknown, but whch wll be proven at tral.. Plantff s nformed and beleves, and thereon alleges, that Defendants' wrongful actons were wllful, malcous, oppressve and nconscous dsregard of Plantffs rghts, and that Plantff stherefore enttled to an award ofexemplary damages to punsh Defendants for ther wrongful conduct. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Neglgent Interference wth Prospectve Economc Advantage) (Aganst All Defendants and Does - ). Plantff repeats and.re-alleges each ofthe allegatons contaned nparagraphs through, nclusve, as though fully set forth heren.. Plantff s nformed and beleves, and thereon alleges, that Plantff has aneconomc relatonshp wth ts clents, whch hastheprobablty for future economc beneft to Plantff.. Plantff s nformed and beleves, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew, or should have known, of these economc relatonshps, and they dd not act wth reasonable care wth regard to Defendants' wrongful and deceptve acts desgned to nterfere wth or dsrupt theprospectve economc advantage that would nure to Plantffs beneft as a resultof theseeconomc relatonshps.. Plantff s nformed and beleves, and thereon alleges, that Defendants' actons have actually dsrupted ornterfered wth these relatonshps and made the performance ofthose relatonshps more burdensome andexpensve for Plantff. 0. Plantff s nformed and beleves, and thereon alleges, that Defendants' wrongful conduct was a substantal factor n causng harm to Plantff. Defendants' conduct resulted n the dsrupton of the economc relatonshp between Plantff and hs clents, Plantffhas.

15 ! 0! 0 j * '! 0j ;,. w suffered damage to ts busness, and ts good wll, n amount that s presently unknown, but whch wll be proven at tral. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract-Settlement Agreement) (AganstDefendant Tomka Woods-Wrght, Comptown Records, Inc. and Does - ). Plantffrepeats and re-alleges each of the allegatons contaned n paragraphs through 0, nclusve, as though fully set forth heren.. On or around December,, Plantff, on the one hand, and Defendant Tomka Woods-Wrght and Comptown Records, Inc. on the other hand, executed a wrtten Settlement Agreement and General Releases, resolvng the actons between themthat were consoldated as Los Angeles Superor CourtCase No. BC. A true and correctcopy ofthe executed Settlement Agreement s attached hereto as'exhbt B.. UnderParagraph of the Settlement Agreement (Non Dsparagement and Non nterference), Plantffand Defendant Woods-Wrght and Comptown Records, Inc. agreed that they "shall not make any statements, drectly or ndrectly n wrtng, orally, or n any other form, whchdsparage n any way the other.". Plantff performed all, or substantally all, of the sgnfcantthngs that the contract requred hm to perform.. As alleged above, the tortous statements attrbutable to Defendant Woods-Wrght and Comptown Records, Inc. n the Flm consttute a clear breach ofthe Settlement Agreement.. The breach of contract by Defendant Woods-Wrght and Comptown Records, Inc. caused Heller to suffer sgnfcant legal damages, n an amountto be provenat the tme of tral. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Impled Covenant of Good Fath and Far Dealng) (Aganst Defendant Tomka Woods-Wrght, Comptown Records, Inc. and Does - ). Plantff repeats and re-alleges each ofthe allegatons contaned nparagraphs I through _,

16 M 0 0 ;* ^, nclusve, as though fully set forth heren.. In every contract or agreement there sanunpled promse ofgood fath and far dealng. Ths means that each party wll not do anythng to unfarly nterfere wth the rght ofany other party to receve the benefts ofthe contract.. Onor around December,, Plantff, on the one hand, and Defendant Tomka Woods-Wrght and Comptown Records, Inc., on the other hand, executed a wrtten Settlement Agreement and General Releases, resolvng theactons between them that were consoldated aslos Angeles Superor Court Case No. BCI. Atrue and correct copy of the executed SettlementAgreement s attached hereto as Exhbt B. 00. Plantff performed all,or substantally all, of the sgnfcant thngs thatthe contract requred hm to perform; 0. Defendant Woods-Wrght and Comptown Records, Inc. unfarly nterfered wth Plantffs rght to receve the benefts ofthe contract. 0. Plantff was harmed byher conduct. Ths breach bydefendant Woods-Wrght and Comptown Records, Inc. caused Plantff to suffer sgnfcant legal damages, n anamount to be proven at the tme oftral. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Oral Contract) (Aganst Defendants Savdge, Wenkus, and Xenon and Does - 0) 0. Plantff repeats and re-alleges each ofthe allegatons contaned n paragraphs through 0, nclusve, as though fully set forth heren. 0. In or around May,00, Plantffentered nto an oral contract for the servces of Defendants S. Legh Savdge and Alan Wenkus of Defendant Xenon Pctures, Inc/Xenon Entertanment Group ("Xenon") tocollaborate wth Plantff towrte an orgnal screenplay relatng the story ofruthless and N.W.A, In furtherance ofths agreement, Defendants Savdge and Wenkus worked wth and met wth Plantffand prepared atleast four draft screenplays, ncludng November,00 and August,00 screenplays

17 ! 0 j j j j 0! h' j T! '', M enttled, "Straght Outta Compton." 0. Atall tmes, under hs agreement wth Defendants Savdge/Wenkus/Xenon, the screenplays were Plantffs property, and n exchange fortherservces, Defendants Savdge/Wenkus/Xenon were to receve equal credt and equal compensaton that Plantff would receve asa wrter and producer ofany flm based upon the screenplay that Plantff commssoned them to wrte. 0. Plantff performed all, or substantally all, of thesgnfcant thngs thatthecontract requred hm to perform. 0. Plantff s nformed and beleves, and thereon alleges, that theflm s based on the screenplay drafted by Defendants Savdge and Wenkus, and that Defendants Savdge/Wenkus/Xenon sold the screenplay, behnd Plantffs back and wthout Plantffs authorty or consent, to New Lne Cnemas (who n turn sold the screenplay to Defendant NBC Unversal). 0. The breach of contract by Defendants Savdge, Wenkus, and Xenonhavecaused Plantff to suffer sgnfcant legal damages, n an amount to beproven at thetme of tral. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Impled Covenant of Good Fath and Far Dealng) (Aganst Defendants Savdge,Wenkus, and Xenon and Docs - 0) 0. Plantff repeats and re-alleges each of the allegatons contaned nparagraphs through 0, nclusve, as though fully set forth heren. 0. Inevery contract oragreement there s an mpled promse ofgood fath and far dealng. Ths means that each party wll not do anythng to unfarly nterfere wth the rght ofany other party to receve the benefts ofthe contract.. In or around May, 00, Plantffentered nto an oral contract for the servces of Defendants S. Legh Savdge and Alan Wenkus of Xenon Pctures, lnc/xenon Entertanment Group ("Xenon") to collaborate wth Plantff towrte an orgnal screenplay relatng the story ofruthless and N.W.A. In furtherance ofths

18 j j! ; 0 0 T ~ ^ " f'v. '' agreement, Defendants Savdge and Wenkus worked wth and met wth Plantff and prepared atleast four draft screenplays, ncludng November,00 and August, 00 screenplays enttled, "Straght Outta Compton".. Plantff performed all, orsubstantally all, ofthe sgnfcant tlngs that the contract requred hm to perform.. Defendants Savdge, Wenkus, and Xenon have unfarly nterfered wth Plantffs rght to receve the benefts ofde contract.. The breach ofcontract by Defendants Savdge, Wenkus, and Xenon have caused Plantff to suffer sgnfcant legal damages, n an amount to beproven at the tmeof tral. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Converson) (Aganst All Defendants and Does - 0). Plantff repeats and re-alleges each ofthe allegatons contaned nparagraphs through, nclusve, as though fully set forth heren.. Plantffowned and had a rght to possess the Book and the Screenplays.. Defendants ntentonally andsubstantally nterfered wth Plantffs property rghts to de Book and the Screenplays by adoptng them asther own and msappropratng them to make the Flm.. Defendants took possesson of the Book and the Screenplays.. Defendants prevented Plantff from havng access to the Book and the Screenplays. 0. Plantffdd not consent to Defendants' actons.. Plantff s nformed and beleves, and thereon alleges, that Defendants' wrongful conduct was a substantal factor ncausng harm to Plantff, n amount that s presently unknown, but whch wlt be proven at tral. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Copyrght Infrngement) (Aganst AH Defendants and Does - 0)

19 0 0. Plantff repeats and re-alleges each ofthe allegatons contaned n paragraphs through, nclusve, as though fully set forth heren.. Plantff s nformed and beleves and theren alleges that Defendants have volated one or more of the exclusve rghts granted to Plantffas a copyrght owner.. Plantff sthe owner ofa vald copyrght. Specfcally, Plantff s the orgnal author of the Book; Plantffs Book s copyrghtable; and Plantff compled wth the applcable statutory formaltes to secure hs copyrght.. Plantff secured a vald copyrght regstraton certfcate from thecopyrght Offce.. Plantff s nformed and beleves and thereon alleges that Defendants unlawfully coped de consttuent elements of the Book thatareorgnal, specfcally, numerous scenes that are factual n the Flm are blatantly lfted drectly from the Book.. Plantff s enttled to recover theactual damages he suffered as a result of the nfrngement, by Defendants and any profts of the Defendant nfrngers that are attrbutable to the nfrngement andare not taken nto account n computng theactual damages, accordng to proofat tral.. Alternatvely, Plantff s enttled to statutory damages. In a case where thecopyrght owner sustans the burdenof provng, and the court fnds, that nfrngement was commtted wllfully, thecourt n ts dscreton may ncrease theaward of statutory damages to a sum ofnot more than $0,000. PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY PRAYER FOR RELIEF I' V' 0 ':' M follows: WHEREFORE, Plantff prays for judgment aganst Defendants, and each of them, as. For monetary damages, n an amount to be proven at tral, beleved to be not less than $,000,000.00;. For prejudgment nterest at the maxmum legal rate;

20 , For puntve and exemplary damages, n an amount tobe proven attral beleved tobe not less than $,000,000.00;, For resttuton ofal gans, profts and advantages obtaned by Defendants, and each of them, as a result ofther wrongful and unlawful conduct, n an amount to be proven attral;. Forcosts and expenses, ncludng attorneys' fees; and. For such other and further relef as ths Court deems proper. 0 Dated:. October 0, 0 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL R. SHAPIRO, APC By: Mchael R. Shapro Attorney for PlantffGERALD E.HELLER 0 '"' ':' ^} '" K! 0

21 Heller v. NBCUnversal, Inc., Docket No. BC (Cal. Super. Ct. Oct. 0, 0), Court Docket General Informaton Court Docket Number Status CA Superor Court - Los Angeles County BC Open 0 The Bureau of Natonal Affars, Inc. All Rghts Reserved. Terms of Servce // PAGE