holla'back entertainment - second pro se complaint.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
JS 44C/SDNY
REV. 4/2014JUDGt 6CHOFIELD CIVILCOVER SHEET
The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings orotherpapers as required bylaw, except as provided bylocal rules ofcourt. This form, approved bytheJudicial Conference ofthe United States inSeptember1974,is required foruseof the Clerk ofCourt forthe purposeofinitiating the civil docket sheet.
PLAINTIFFS
CARLA B. BOONE, MEMBER ON BEHALF OFHOLLA'BACK RECORDS, CODISPOTI &ASSOCJATES^ LLPENTERTAINMENT, & MANAGEMENT LLC
ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, ANDTELEPHONE NUMBERPRO-SE; CARLA B. BOONE, C/O KEVINW. NEWMAN, BUSINESSMANAGER, P.O.BOX 970,TYRONE,GA 30290,
DEFEND
CODISP(MANCINELLI & ASSOCIATES, LLP
ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)
CV is:c IID •*» >"^
CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE ABRIEF STATEMENT OFCAUSE!(DO NOTCITEJURISDICTIONAL STATUTESUNLESS DIVERSITY)
18 U.S.C. SEC 1001 (1) (2);18 U.S.C.SEC 371 ;42 U.S.C.. SEC, 1983, FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY, DENIALpF^EjPgOCESS^
Has this action, case, or proceeding, or one essentially the same been previously filed in SDNY atany time? N(Eresl—Uudge Previously Assigned
If yes,wasthis case Vol. • Invol. Q Dismissed. No • Yes fj If yes,give date &Case No.
No 0 Yes •IS THIS AN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CASE?
(PLACEAN [x] IN ONE BOXONLY)
TORTS
NATURE OF SUIT
PERSONAL INJURY
[ I 310 AIRPLANE[ ] 315 AIRPLANE PRODUCT
LIABILITY
[ ] 320 ASSAULT, LIBEL &SLANDER
[ ] 330 FEDERALEMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY
[ ] 340 MARINE[ J345 MARINE PRODUCT
LIABILITY
[ ] 350 MOTOR VEHICLE[ ]355 MOTOR VEHICLE
PRODUCT LIABILITY
[ ] 360 OTHER PERSONALINJURY
[ J 362 PERSONAL INJURY -MED MALPRACTICE
PERSONAL INJURY[ ] 367 HEALTHCARE/PHARMACEUTICAL PERSONAL r , 625 DRUG RELATEDINJURY/PRODUCT LIABILITY
[ ] 365 PERSONAL INJURYPRODUCT LIABILITY
[ ] 368 ASBESTOS PERSONALINJURY PRODUCT
LIABILITY
PERSONAL PROPERTY
I ] 370 OTHER FRAUD[ ] 371 TRUTH IN LENDING
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
[ ] no[]120[ 1130[ 1140
[ 1150
I 1151[ 1152
N153
[ 1160
[ ]195
1 1196
INSURANCE
MARINE
MILLER ACT
NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENT
RECOVERY OF
OVERPAYMENT &
ENFORCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT
MEDICARE ACT
RECOVERY OF
DEFAULTED
STUDENT LOANS
(EXCL VETERANS)RECOVERY OF
OVERPAYMENT
OF VETERAN'S
BENEFITS
STOCKHOLDERS
SUITS
OTHER
CONTRACT
CONTRACT
PRODUCT
LIABILITY
FRANCHISE
ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES
OWL RIGHTS
OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS
(Non-Prisoner)
[ ]441 VOTING[ ]442 EMPLOYMENT[ ]443 HOUSING/
ACCOMMODATIONS[ 1445 AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES -EMPLOYMENT
( ]446 AMERICANS WITHDISABILITIES -OTHER
[ ]448 EDUCATION
REAL PROPERTY
[J 210
[ ]220[ ]230
[ ]240[ ]245
[ ]290
LAND
CONDEMNATION
FORECLOSURE
RENT LEASE &
EJECTMENT
TORTS TO LANDTORT PRODUCT
LIABILITY
ALL OTHER
REAL PROPERTY
Checkifdemanded in complaint:
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTIONUNDER F.R.C.P. 23
[ ] 380 OTHER PERSONALPROPERTY DAMAGE
[ ] 385 PROPERTY DAMAGEPRODUCT LIABILITY
PRISONER PETITIONS
[ ] 463 ALIEN DETAINEE[ ] 510 MOTIONS TO
VACATE SENTENCE
28 USC 2255
[ ] 530 HABEAS CORPUS[ ] 535 DEATH PENALTY[ ] 540 MANDAMUS & OTHER
PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS
[ ] 550 CIVIL RIGHTS[ ] 555 PRISON CONDITION[ ] 560 CIVIL DETAINEE
SEIZURE OF PROPERTY
21 USC 881
[ ] 690 OTHER
LABOR
[ ] 710 FAIR LABORSTANDARDS ACT
[ ] 720 LABOR/MGMTRELATIONS
[ ] 740 RAILWAY LABOR ACT
[ ) 751 FAMILY MEDICALLEAVE ACT (FMLA)
[ ]790 OTHER LABORLITIGATION
[ ] 791 EMPL RET INCSECURITY ACT
IMMIGRATION
[ ]462 NATURALIZATIONAPPLICATION
( ]465 OTHER IMMIGRATIONACTIONS
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT
ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES
BANKRUPTCY
[ ] 422 APPEAL28 USC 158
[ ] 423 WITHDRAWAL28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
[ ] 820 COPYRIGHTSr 1 830 PATENT
140 TRADEMARK
SOCIAL SECURITY
( ]861 HIA(1395ff)[ ] 862 BLACK LUNG (923)[ ) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))[ ] 864 SSID TITLE XVI[ ] 865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
( 1870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintiff orDefendant)
[ ] 871 IRS-THIRD PARTY26 USC 7609
OTHER STATUTES
3 375 FALSE CLAIMS}400STATE
REAPPORTIONMENT
"10 ANTITRUST
. ^3 BANKS & BANKING[ j450COMMERCE[ ] 460 DEPORTATION[ ) 470 RACKETEER INFLU
ENCED & CORRUPT
ORGANIZATION ACT
(RICO)[ ]480 CONSUMER CREDIT[ ) 490 CABLE/SATELLITE TV
[ ] 850 SECURITIES/COMMODITIES/
EXCHANGE
m
[ ] 890 OTHER STATUTORYACTIONS
[ ] 891 AGRICULTURAL ACTS
[ ] 893 ENVIRONMENTALMATTERS
[ ]895 FREEDOM OFINFORMATION ACT
[ ] 896 ARBITRATION
[ ) 899 ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURE ACT/REVIEW OR
APPEAL OF AGENCY DECISION
[ ] 950 CONSTITUTIONALITY OFSTATE STATUTES
•DEMAND $_ OTHER
DO YOU CLAJM THIS CASE IS RELATED TO A CIVIL CASE NOW PENDING IN S.D.N.Y.?
JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
Check YES onlyifdemandedincomplaintJURY DEMAND: S YES LNO NOTE: You must also submit at the time of filing the Statement of Relatedness form (Form IH-32).
(PLACEAN x INONEBOXONLY) ORIGIN
M1 Original • 2 Removed from I—I 3 Remanded D 4 Reinstated or • 5 Transferred from Q 6 MultidistrictProceeding StateCourt from Reopened (Specify District) Litigation
n a. all parties represented Appellate•—' Court
I | b. At least oneparty is pro se.
(PLACEAN x IN ONEBOXONLY) BASIS OF JURISDICTION IFDIVERSITY, INDICATEQ 1 U.S. PLAINTIFF • 2 U.S. DEFENDANT • 3 FEDERAL QUESTION [x]4 DIVERSITY CITIZENSHIP BELOW.
(U.S. NOT A PARTY)
CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)
(Place an [X] in one box for Plaintiff and one box for Defendant)
I~~l 7 Appeal toDistrictJudge fromMagistrate JudgeJudgment
CITIZEN OF THIS STATE
PTF DEF
[ ] 1 M 1 CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF A
FOREIGN COUNTRY
INCORPORATED or PRINCIPAL PLACE
OF BUSINESS IN THIS STATE
PTF DEF
[ ]3[ ]3
41 *
PTF DEF
INCORPORATED and PRINCIPAL PLACE V] 5 [ ] 5OF BUSINESS IN ANOTHER STATE
CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE \% " [ ] 2 FOREIGN NATION [16 [ ]6
PLAINTIFF(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES)
CARLA B. BOONE
C/O KEVIN W. NEWMAN
P. O. BOX 970
TYRONE, GA 30290(FAYETTE)
DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES)
CODISPOTI & MANCINELLI AND ASSOCIATES LLP, 111 JOHN STREET, SUITE 800 NY NY 10018(NY)
DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS UNKNOWNREPRESENTATION IS HEREBY MADE THAT, AT THIS TIME, I HAVE BEEN UNABLE, WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE, TO ASCERTAIN
RESTOENCE ADDRESSES OF THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS:
Check one: THIS ACTION SHOULD BE ASSIGNED TO: • WHHfe PLAINS(DO NOT check either box if this a PRISONER PETITION/PRISONE^jftrVIL RIGHTSCOMPLAINT.) £>"
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEYOF RECORD -S? ADMITTED TO PRACTICE INTHIS DISTRICT
H MANHATTAN
RECEIPT # I^^y" 2- 2^
Magistrate Judge is to bejd^s
Magistrate Judge
signated by the
Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court by
Clerk
^Lo
'dflfce Cogrt
4 -
Deputy Clerk, DATED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (NEW YORK SOUTHERN)
Clear Form Save
[] NO[ ] YES (DATE ADMITTED Mo.Attorney Bar Code #
is so Designated.
Yr.
JUDGE SCHOFVELDCarla B. Boone, Pro SE
C/O Kevin W. Newman, Business Manager
HOLLA'BACK RECORDS, ENT...LLC
P. 0. BOX 970
TYRONE, GA 30290
E:mail [email protected]
Telephone: (404) 232-9852 15 CV 1391• COURT J- *-* v -*-UNITED STATES DISTRICT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CARLA B. BOONE (MEMBER) ON BEHALF OF
HOLLA'BACK RECORDS,
ENTERTAINMENT...LLC,
Plaintiff,
v. BRUNO F.CODISPOTI & ASSOCIATES,
STEVEN C. MANCINELLI & ASSOCIATES,
DEFENDANTS
CASE NO.
COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD, CONSPIRACY AND
TO DECLARE SYSTEMIC COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT *
DISMISSALS UNCONSTITUTIONAL '_j ot
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED r~
Plaintiff, Carla B. Boone, member of Holla'back Records, Ent. &
Management, LLC hereby alleges and files this complaint against Defendants
listed above and demands a trial by jury and seeks relief as follows:
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED -
•o
o
I. NATURE OF CASE
1. This is a fraud, conspiracy and due process violations case
wherein Plaintiff, as a layperson, was ignorant nor advised of the
systemic, unjust, illegal, unethical and unfair Pro-Defendant
biased,* statistically substantiated**, history of Summary Judgment
dismissals in this circuit prior to or during her copyright
infringement claim against John Jackson pka Fabolous ("Fabolous"),
Pharrell Williams and his partner Chad Hugo ("The Neptunes") et. al.
for Copyright and originally Trademark Infringement. Such systemic
dismissals of copyright infringement claims have routinely denied
Plaintiff (and virtually anyone filing similar copyright
infringement claims against major corporations/superstars in this
circuit),their Seventh Amendment, Constitutional right to an
unbiased jury trial of their peers; instead being tried by opinions
of judges contrary to specific, mandated Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure-Summary Judgment rules and regulations. The unlawful,
deliberate, intentional, misrepresentations/actions of all
Defendants, with full knowledge of the ultimate results, benefitted
all Defendants at the professional, emotional and financial expense
of Plaintiff. Many deliberate actions of "Codispoti" and
"Mancinelli" were relied on by Plaintiff, clearly oppressive to
Plaintiff's case, not in Plaintiff's best interest and assisted
previous Defendants "Fabolous" and "The Neptunes" and their counsel
in accomplishing the inevitable dismissal of Plaintiff's original
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
claims and avoiding liability for other causes of actions. Such
fraud and conspiracy was discovered during review of Original
Complaint and detailed bills/documents from Defendants Codispoti and
Mancinelli on February 11, 2015 and March 1, 2013 resulting from
Contractual Retainer Agreement for Representation of Holla'back
Records, Boone v. Jaackson et. al... (EXHIBIT A) and subsequent to
completion of the extensive researching/marketing of the documentary
"Injustice for All...Summary Mis Judgment."
2.From Sponge Bob Square Pants, to and including (but not limited
to) The Matrix, The Biggest Loser, Monster In Law, The Apprentice,
Drumline, Finding Nemo, Robots, Life, The Da Vinci Code, Bevis &
Butthead, The Equalizer, Don't Mess with the Zohan, Bringing Down
the House, Arli$$, Groundhog Day, My Name is Earl, Sweet Home
Alabama (a total of over 50+ multi-million/billion dollar projects
in the last 25 years), all of which were alleged to have been stolen
(federal copyright infringement claims bought in federal courts in
NY and CA and the lower courts within those circuits, against the
major networks/studios).
Yet, each and every one of the above multi-million/billion dollar
projects, and virtually all in the last 25 years, was dismissed on
Summary Judgment motions; essentially stating that NONE of those 50+
cases (in NY and CA and the lower Courts within those Circuits)*, in
the last 25 years, could have won. Such systemic dismissals have
denied tax-paying citizens their Constitutional, Seventh Amendment
right to due process before an unbiased tribunal of their peers.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
By denying such citizens, including Plaintiff, their right to due
process, the very courts placed in a position to serve its citizens
have essentially done exactly the opposite. Plaintiff alleges that
the courts have aided and abetted in the creation of a virtual
monopoly within the movie, film, music/entertainment industry by
essentially stipulating that NONE of these cases could have won
(there were no material-important-fact issues in any of these
cases); thus a trial, in every one of those cases, would have,
essentially, been a waste of the court's time; since essentially
1960, yet statistically validated in NY & CA for last 25 years.
3. Is it reasonable, conceivable and least of all possible that over
96% of these cases could not have won if permitted to be presented
before an unbiased jury of the Plaintiffs' peers as opposed to being
tried by the subjective "Opinions" of Judges seated on these
benches?
4. Plaintiff contends that actions, intentional revisions of the
original complaint and conduct of Defendants Codispodti and
Mancinelli (as original agents for Plaintiff) detailed below, are in
direct violation of their roles, responsibilities and Model Rules of
Professional Conduct in addition to substantive and procedural law.
Additionally, the Courts dismissal was in direct conflict with the
specific directives of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (56) (c)
governing Summary Judgment which specifically stipulates that
Summary Judgment is a disfavored remedy. The statistics stipulated
above clearly indicate systemic Pro Defendant favor, for at least
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
the last 25 years, in direct contradiction of such clear and
specific Summary Judgment rules, directives, regulations and
guidelines.
5. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have knowingly participated/
engaged in deliberate, covert, wrongdoings and practices and
additionally, intentionally, documented/omitted false/misleading
representations and engaged in unethical and illegal practices and
abuses of legal authority, conspiracy and fraud, to the benefit of
Defendants and the detriment of Plaintiff by conspiring and
fraudulently misrepresenting material facts to Plaintiff and the
courts with the ultimate objective of continuing their unprecedented
and previously unchallenged illegal, unjust and unethical Summary
Judgment dismissals.
6. The statistically validated research (Item 2.) above by another
officer of the court, esteemed Beverly Hills Attorney Steven T.
Lowe,** documenting the blatant and one-sided, systemic, "Pro
Defendant biased" dismissals have engulfed itself within the federal
judicial system for at a minimum, the last 25 years. Such practices
have denied Plaintiff (and other tax-paying citizens) their
Constitutional, Seventh Amendment right to an unbiased jury trial of
their peers when they sue major corporations/superstars for
infringing upon their rights to literally billions of dollars in
Intellectual Property causing denial of due process, destruction of
their small business, foreclosures on homes, destruction of
families, suicidal thoughts, mental and physical issues when these
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
cases are, illegally dismissed despite material fact issues present
in the majority of these cases. Such fraudulent actions upon the
court have defiled the court when these copyright cases are filed
against major networks/studios/corporations and have systemically
prevented the judicial system from adjudicating these cases in a
fair, unbiased and impartial manner.
7. Further, Plaintiff alleges that the systemic, Pro-Defendant
biased dismissals have completely and totally ignored any and all
specific, clear and concise Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in
addition to High Court's mandate (Exhibit B): "Copyright Cases Must
Go to Jury." In this ruling, the court said., "the Constitution
guarantees the right to a jury trial in all types of copyright
infringement lawsuits.... The decision bars entertainment companies
and other copyright holders from picking a trial by judge over a
trial by jury."
Plaintiff alleges that major conglomerates/entertainment companies
have been encouraged, aided and systemically abetted in their
illegal, unjust and systemic dismissal of these cases by the
systemic and unprecedented actions of these very courts and many
attorneys of Artists suing these conglomerates such as Defendants
noted above. Such systemic, unconstitutional, unethical and biased
"trials by judge" have been documented and serve as one of the bases
for Plaintiff s fraud and conspiracy charges hereby alleged against
Defendants which assisted previous defendants John Jackson aka
Fabolous, Pharrell Williams, Chad Hugo et. Al in getting the
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
original complaint for Trademark and Copyright Infringement unjustly
dismissed.
8. Based upon what Plaintiff believes are illegal actions as well as
the education, training and experience of each of the Defendants,
such results, consistently obtained in this circuit when major
corporations are sued for copyright infringement, was, known to all
Defendants (including to Plaintiff's counsel) and unknown to
Plaintiff leading to the fruitless and costly pursuit of a Jury
Trial which, based on policies and practices of this court, were
improbable at best and virtually impossible in reality.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This court is vested with jurisdiction of this case pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1001 (1) and (2), 18 U.S.C §371, 42 U.S.C § 1983 and 28
U.S.C §32 as controversy exceeds value of $75,000.
10. This court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1331 and 1338.
11. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U. S. C § 1391.
III. THE PARTIES
12. PLAINTIFF Carla B. Boone ("Boone") is a resident of the State of
Georgia and is a member of Holla'back Records, Entertainment and
Management, South LLC a Georgia Limited Liability Company (on behalf
of which such lawsuit is filed) originally formed and operated in
New York with offices at 1007 President Street, Suite 1, Brooklyn,
New York 11225.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED -
13. Plaintiff Boone/Holla'back Records are in the business of
producing, promoting, recording/managing/consulting musical artists,
including but not limited to musical and recording artists in the
hip hop and rap genre.
14. In 1998 and prior to the establishment of Holla'back Records as
a limited liability company in the state of New York, Boone
conducted business as a sole proprietor under the name Holla'Back
Records.
15. In May 2001, Boone established Holla'back Records as an
independent recording label.
16. Plaintiff Boone is the owner of the copyrighted song that was
previously subject of the original infringement claim in addition to
the Federal Trademark of her company's name. Thus standing to
commence that action, at that time, was proper pursuant to 17 U.S.C
§ 501(b) .
Defendants Codispoti and Associates LLP.
17. For approximately 10 years 3 months, Codispoti and Mancinelli
were originally formed and operated as a Limited Liability
Partnership.
18. Their original and principal place of business, for 10 years 3
months, was 111 John Street, New York, New York.
19. Since early 2009 (specifically December 24, 2008 and January 8,
2009 respectively) Defendants (in addition to previous counsel for
original Defendants in Boone vs. Jackson et. Al., (Cynthia Arato,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Esq.) each now conveniently owns their individual Domestic Business
Corporation/Domestic Limited Liability Companies/private practices.
20. Each Domestic Business Partnership of Defendant (Codispoti and
Associates and Mancinelli and Associates) still maintains the exact
same physical residence of 111 John Street, New York, NY despite
dissolving their partnership and each individually seeking separate
Business Corporations.
Defendants Mancinelli and Associates, LLP.
21. For approximately 10 years 3 months, Codispoti and Mancinelli
were originally formed and operated as a Limited Liability
Partnership.
22. Their original and principal place of business, for 10 years 3
months, was 111 John Street, New York, New York.
Since early 2009 (specifically December 24, 2008 and January 8,
2009 respectively) Defendants (in addition to previous counsel for
original Defendants in Boone vs. Jackson et. Al., (Cynthia Arato,
Esq.) each now conveniently owns their individual Domestic Business
Corporation/Domestic Limited Liability Companies/private practices.
FACTS:(FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION): FRAUD
23. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the General
Allegations stated in Paragraphs 1 through 22 alleged herein above
and makes them part hereof as though set forth in length.
24. At the time the original copyright infringement lawsuit was
filed, Defendants Codispoti and Mancinelli owned a Limited
Liability Partnership and promoted themselves to the public as
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
skilled and experienced attorneys specializing in copyright and
trademark infringement.
25. Defendants Codispoti and Mancinelli prepared a detailed and
specific Retainer Agreement Terms and Conditions on July 2, 2003
(Exhibit A). This retainer agreement specifically stated in "Item
2" Attorney's Fees that Plaintiff agrees to pay Attorney an "hourly
rate" for all services rendered... a total retainer of
$7500..agreeing to replenish retainer when deposits are reduced to
$2500 or less... "
26. Plaintiff retained Defendants Codispoti and Mancinelli to file
Copyright and Trademark infringement charges against rap superstars
and Defendants Fabolous (John D. Jackson), Pharrell Williams & Chad
Hugo (The Neptunes) and their recording/distribution companies
(Desert Storm, Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc., Desert Storm
Records, Blackwood Music Publishing, Inc. and WEA (Warner Music
Group, Inc.
27. Plaintiff signed such specific Retainer agreement and paid an
initial lump sum of $7500 and agreed to replenish such as deposit
reduced to $2500 or less. Plaintiff made all payments to Defendants
promptly when each payment was due.
28. Despite significant material fact issues and subsequent to what
Plaintiff believes was an illegal, unethical and inappropriate
dismissal of the copyright infringement claim, Boone was advised by
Defendants to "go on with your life."
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 10
29. She was then required to file a Pro Se Appeal since Defendants
were going to charge an additional $30,000 (after paying an
approximate total of $100,000 and knowing that Plaintiff had reached
her cap on affordability of attorney fees).
30. This advice to go on with her life was, curiously, proffered
despite Defendants specifically detailing and agreeing to
significant legal errors which were made in the District Courts'
original opinion dismissing the case.
31. The Court of Appeals subsequently agreed that numerous legal
errors were made yet, had to continue the systemic dismissals of
these cases despite material fact issues clearly existing and their
very, documented and detailed admission of the legal errors made by
Judge George Daniels.
32. Such admitted legal errors by the Appeals Court should have,
immediately, justifiably warranted remand to the district, yet,
instead, the Appeals Court affirmed an admitted, legally flawed,
original opinion and affirmed Defendants' Summary Judgment motion.
33. Subsequent to such shocking dismissal, Plaintiff researched and
divulged numerous allegations of similar Summary Judgment
dismissals, illicit attorney misconduct and other judicial
questionable actions/dismissals when Independent/Artists file
copyright infringement claims against major corporations/national
superstars etc.
34. Plaintiff became well versed in copyright infringement law in
addition to the Summary Judgment process specifically.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - n
35. One of several pieces divulged by Plaintiff was research done by
an esteemed Beverly Hills Attorney with over 25 years of litigation
experience and 5 years with Super Lawyer Status, Steven T. Lowe, who
wrote several articles prophesying the "Death of Copyright."
Attorney Lowe stipulated and statistically verified that, in the
last 25 years, in New York (the Court Plaintiff originally filed her
copyright suit) and California, and the lower courts within those
circuits), such Copyright Infringement cases virtually never go to
trial. In fact, Attorney Lowe's initial findings stipulated that
46/48 cases (96%) in a 20 year period never went to trial and in the
next 5 years, the networks/studios were the victors each time.
36. "In his dissent to the Ninth Circuit's 1993 decision in White
v. Samsung Electronics America, now-Chief Justice Alex Kozinski
famously remarked that, "for better or worse, we are the Court of
Appeals for the Hollywood Circuit." This oft-quoted observation
neatly encapsulates the problem that author-plaintiff s face in
litigating against studios for the misappropriation of their
creative works; the law simply has become too friendly to Hollywood
interests, often at the expense of doctrinal clarity and equitable
balance."
37. As Defendants Warner, Electra & Atlantic (WEA aka The Big
Three)were one of if not the most prominent, major music players in
the Hollywood realm or perhaps worldwide, Defendants Codispoti and
Mancinelli, throughout their many years in this profession,
including but not limited to their specific research and experience,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - 12
knew and should have communicated that the only guarantee that
existed both then and now was the impossibility of reaching a "Jury
Trial" as they so clearly demanded on behalf of Plaintiff in the
original and Amended complaints (Exhibit C).
38. Additionally, despite Defendants Codispoti and Mancinelli
clearly notating that research had been done very early in
litigation (complete research regarding: rap and hip-hop copyright
infringement actions in Second Circuit 11/04/03 in addition to
"Research regarding copyright infringement actions in the Second
Circuit, proof and damages"12/19/03 and 2/26/03-Exhibit D) which
would have clearly divulged this reality (assuming arguendo that
such "experts" were unaware of such), Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants intentionally, knowingly concealed, misrepresented,
withheld/omitted these material specific and essential facts from
Plaintiff who falsely was led to believe that a Jury Trial would
occur.
39. In fact, Plaintiff was led to belief that she had "a good
chance" of defeating this unavoidable Summary Judgment dismissal
even as late as 1/23/05 by e:mail (Exhibit E) despite such early
research (in addition to their experience in this field) clearly
suggesting that the majority of these cases are either virtually
always dismissed on Summary Judgment Motions or the major
corporations are unanimously the victors in this circuit; a fact
never divulged to Plaintiff subsequent to such research and prior to
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 13
defrauding Plaintiff out of at least $100,000 in attorney/expert
fees.
40. Plaintiff in boxed Defendant Mancinelli in LinkdN on March 1
2013 (Exhibit F) (the initial point that such intentional fraud was
revealed to Plaintiff) and inquired as to why such information and
research stipulated in item 6 had not been divulged to client.
Defendant Mancinelli stated that I needed to speak with Defendant
Codispoti as "you were really his client."
41. Plaintiff immediately called Defendant Codispoti and discussed
Attorney Lowe's research. Defendant Codispoti stated that these
stats did not take into account any settlements made to Plaintiffs
during this approximate 25 year period. Plaintiff asked Defendant
Codispoti not to insult her intelligence as there would be little to
no reason for any major network/studio to settle with essentially
100% odds of beating the case on Summary Judgment Motions.
42. Plaintiff requested that Defendant forward the specific Summary
Judgment research done on her specific case on to her attention.
43. Defendant initially stated that case was old and attempted to
deny such request.
Defendant was advised that he was required to maintain files for 7
years and only 6 had passed.
44. Defendant has yet to forward such information to Plaintiff's
attention.
45. Additional nuanced and detailed legal information unavailable to
laymen such as Plaintiff and only divulged to Plaintiff during her
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 14
research in preparation for release and distribution of the
documentary "Injustice for All...Summary MisJudgment" divulged the
fact that Summary Judgment would have been strictly prohibited in
cases where a breach of implied in fact contract occurred.
46. Defendants omitted Lightyear Entertainment, the Trademark
Infringement Claims and the Lanham Act causes of actions from
original drafts/Complaints.
47. Plaintiff believes that Defendants intentionally, knowingly,
purposefully and wrongfully filed an "Amended" Complaint-(Exhibit C)
which Plaintiff alleges purposely excluded LightYear Entertainment
in addition to the Trademark Infringement and Lanham Act claims; a
critical Defendant and causes of action in the original filing.
48. LightYear gained direct access to Plaintiff's Independent
release, proclaimed the song as a "hit" and discussed the
possibility of Plaintiff receiving $500,000 for the "hit" song
Holla'back as communicated to Plaintiff during her meetings with the
A&R Executive, Greg Riles, his Assistant Moses Edwards during lunch.
Later that afternoon, Plaintiff was introduced to the President,
Arnie Holland, who commented that Plaintiff had some "great stuff."
49.Based on the expertise and experience of Defendants and the
entire communication to them regarding the specific meeting
Plaintiff had with these original Defendants (as noted on 11/4/03
and research which linked Da White Boy with Fabolous-Exhibit D (2)
Lightyear) in addition to a letter, Defendants requested from an
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED -15
independent party, Tamara Ramsey, who accompanied Plaintiff to said
original meeting with Lightyear Entertainment (Exhibit G).
50. Plaintiff believes that Defendants had absolutely no reason to
Amend the original complaint and omit this critical Defendant, in
addition to the Trademark and Lanham claims from original complaint
unless there was some illicit reason for their doing so.
51. It is Plaintiffs understanding that if such breach of implied
contract clause against LightYear and the Trademark infringement
claim remained in the original claim and not intentionally annexed
from the original complaint, along with the Federal Trademark
Infringement claim and Lanham Act claims, Plaintiff would have
defeated the Summary Judgment Motion at least for Lightyear and the
Trademark Infringement claims against remaining Defendants for
infringing on the Holla'back Federal Trademark.
52. Further, the Defendants' infringement of the rap utterance of
the Trademarked rap word "Hollaback" repeatedly uttered by
Defendants could not have been part of such dismissal as it was a
separate and specific cause of action and claim.
53. Eliminating such Cause of Action from original Complaint has
cost Plaintiff millions in potential Trademark infringement fees as
the statue of limitation has now expired and the majority of
earnings due to the infringement has fallen outside of the Statute
of Limitations.
54. Finally, despite an hourly retainer arrangement, Defendant
Mancinelli called Plaintiff to advise her that the Summary Judgment
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED16
motion had been filed and requested a lump sum payment, as opposed
to the replenishment of the retainer, of $17,500.
55. This lump sum payment was requested so that Defendants could
"take their time" and work on the Summary Judgment Motion response.
56. Plaintiff was told that there "won't" be any additional fees as
the Defendants "could not" file a Sanctions Motion for the timetable
for doing so had expired.
57. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsely, fraudulently and
knowingly defrauded Plaintiff out of that additional lump sum
payment of $17,500(an additional 150% over the original retainer),
as Plaintiff alleges that they knew that Summary Judgment was
eminent.
58. Defendants were advised that we had reached our cap on fees for
this lawsuit.
59. However, Defendants called shortly after receipt of that
significant lump sum payment and requested an additional $17,500 to
reply to the Sanctions motion.
60. Plaintiff believes that this was an attempt to extort an
additional $17,500 for a Sanctions motion that Defendants clearly
and specifically communicated, when requesting the initial $17,500,
"could not" be filed.
61. Yet, Defendant Mancinelli responded he never said they "would
not" file the Sanctions motion and demanded such payment which
Plaintiff emphatically refused to pay.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED -17
62. Such refusal to, what Plaintiff believes, further extort
Plaintiff led to written exchanges where Defendants threatened to
withdraw from suit due to Plaintiffs adamant denial to pay an
additional, significant, lump-sum payment (despite substantial fees
already paid to them for filing a lawsuit which was knowingly never
going to a jury trial as originally expected and demanded by
Plaintiff). (Exhibits H).
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: CONSPIRACY
63. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the General
Allegations stated in Paragraphs 1 through 62 alleged herein above
and makes them part hereof as though set forth in length.
64. Attorneys for previous defendants "Fabolous" and "The Neptunes"
et. Al, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP clearly stipulate, via their
website of "Our strong presence in America's most important business
markets enables us to address and exceed client expectations. Our
largest offices are strategically located in Los Angeles, New York,
Palo Alto, San Francisco, Orange County and Washington, D.C. Our
offices in Sacramento and Albany - the capitals of California and
New York - provide connections to government decision makers and to
solutions that are unavailable from our competitors. Our access,
influence and reach are enhanced by our subsidiary, Manatt Jones
Global Strategies, LLC, which develops and implements programs to
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
expand client businesses and promote effective competition on a
global basis."
65. Defendants' clear and deliberate need to reiterate, duplicate
specifically reference and reinforce the point relating to their
reach and influence in "the capitals of California and New York"
(the two states statistically validated where copyright infringement
claims against these corporations, in those exact same circuits and
lower courts within those specific circuits, have virtually NEVER
reached a jury trial in the last 25 years), again validates
Plaintiff's claims of conspiracy as well as Defendants' arrogance
and sound reasoning behind their blatant, bold, misleading and
intentional/numerous misrepresentations, on the Court's records,
made in the original copyright infringement claim Boone v. Jackson
et. al.
66. Plaintiff alleges that actions of Defendants stipulated above
demonstrate that such admitted reach extended to Defendants
"Mancinelli" and "Codispoti" and that such influence ( clearly
unavailable to Plaintiff and others of their status and stature and
other tax-paying, law-abiding Citizens like Plaintiff, has allowed
these corporations the right to operate as a virtual monopoly as
they can never be challenged leading to Plaintiff's unethical and
unjust claims of conspiracy and fraud.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED19
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: DENAIL OF DUE PROCESS
67. As additionally documented in the Supreme Court Amicus Brief for
Petrella vs. MGM Studios (case remanded to the District Court), the
California Society of Entertainment Lawyers ("CSEL"), along with
Attorney Steven T. Lowe clearly stipulated the following facts,
accepted by the Supreme Court in its remand of the Petrella case to
the District Court. Such remand requires this court to review the
claims listed by Plaintiff with respect to the fraud and conspiracy
claims against all Defendants:
The Supreme Court accepted the following arguments regarding
Defendants; that they are:
a)creating and deriving new defenses outside of scope where none
previously existed for ultimate dismissal of copyright claims
against conglomerates b) allowing Defendants to "steal with
impunity..." c) the "invention" of new standards of substantial
"dissimilarity" as opposed to "similarity" tests; standards opposite
of the FRCP 56 (c ) d) Judges designating themselves as "self
appointed fact finders, phasing out Experts and Jurors established
principles e) ignoring the directive of FRCP 56 (c ) that opposition
of 2 opposing experts' testimony which create reasonable
contradictions of one another which creates a material issue of fact
that a jury is required to resolve f) dismissing conflicting
expertise of witnesses and analyzing works themselves g) Judges
doing own analysis doing own comparisons regardless of how testimony
comports with doctrine h) "...when Judges are able to substitute their
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED20
opinion for experts or juries on issues of material fact, all other
witnesses become effectively unnecessary."
68. Common law states that "a modern procedure is constitutional if
the substance of the English common law jury trial is satisfied."
69. The statistically validated dismissals of each virtually and
every Copyright Infringement case against major corporations (along
with the Supreme Courts specific mandate that all copyright cases
must go to Jury-Exhibit H) is enough proof that the letter and
spirit of the Seventh Amendment has continuously and flagrantly been
violated and has denied Plaintiff and other citizens their right to
due process under the Constitution
70. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants actions, on the courts
original record, were intentionally done to achieve the expected and
traditional Summary Judgment dismissal of Plaintiffs claims.
71. The Seventh Amendment protects its citizens from local self
rule.
72. Plaintiff relied upon and expected that the representation "Jury
Trial Demanded" would have, indeed, materialized; yet was never a
true reality and a virtual impossibility.
73. The research previously done by Defendants "Codispoti" and
"Mancinelli" and the results of such research, proves that
Defendants actions aided and abetted Defendants John Jackson pka
Fabolous, Pharrell Williams and Chad Hugo (The Neptunes) et al and
were unlawful, malicious and misleading and wasted Plaintiff's
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 21
family's resources pursuing a Jury trial when all Defendants knew
from day one that none was either possible nor probable.
74. Plaintiff further alleges that, Knowing from the time they were
hired, that Plaintiff had a cap on the maximum amounts allocated for
this lawsuit, Defendants "Codispoti" and "Mancinelli" knowingly
conspired against Plaintiff s by continuing to overcharge and remind
them of such caps (J2 & J3) , engaging in the war of attrition with
other Defendants by attempting to make Plaintiff, suddenly believe,
after paying over $80,000 to Defendants, that, suddenly, her lawsuit
would be deemed "frivolous" as documented. Plaintiff discussed her
concerns/reservations regarding these threats of sanctions/tactics
in Exhibit Hl-10.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Each of the acts only divulged as recently as March 2015 (and
discussed with Defendants) and only filed at this time due to
Defendants long-term disability (as well known by Defendants) which
has prohibited an earlier filing, were malicious, fraudulent and
oppressive justifying an award of punitive damages and criminal
charges, in addition to restrictions/revocation of their licenses so
that Defendants will never engage in such conduct in the future and
to discourage and prevent other Attorneys in this capacity from
engaging in similar conduct in the future. Plaintiff intends to
provide this court detailed, shocking and specific examples of
conflicts of interest in numerous Summary Judgment dismissals,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED22
clearly demonstrate each and every valid allegation of attorney and
judicial, willful, intentional and deliberate misconduct and
misrepresentations listed in 80 (a-h) above in multiple copyright
infringement cases filed against these major conglomerates divulged
as a result of her research for the documentary Injustice for
All...Summary MisJudgment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court grant the following
relief:
For the $5,000,000 original minimum settlement amount, per
Defendant, in addition to the $20,000,000 Plaintiff would have
earned from the Trademark Infringement Claim purposely deleted from
the Original Complaint. Thus, as a proximate result of Defendants'
fraud, deceit, conspiracy and the facts herein alleged, Plaintiff
has been damaged in the sum of $30,000,000.
a) In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted with
oppression, fraud, malice and Plaintiff is also entitled to
punitive damages in the additional amount of 10,000,000 for pain
and suffering and emotional distress
b) For the sum of $100,000 for legal fees unjustly collected in this
fruitless pursuit of a Jury Trial
c) Interest thereon at the legal rate from and after 2003
d) For criminal charges/imprisonment to be filed against Defendants
and revocation/suspensions of their licenses for such illegal and
illicit behaviors in addition to Oother and further relief as the
court may deem just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED -23
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury for all issues in this action
triable of right by jury.
Dated this 24th day of February, 2015
Respectfully submitted
By:
/ submitted
Carla B. Boone,member
Pro Se on behalf of
Holla'back Records, Ent.
& Management, LLC.
c/o Kevin W. Newman
P. 0. Box 970
Tyrone, Georgia 30290
Phone: (404) 232-9852
♦Professors John Bronsteen, Why Summary Judgment Unconstitutional & Suja A. Thomas,
Against Summary Judgment
♦Attorney Steven T. Lowe, Death of Copyright Nov. 2010 and The Sequel
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED24
EXHIBIT A
Law Offices ofCodispoti &Mancinelli, llp
111 John Street, Suite 800New York, new York i0038-3002
attorns: Telephone: (212) 962-6525StevenMakckeuj FACSIMILE: (212) 962-6791
New York &NewJersey Bars ofCounsel-Bruno F.Codispoti Br„,,,.r .
New YorkRar
Olec R.Sabel
NewYork &NewJerseyBars
Recistered PatentAttorney
RETAINER AGREEMENT FOR THE RFPRtfWivrrat,a.
OFHOlLABACKRECORBSENrSSSrLLCBY CODISPOTI &MANCIN1LLI, LLP• ' '
anaU Boo^^t^^^^*^, LLC, Carta ^
compostuon entitled -Holla Back" CWmJ^ZZ T"*8 1V»'"**»>™4 *e musical^«of$5,000 fa ,e^se™JJ^^i^ .^to^ ^ad™««*-•"WKtor deposit of$7,500. ItisaZS,,?. ?^^^OO for expenses for,irust account and Attorney may AatS^[^ def0Sit^ •* Wd»AttZ^OLA-*mer deposits are xednoBd ,oSSW"1*te «**<» depots)ST
2- AfiQfflQisFees
Partners- $i75.00^ourAsSo«ates __ $l25.00/hourParalegals__ $ 25
Law Offices of
Codispoti &Mancinelu, llp
Retainer Agreement—Holla' Back Records Entertainment &Talent, LLC.June 30, 2003
Page-3
appropriate parties as per the above fee schedule or applicable fee option, with unpaiddisbursements and expenses being paid first
(ii) PLEASE TAKE NOTE: it is agreed mat all Recovery payments made aspart ofstructured payout shall be made payable to "Codispoti &Mancinelli, LLPIOLA Account" from which Attorney shall disburse the funds to Clients less any 'fees/costs owed to Attorney. Clients agree that Attorney shall be entitled to half(50%)ofeach such periodic payments in astructured payout until Attorney's fees have beenpaid mfin, at which time Clients shall receive 100% ofsuch periodic payments.
3. Associatic)nwithrms>iltants. TheAttomey may athis sole discretionmay retain
approval The fees for such associated attorney ox constant shaB constitute an e^en^ cost fasopposed to alegal services fee) against Chents'account "^ an expense cost (as
5- WltfadrawalArerminaff^ nf Afl^y
(a) Withdrawal bv Aftnmpy
wiiioweA^^^rr^it^i^^rSy^rTm^Contingency Fee. ^^ 7hereate-A*» '̂̂ fi»ftit any entitlement to the
HourfyR^^A^^S^r^roTJ^^^^^^wMcneverisgreaKr Itisaamltfa,. An^^fu/' M&e RecmraymClients' Matter
i^ovay,pa^2(eXn)sn^^,^OT,nSeL **°"",°f** «"***«m*«any
Law Offices of
Codispoti &Mancinelli,llp
Retainer Agreement—Holla' Back Records Entertainment&Talent, LLC.June 30,2003
Page-4
(b) Termination by Ojmft Clients retains me right to dismiss Attorney at any timewrth or wilhout cause. Any funds remaining in Clients' retamer deposited wim Attorney shall ber^rnded, less any fees due Attorney and any expenses that lemain unpaid However, in the eventChents; tetr^Attomey without reasonable f^, Attorney shall be entitled to, and Clients shall5 3total 5lfor SemceS reQdered to ^ * Attorney's Normal Hourly Rates or Attorney's the soleoptic*, one fifth (20%) ofthe net fee Recovery in Clients' Matter, wMchLisg^ S^ifcatAt^eyshaflbed^edaM^su^ouentoounsel. mme event ofany struck payout on anyReTe^a^h^
6 Attojney^Lie^ TheOients agree that the Attorney shall have both achared Hen ^ a
8' P'Scontin^anrc ofClaim hy n^ Af^ .prepared but will not be filed win me Co^ '̂ ,^^fag^toa^ ^onwiflbelMy-tbemwritmg^chfii^^-^^^oa^orlm^T^^ZtT^- ^the event Clients decide toNormal Hourly Rates, less amouS ah^Ste^S^^to^Attorney at thedisbursements. ^Pamrn me Inferred Fee arrangement, plus costs and
9" general Consideration mr\ ^m-— PLEAoF Mrmj _.many factors outside Attorney's contit^mav^Z2 Ch®ts mdersrand that mere areasmeamountoftimeandeflL^^admowl^gethat:^)Attorney^£££££^MiaM rherefbre, Clientsw^beobta^oris^will take to conclude Clients' Mattersl^™^^long it will take to concludeiK^^^J^1^^A^^has not predictedSabove; (d) this Agreement does not mom^Ts^v' ^ d&^tos md d^Pti^^ formor the enforcement ofa^yjudgmen^rS
Law Offices of
Codispoti &Mancinelli, llp
RetainerAgreement—Holla' Back RecordsEntertainment & Talent,LLC.June 30,2003
s-5
THEREFORE, the Clients' signature below amstitutes a fill acknowledgment of theterms ofthis Agreement and theClient's authorization fortheAttorney to actonbehalfof Clients in thismatter. Theparties agreethat this Agreement constitutes theirentireunderstandings agreements, andsupersedes all prioragreements, contracts, arrangements, understandings and communications
ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO BY:
HOLLA'BACK RECORDS CODISPOTI & MANCTNELLL LLP
ENTERTAINMENT &V %
Ms.Carla Boone, President BRUNO F. CODISPOTI, ESQ.1007 President Street, Ste. 1Brooklyn, NY 11225Phone: 718-788-4103 Date:E.I.N.:
Date: -f/o^/dS
CARLABOONE, individually
Date: 1 ^/a^O <>>*-«.
g> JPfv^, Lf>.JOSIAHBOONE,individuallyS.S. No.: M - n - OH')'!
Date: 7/^Ms
P:\D0cumeat5\RTNR\H0lla Back4jfl
EXHIBIT B
iiign \^«juo.i. ^\jjjyngij.i vaav^o iviuat \j\j i\j juiy ixign i^uiui. v^«jp^ilgm seises iviusi vju xu... rage l uu
BUSINESSBECAUSE
THEY'RE
YOUR RIGHTS. CLASS I BANKINGGET THEMALL HERE E
AS
•Gimsrmxm^ Srr^ iusirjess5
Home Finance Resource Center 2011 AilBusiness AllStar Franchises Franchises for Sale Shop Legal Forms Small Busini
Starting a Business Operating Your Business Sales &Marketing Finance Human Resources Technology Bus
High Court: Copyright Cases Must Go To Jury High Court:Copyright Cases Must Go To Jury / Col Tvfs $9 Million WinIs Tossed OutBy Brooks Boliek
Publication: The Hollywood Reporter
Date:Wednesday, April 1 1998
Presented by
EPSON* ^Print Like Share: More
The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out an $8.8 million judgment won by Sony Corp.'s Columbia Pictures
Television Inc. because the award was decided without a jury.
In a unanimous ruling, the court said the Constitution guarantees the right to a jurytrial in all types of copyright-infringement lawsuits. The decision bars entertainmentcompanies and other copyright holdersfrom picking a trialby judge over a trial by jury.
Ads By Google
Medical Malpractice
Experienced Attorneys Fighting For Your
Rights. Call Morgan & Morgan.
vvww.AtlantalnjuryLawyers.com
Don't Get Forced. Get CRM that Fits.
"There is overwhelming evidence that the consistent
practice at common law was for juries to award
damages," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the
high court's opinion. "More specifically, this was the
consistent practice in copyright cases."
Entertainment companies typically choose to have
copyright trials without a jury because they feel that
juries have difficulty interpreting copyright law and
tend to find big companies less sympathetic than
;RM that work;
Watch Now
hrJp://www.allbusmess.com/services/motion-pictures/4927358-1.html 2/5/2011
EXHIBIT C
Bruno F. Codispoti (BC4568)Steven Mancinelli (SM-0208)CODBPOTI & MANONBLU, U*111John Street, Suite 800New York, NY 10038Phone! 212-962-6525Fax:212-962-6791
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CARLA B.BOONE,
Plaintiff
PHakBEIXL. WILLIAMS, CHARLES E.^fmmTRAEOTERTATNMENT
WAEHERMUSICINC,
Itefendaats.
CaseNo.:03Civ8661(GBD)
AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Hon- George B. Daniels U.S.DJ.
jtjryTbialDemanded
Wte^v*™^***1"*"**nWS-CAMAB.BOOHBCB--allege8'-
oomp.
P
seq.,fcr^aichplaai^seeksbereintoxecpver 33^68audio «i3omi
2 j****.**"*—*-"•••"-*"-""**
a^:dmg.tatH^pl^^^^^^™k-
., v,» 1000 -Rbs No PA2-388-656 and for 1te sound
Copm^tedWork Uarm«edlweto as ExhibUB.
^MMrtteeot^tomate derive**.«««- "*- *°,--^.* ^d^CopraghtedWoAandanydedvattvewoAlierBoi.
actor* rigbttt market, distribute, and sdl Copyngnw.
n JCRISDICTIONANDVlJNrail
«, ^ooDrtia.^«c.^^^°«tea°to!,mSUmtto28U §§1331 and 1338.
7. Ven^iSproperm1hisdiSlrictrader28U.S.C:§l39l.
AniaidedCompWntBoone v.John Jadaan, etci.
m. thepartdbsPl«ftitiff Cari* Boone
8. PtoMOriaB. Boone C'Boone^^
member ofHOLLA' BACK RECORDS &ELSTERTAINMENT, LLC CHolla'BackRecords"),
a NewYorklinited liability coj^^
Brooklyn, NewYork 11225.
9. PlaintiffBoone and HoUa'Back Records are in the bnsmess ofproducing and
recordingmusical artists, particularly musical andre^^
10. m^Sandpriortotoestablishmerf^^
company, Boone conducted business as asole proprietor under the name ofHolla'Back
Records.
11. InMay 2001, Boone establishedHoUa'Back Records as an independent recording
labeL
12. PlaintiffBooneistoownerofmec^^
irrffingement, as allegedherein. Accordingly, Boone has standing to commence mis action,
pursuant to 17U.S.C. §501(b).
TWandant John ™J»d«on. professionally known as "Fabolous'!
13. Upon information and belief; defendant John D. JaxikMn, professionally known as'Tabolous" ("Fabolous-), is aresident ofthe State ofNew York, residing inBrooklyn, NY.
14. Fabolous is apopular musical performing and recordmg artistmto
genre. Fabolous' recordings have been successfWy sold sbce hk15. Fabolous\recordings are, at all times aueged herein, issued under to
ofdefendant Desert Storm Recordings, Inc. liroughElektra Entertainment Group, Inc.
16. Fabolous isone ofto co-authors, together wi& defendants Pharrell L. Williams and
Charles E.Hugo, ofthewfrtngirigr song "Young'N (Holla' Back)" at issue herein ("to
Infringing Song"), as radicated in to liner notes ofto recording containing to Infringing Song
and inthe song registry ofto American Society ofComposers, Authors and Publishers .
("ASCAP").
17. The ASCAP song registry also lists to mfringing song under various alternative
titles, including: "YoungN (Holla Back)," " YoungNHollaBack," " Young N,""Yoimging
HollaBack,"and "HollaBack Youngm."
18. Upon information and belief, defendant Fabolous isalso to founder and owner of
to music publisher J.Brasco Publishing, Inc., also known as "D. Brasco" ("Brasco"), aNew
York corporation, winchisapublisher oftolnfringing Song, as indicated inthe ASCAP song
registry. The New YorkDepartment ofState lists Brasco's agent for service ofprocess as c/o
Woods &Middleton, LLP, 60 East 42nd Street, New York, NY 10165.
Defendant Pharrell L. Williams
19. Upon informationand belief, defendant PHARRELL L. WILLIAMS ("Williams") is
a resident ofto State ofNew York and is apopular musical producer into hiphoporrap
genre, recording and producing hip hop music and artists with defendant Charles E. Hugo under
toprofessional name of TheNeptunes.
20. Defendant Williams is oneofto co-authors, together withdefendants Fabolous and
Charles E. Hugo, ofto Infringing Song atissue herein, as indicated in to ASCAP song registry.
21. Upon infonnation and belief, defendant Williams isalso to owner ofand does
business as amusic publisher under the name ofWaters ofNazarelh Publicising, with offices at
Amended ComplaintBoone v. JohnJadaon, etal
c/oEMBlackwood Music, 810 Seven* Avenue, New York, NY 10019, as indicated into
registry ofBroadcast Music, Inc. ("BMF).
TWfliMiiHrt flmrfes E. Hugo
22. UponMormationand belief, defendant CHARIESE. HUGO (^ugo'O is aresidentofto State ofNew York and is apopular musical producer in to hip hop or rap genre,
recording and producinghip hop music and artists whladefendairt Williams under to
professional name ofThe Neptunes.
23. Defendant Hugo isone ofto co-auto^
Williams, ofto Infringing Song at issue herem, as mdicatedm
24. UponmforinationandbeUef,defendantHugoisalsoto
asamusicpublisheruntetonameofCha^
Pubh^hing, 810 SeventhAvenue, New Yoric, NY 10019, as indicated intoASCAP song
registry.
TWendant J. Br>«™ PnMtehmffl Tnc. a/k/aD.Brasco
25. UpminformaticmandbeHef,^
publisher J. Brasco Publishing, Inc., a/k/a*D. Brasco" C^asco"), aNewYork corporation,wMchisapublisheroftolnftmg^ 1!boVa'York Department ofState lists Brasco's agent for service ofprocess as c/o Woods &Middleton,
LLP, 60 East 42ni Street, New York, NY 10165.
Amended ComplaintBooneV.JohnJadaon.fi aL
iwfr^frtia.kiriiT'rW<ffflrrtfi""ro-IttC-
FNC (^to^Uaoorp^onauftorMton^^bu^mtbeSt^ofNowYork,
Plaza, New York, NY10O19.
^nrusical ardsta inking, araongotr^ca, ^r^arnstsintbeMphoporWgenre, as well as marketing and dislnbnfing musical recordings.
industry.
^DefendantHektmmarketsanddistii^
mcluding Fabolous' recording ofto mfringmg Song at issue herein.
Ttefandant F1^ m**w«odMusic, Inc.
30 EMIBlacWMnsic^CWIBiackwood^aC^^
newYork,NY 10019.
Music, inctodtag tte Infringing Song at issue hereto.
AmendedComplaintBoone u Jckn Jaduan, etaL
DefendantEMT Anrfl Music foe
32. EMI April Music, Inc. ("EMI April") is aConnecticut corporation, duly authorizedtodo business into State ofNew York, with offices locate at 81OSevenm Avenue, new York,
NY 10019.
33. Upon information and belief, defendant EMI Aprfl is topubHsher ofdefendantHugo's musical compositions and songs through Hugo's d^/aasOiaseaJadMuac,mcluding
to Infringing Song atissue herein.
Defendant Warner Music Group, Inc.
34. Upon information and belief, defendant Warner Music Group, fee. ("Warner") is a
Delaware corporation authorized to do busmess and regulariy trails^
with offices at75 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10019.
35. Warner is and was, all time allegedberein, substantially involved in to music
recording industry under its own direction and, upon information ^
affiliated companies, e.g., defendant Elektra, and distributes recorded music through affiliateddistribution companies, e.g. defendant WEA Inc., including to recordings ofFabolous and
Fabolous' rajording ofto Infringing Song.
Deferent nesert Storm Recordings,Ins.
36. Upon infonnation and belief, defendant DESERT STORM RECORDINGS, INC.
fDesextStann^isaN^Management, 494 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10001.
Amended ComplaintBoonev. JohnJadatmetcL
37. Uponinfonnauon andbelie^ Defm^
a^includingdefendantFabote
38.Uponmfor*auon^
m^ Warner andWEAandfur^
artists, mcluding torec<>rdings ofdefendant Fabolous and tolnfringing Song.
39. DefendantWEAINC. ("WEA") is aDelawate cordonduly reg^New York Secretary ofState in 1996, wimprincipal executi^^
New York, 10019.
40. Uponinformation and belief, defendant WEA is affile
and Elektra.
41.UponinformationandbeUef,defeuda^
distributor ofmusicalrecordingsfo^
defendantFabolous andFabolous' recording ofto Infringing Song.
TV. BACKGROUND FACTS
Plaintiff's QriofariWork
42. In 1998, Boone established Holla'Backas an independent recording labeL43. In January 1999, Boone, as publisher for HoUa'Back Records, entered into an
exdusrvesongv^co^^
("Wells"). Professional, WelWSnarmuse to
Amended ComplaintBoatay.JohnJadaon,etal
CTiaj^fortofrduo. The grant tods ft* contract expressly assign^
allrightsariii)^
composed by Trajik.
44. In or about January 1999, Trajik (namely. Wells and Smith) wrote to Copywrited
Work. Booneproducedtorecord^
resulted into version ofto Copyrighted WorktotBoone commercialdi^tapecassetteandvinylLP throughtoHoUa'Back Records labd later in 1999 CTrajikCD"). TMscommerdaUyreleasedversionoftoCopyrigh^
withtoU.S. Copyright Office as perto SRregistration certificate am
45. Trajik's musical conu^^
Work) featured a"hook" tot consisted ofto repetition into song's chorus ofamusicalphrasing oftolyric "holla'back" (hence, totitle oftosong). The "hook" is tomost
identify pbra^^
element and is often associated with the song's title.
ttAfandants' Contacts With fh»Copyrighted Work
46. InoraboutMatch 1999, Boone met with TyDashinhis office mto Sony building
inNewYorkaty. Boone went to TyDashbecause he represented himselfas an indep
music promoter.
47. At to aforementionedmeeting, Boone presents
mdudedtotapyrigbted^^ Dashton proposedapromotional package toBoone. However, no agrementultmiatdy developedregard
Trajik CD orto Copyrighted Work.
AmendedComplaintBoone v.JohnJackson, et aL
48. Upon im^rnafion and beh>f,TyDa^
to founders and ChiefExecutive Officer ofRocafella Records, Inc. Upon irdbrmation and
belief, Rocafella Records isaffiliated with defendant Desert Storm.
49. Desert Stormisalso to recording label ofto defendant Fabolous.
50. Thereafter, Boone disteibuted and attempted to se£ to Trajfc
via towebsite ofThe Orchard, amusic promoter, and through small, independent local stores in
New York City, e.g., Beat Street Records in Brooklyn, Upstairs Records, Inc. in Brooklyn, and
DowntownRecords in Manhattan.
51. Inorabout October 1999, Boca's<*tertainment
("Collins''), began to contactvarious recording companies in an attemptto obtainadistribution(jontra^forTmjik'srecordir^oftoCo^ One ofto companies that Collins
contacted was Atlantic Records, which upon information and beliefis an affiliated companyof
defendants Warner and WEA
52. Jn or aboutNovember 1999, Boone also submittedto Copyrighted Work to to
Gavin Report, which forwards songs to radio stations for air play. The list ofradio stations
coveredbytoGavin Report mdudes tofrso-caU super rap list, wHchinclu^ commercial
radio stations into New York City metropolitan area, as well as college radio stations.
53.InoraboutDecember 1999, Micbad Carren ("Catr^ Los
Angeles office called and spoke with Boone to request acopy ofthe Trajik CD ofto
Copyrighted Work. Boone sent Carrenacopy ofto Trajik CD by Federal Express tot same
day.
54. Despite Carren's initial interest into Trajik CD, tore was no contract forthcorning
from Atlantic Records or Warner.
AmendedComplaintBoone * JohnJadaon, et aL
55. A*u*Ml)*&W^'>***<***l*C*a*>'*U*,,m
Copyrighted Wo*. J^^dBc^matfteC^gl^^couWteahitaong. However,aoftjag fate developed between Boone and UgWyearBrtertetar^mconr^on^mtheTlajikCD. Ijgl^Erfertairanenft*^^
defendants Warner andWEA
p^^nfs' infringing Conduct
56. In or about September 2001, defendants Desert Storm andElektra released CDalbum, entitled Ghetto Fabolous, ofdefendant Fabolous' various musical/rap compositions andperformedby Fabolous. Fabolous' Ghetto Fabolous album included Fabolous' song"Young'n(Holla'Badc)" (to'Infringing Son^^
and Hugo.
57. Fabolous'recbrdlngoftobfring^
secantsdesof^^
sales ofover 1,000,000 copies.
58. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs cental
toleast,woddhaveaffordedDesertStorm^
Fabolous, Williams and Hugo), wim access to Bc^
59.TbeInfringing Songfeatu^^
repetition ofto lyric "holla'back." The phrasing and musicality oftohook inbomtoCopyrighted Work andto Infringing Song are strilringly similar.
Amended ComplaintBoone n JohnJatskson, etal
60.TtesubstaiLMsiBn1ar^
Work wassuohmatupcatordea^
andHolla'Back Records received numerous calls from persons ^
success ofto song. Apparentiy.niauyofmesecaUersconf^
recordedto original Copyrighted Work written by Trajik.
61. Plaintiffprotestedtohifrmgementofthe Copyrighted Work. On or about April 9,
2002, plaintiffs former counsel, Jeffrey Jacobson C'Jacobson") ofto firm ofJacobson&Colfin,P.C., sent acease and desist demand letter to
annexedhereto as Exhibit C. Jacobson followed up this letter with furtor demand letters on
July 30,2002, August 13,2002, August 30,2002, October 7,2002, and October 17,2002.62. On October 22,2002, Michad J. Pollack CPoUacT), Vice President ofdefendant
mtofinaUyrespon^ U^letter, Pollack admits the commercial roMonsMp ofdefendant Mto
and Desert Storm inconnectionwith to Infringing Song.
63. &aletterdatedNovember4,2002,ac^
Jacobson advised Pollacktotplaintiffhad consdtedwim aqualifiedmusicologist, whose
prolirrinary assessmentmdicatedthattolufrmgingSongandto
substantially similar and are comprised ofaMgh proportion ofsimile
64. In aletter to Pollack dated April 9,2003, Jacobson enckjsedacopyoftoreport,
dated March 20,2003, ofmusicologist JudimFM
Inc. Ftottcondudedinherreportthatto^
Infringing Song and plahitiffs Copyrighted Work ard^mero was avaUd claim of
intringement againstthe Infringing Song.
Amended ComplaintBoonev. John Jackson, et al
65.Po1lackacla»wledgedrec^ fa
this letter, Pollack adnuHs tot defendant EM^
Infringing Song.
66. SincePollack's April 14,2003 letter, defendants have had no further communication
with plaintiffor plaintiffs counsel
COUNT I ^ 3omMCOPYRIGHT TNimiNGEMENT -17 U.S.C S106 and8501
67. Plairrtiffherebyreaueg^^
foregoing paragraphs 1-66.
68. As to copyright owner ofto Copyrighted Work, plaintiffBoone enjoys to
exclusive right to (1) reduce to tapyri^
to Copyrighted Work, (3) distribute copies ofto Copyrighted work, and (4) display or
broadcast or performthe Copyrighted Work. 17 U.S.C. §106.
69. The fciftinging Song is substantially similar to plamliffs origir^ Copyrighted Work
and therefore infringes to copyright thereof, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §501.
70. The defendants had access to to Copyrighted Woric prior to toproduction,
irmufecture, distribution, broadcast and sale ofFabolous' Ghetto Fabolous CD, which contains
to Infringing Song andwhich directlycompetes withplaintiffsoriginal Copyrighted Work.71.Assdformmtoaforementionedfa^toconclusionis
^accesstoand havesubstantia
copyright registxationinviolationoftoCopyright Act. 17U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq., for which
defendants arejointlyand severally liable.
Amended ComplaintBoone v. JohnJadason, etal
72. Attoleast,defendants are contn^utoryi^
formeproduction, distribution, sale and/or dissemination oftofcfringing Songunderviolationofplaintiffsexclusive rights under to Copyright Act
73. Uponirrfornmtionandte
aware oftoexistenceofplaintiffscopyrightin the Copyrighted Work and, therefore,
defendants are will&l infringers ofplaintiffsCopyright Work.
74. Defendants'hn^emerfb^
caniiotbed^tenninedwito madron, defendants have profitedbytoirinfringement oftoCopyrighted Workto todetriment ofplamtiffi for w^^
liableto plaintiff
75. Defendants' infringementhas caused and wfflcontiroie to cause irrepa^
plamtiffudessrestramedbyto Plauitifis have no adequate remedy at lawfor
defendants' infringement
PRAYERFORRELIEF
WHEREFORE, pbintiffprays totto Court grantto following relief:
(a) Declare mat defendante have infring
(b) Pursuantto 17 U.S.C. §502, permanently enjoin defendants, together with toirofficers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and afl persons macti^
participation with them:
(1) FrommfidngingtoCopyrightedWorkorotor
or exdusively Kcensed by plaintiffin any n>anner, and from copying, malar*, mark^selling, distributing and otherwise generating income from music^
AmendedComplaintBoons v. John Jadaon, etaL
(e) Puimiantto 17 U.S.C. §505, order defm
reasonable attorneys fees; and
(f) .3iantplamtiffsuchotoraM
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffhereby demands trial byjury for all issues inmis actiontriable ofright by jury.
Dated: September30,2004Rjespectfully submitted,
Codispoti & Manonblli, llp
Bruno F.StevenMancinelli(SM-0208)111 John Street, Suite 800New York, NY 10038Phone:(212)962-6525Fax:(212)962-6791
Attorneysfar Plaintffi,Carla B. Boone
Amended ComplaintBoonev.JohnJadaon.etal
EXHIBIT D
Law
Offi
ces
ofC
OD
ISPO
TI&
MA
NC
INE
LLI,
LL
P
Jack
Rec
ords
&En
terta
inm
ent,
LLC
/10
/29/
2003
SM
/
10/3
1/20
03B
FC
SM
11/3
/200
3T
JL
BF
C
PG
SM
11/4
/200
3B
FC
^>>
RS
<g>B
FC
Telep
hone
confe
rence
with
Carla
Boon
ereg
arding
edits
tothe
Comp
laint;
also
advis
edtha
tshe
shou
ldbe
prepa
redfor
poten
tially
subs
tantia
lcost
sifth
ereis
noset
tleme
ntea
rly,n
thecas
e-Ca
rlaass
uredt
hats
hean
dher
husb
anda
repre
pared
forthe
costs
ofthe
case
.Re
visio
nof
theCo
mpla
intfo
rfili
ng.
Prepa
ration
ofthe
Summ
onsa
ndCi
vilCo
verS
heet
forthe
court
Revfe
wand
revisio
nofc
ompla
int;re
search
regard
ingpar
ties;
confe
rence
with
SMreg
arding
comp
laint;
telep
hone
confe
rence
with
CB
rega
rdin
gsa
me.
_o~
,™Fu
rther
resea
rchint
oTy
Dash
,Dam
onDa
sh,D
esert
Stor
mRe
cordi
ngsa
ndRo
cafell
aReco
rds.F
inahz
ation
ofCo
mplar
ntfor
filin
g;co
nfer
ence
with
BFC
rega
rdin
gsa
me,
Mad
!cop
yofle
tterto
Judge
Georg
eB.D
arnels
togeth
erW1
thaco
pyof
theC
ompl
aint
.Re
view
offil
edco
mpla
int.
Telep
hone
conf
erenc
ewith
Austm
Fedd
erof
NYDa
ilyNe
wsreg
arding
lawsu
it;Te
lepho
neco
nferen
cewi
thCB
regard
ingfil
ingof
comp
laint,
settle
ment
ortio
nslit
igat
ion
strat
egy,
Judi
thFm
nell,
etc.
Court
appe
aranc
ereg
arding
filing
ofco
mplai
nt;Co
pyan
dprep
areco
mpl
aint
fors
ervi
ce.
,Or
ganiz
ation
offile
.Dire
ctedp
repara
tiono
fsum
mons
andco
mpl
aintf
orse
rvice
onde
fend
ants.
Telep
hone
conf
eren
cew
ithCB
rega
rdin
gar
ticles
.p
jprv,
yard
ingUS
DJDa
nielsp
riord
ecisio
nsin
copyri
ght
•-r-
~'c
ases
ifri
neern
erj
lcase
s,
„Co
nfere
ncew
itrfS
Mre
gard
ing
recen
tinf
orm
ation
from
LBreg
arding
"daW
hiteB
oy"a
ndMo
sesEd
wards
;Rese
arch
regard
ingPW
and
poss
ible
conn
ectio
nto
Ligh
tyea
rEn
tertai
nment
andam
endme
ntof
compla
int;im
tiald
ucus
aon
reea
rdin
edi
scov
ery
and
tria
lstr
ateg
y.SM
TeTp
hlco
nfe^
herm
eeting
with
Mose
sEdw
ardsa
ndGr
egRr
lesof
Ligh
tyear
Enterta
inment
andtha
tthec
ontact
wentth
rough^
Mo^E
dward
sto
hisne
wrep
pingo
frap
per"
DaW
hiteB
oy"a
/k/a
John
nyBl
anco
'whom
Fabo
louse
xpres
slytha
nkso
nhisa
lbum.
Meetin
gwi
thBF
Cto
discu
sslat
estinf
ofrom
Carla
regard
ingM
oses
Edwa
rdsan
d"Da
Whit
eBoy
";dis
cusse
ddev
elopin
gthe
theory
andsT
aegy
ofthe
casea
ndinv
estiga
tedpo
ssible
access
contac
tsfro
mLi
ghtye
arto
Pharr
ellW
illiam
sand
/orCh
arles
Hugo
.BF
CRe
view
andr
espo
ndto
from
CBreg
arding
acce
ss.BF
CRe
view
andr
espo
ndto
from
CBreg
arding
acce
ss.
Page
3
Ho
urs
4.2
0
2.6
0
3.6
0
0.1
0
1.0
0
1.8
0
0.3
0
0.2
0N
oC
har
ge
0.5
0
1.4
0
C""
ti^
y*
0.1
0N
oC
har
ge
0.2
0
&^,
„„
low
Offi
ces
ofCO
DIS
POTI
&M
AN
CIN
ELLI
,LLP
Back
Reco
rds&
Enter
tainm
ent,
LLC
12/1
6/20
03R
S12
/17/
2003
RS
*12
/19/
2003
BFC
SM
RS
12/2
2/20
03SM
2/23
/200
3B
FC
*2/
26/2
0Q3J
RS
1/6/
2004
SM
BF
C
SM
1/7/
2004
SM
BF
C
SM
BF
C
1/8/
2004
BF
C
BF
C
Resea
rchreg
arding
Copy
right
infrin
gmen
tdam
ages
guide
sS
mT
gSeC°
ndGrC
UitCaS
£SM***
**h°P
«**•*
•IS
rC°
nfen
"with
SW^B
arding
opinio
ninc
onnect
ionvw
hmus
ican
alyse
;Con
feren
cewi
thSM
regard
ingsam
eTe
lepho
neco
nferen
cewi
thBF
Cwi
thmu
sicolo
gist
Corrm
leteje
search
regard
ing:r
apan
dhip-
hopc
opyri
ght
mfr
inge
men
fact
ioiis
inSe
cond
Circ
uit
"*Te
lephoE
eTonl
erence
withC
arlaw
ho'cal
ledfor
update
onSan
dy-W
ilburs
music
ology
report
;adv
isedt
hatW
ilbur'
srep
ortwa
snot
favora
ble;d
iscus
sedtha
twes
hould
have
athir
dexp
ertass
esstbe
song
sand
toco
nside
rWilb
ur's
repor
tadr
y-ru
nfor
the"b
attle
ofw
X,T
°a?e
X?f
3ttria
Ufur
thera
dvise
dtha
ta<"*
*exp
ertwo
uldbe
bene
ficial
becau
seiff
avora
bleitw
ould
bolst
erou
rcase
andIi
funfa
vorab
lewi
llfor
ceus
tore-
exam
inethe
case
Carla
autho
rized
usto
proc
eed
with
anoth
erm
usico
logist
Notes
Revie
wand
respo
ndto
from
CBreg
arding
music
ologis
tRe
searc
hreg
arding
copy
right
infrin
gem
enta
ction
sin
Seco
ndC
ircui
t,pr
oofa
ndda
mag
es'
""""
'Te
lepho
neco
nfere
ncew
ithCa
lraBo
onea
ndhe
rniec
eXav
iere-
Xavie
reco
ntacte
deth
no-m
usico
logisl
Dr.G
uthri
Rams
eyreg
arding
comp
arison
ofthe
Fabo
lousa
ndTr
ajiks
ongs:
Rams
ey's
imitia
lasse
ssmen
tind
icated
thatt
hesa
lient
parts
are"id
entic
al"As
ked
Carla
tose
ndme
Dr.R
amse
y'sem
ailad
dres
sso
thatw
eca
nm
ake
cont
acta
ndob
tain
hisc
urric
ulum
vita
eTe
lepho
neco
nferen
cewi
thSM
regard
ingmu
sicolo
gistG
uthrie
Rams
eyan
dlitig
ation
strate
gyreg
arding
music
ologis
t;co
nduc
tin
itial
back
grou
ndre
sear
ch
Confe
rence
with
BFC
regard
ingCa
rta'sc
ontac
twith
profes
soran
dm
usico
logist
Dr.R
amse
yan
drel
ated
matt
ers.
Draft
edan
dse
ntem
aillet
terto
Dr.G
uthr
ieRa
mse
y.Re
search
regard
ingsta
ndard
sfor
music
ologis
tsin
copy
right
infr
inge
men
tca
ses.
bCo
nferen
cewi
thSM
regard
ingpre
parat
ionfor
telep
hone
conf
eren
cew
ithC
Ban
dG
R.
Telep
hone
confe
rence
with
clien
tand
Dr.R
amsey
Confe
rence
with
SM,C
B,Dr
.Guth
rieRa
msey
andR
ache
lreg
arding
mus
icolog
icala
ssessm
ento
fcase
and
deter
mina
tion
ofqu
alifi
catio
nsfo
rmus
icol
ogist
.Pr
epar
atio
nof
issu
esfo
rtri
al.
Confe
rence
with
SMreg
arding
hisdis
cussi
onwi
thco
pyrig
htinf
ringe
ment
valua
tion
expe
rtan
dlitig
ation
strate
gy.
Ho
urs
0.4
0
0.5
0
1.0
0
0.6
0
0.6
0
0.3
0
0.2
0
0.3
0
0.3
0
0.4
0
0.5
0
1.5
0
0.2
0
1.1
0
0.8
0
0.5
0
0.2
0
EXHIBIT E
Page 1 of 1
Subj: Re: REVISED FORM SRDate: 1/23/2005 1:54:36 PM Eastern Standard TimeFrom: [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected]
Carta,Attached is our outline for the briefin opposition to the motion. Also attached is the Santrayallcase which is favorable to our position.We have been working very diligently with regard to the research, review ofdocuments andanalysis of your case. We have even hired a law graduate (awaiting admission) towork withus exclusively onyour case. He is doing the basic research as well as organisation ofthefilewhich has allowed Steven and myself to workon the main issues for the opposition.We spokewith Dr. Ramsey on Friday and he is very excited about getting hischance to provehis points to thedefendants in his affidavit/declaration. We expect to have his first draft oftheaffidavit by Wed.At that time we will complete our Statementof Facts and the first draft of the affidavits (we willlikely need your affidavit which wewill prepare andforward to you for your approval), as wellas the first draft of the memorandum of law.Please makesure youare available to us on Wed. and Thurs to review and discuss the abovein anticipation of our Friday, 1/28deadline to submit the opposition.In conclusion, we remain very confident in our ability todefeatthede^^summary judgment/and any klile 11 m"tiAH 9RlimMgrfT We also remain confident that weWlirOWain a favorable urhrnate^ outcorn'e tor Vou iov p«rB»mfint| triaj or ntherwiseVWe look forward to contirille Working together toward the achievement oryour goals. After thedecision of the motion for summary judgment, we will discuss the status and the future of thiscase as well as our relationship. Both Steven &Iwish to continue to represent you andbelieve that we can find common ground.Regards.BrunoP.S. Did you know that Pharrell did a remix of"Sympathy forthe Devil" in 2002/3? Iwassurfing the net on Friday night to find more tidbits abouthim and itcame out. I actually sawthevideo online at real.com. This is an interesting development since Fabolous did say thatPharrell brought him the song and tookthe wooo wooo from that song. I am interested indiscovering the nature of the license from the publisher to the Neptunes.
Bruno F. Codispoti, Esq.Codispoti & Mancinelli, LLP111 John Street, Ste. 800
New York, NY 10038-3002212-962-6525
212-962-6791 - fax
bfcesqSmindsprinq.com
h-ttp; //www. codman-llp.com/
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this electronic message, as well
Wednesday, January 26,2005 America Online: BHolaback
EXHIBIT F
1/15/2015 Inbox I Linkedln
Home Profile Connections Jobs Interests Business Services Try Premium for free
Is Your Business Listed? - List your business across the Internet. Enter business address to start now
Inbox
Search inbox..
Jobs
Bf New
Messages
Invitations
Sent
Archive
Trash
Stephen mancinA
*\ Reply I Trash More "'
9 Prior Litigation InformationTo: Steven Mancinelli
March 1,2013 11:56 AM
< Prev Next>
Hello Bruno & Steven..I hope all is well.
Upon researching my bills and the files returned to my attention, I fail to comeacross specific documents/information which was used to research mycopyright case which is needed at this time.
Have you returned my entire file?.
Specifically, I am lookingfor the 11/4/03 and 12/07/07 stats and findingsregarding the research done re: Judge Daniels' priordecisions in copyrightcases and complete research in copyright cases in 2nd circuit and anyadditional information not returned to my attention.
I lookforward to receipt of this information and will provide this request inwriting shortly.
Carla B. Boone
d I" +JL P
Linkedln Premium63 FREE
Get a free month of Linkedln Premium with:
ft A days of details on Who's viewed YourProfile and how they found you
InMails per month to ioutside your nelwork
times (he reach with iprofiles of everyone in your network
OC InMails per month to contact members
O C times (he reach with access to full
Upgrade Free
Ads You May Be Interested In
GA Tech Full-time MBA
Nationally Ranked for BestClassroom Experience. Attend3/07 Info Session!
Are You A President?
Apply for Free to WorldwideWho's Who and get Recognized.
Successful Women Network
Apply to the Worldwide Who'sWho network for Successful
Women.
Help Center About Careers Advertising Talent Solutions Sales Solutions Small Business Mobile Language Upgrade YourAccount
Linkedln Corporation ©2015 UserAgreement Privacy Policy Community Guidelines Cookie Policy Copyright Policy Send Feedback
Wrps://www.linkedin.coTi/inbox/#detail?iternld=S396923215 70&trk=COMM Nl 1/1
EXHIBIT G
January 25,2004
Lynda "Tamara" Ramsey81-10 Rockaway Beach Blvd. #5D
Rockaway Beach, NY 11693718-318-0962
Codispoti & Mancinelli111 John Street, Suite 800New York, NY 10038
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writingthis letter to give my accountof a meeting held in late December1999withrepresentativesat Lightyear Entertainment.
Approximately 10days priorto the Christmas holiday, I accompanied CarlaBoone ofHolla'back Records to a meeting at Lightyear Entertainment's offices, located in theEmpire State Building.
At that time, I was managing Bobby Brown's sister, Carol Brown aka Coupe B and wasshopping for a record deal on her behalf.
Upon arriving at Lightyear, Carla and I met with Moses Edwards, Lightyear's A&Rrepresentative. Moses listenedto both demos; my artist, Coupe B, and Carta's artists,Trajik & the Black Casba. Moses was very interested in Carla's artists Trajik. He madethe comment that he wished she had come to him a few months earlier due to the fact that
they, Lightyear, had exhausted their budget already. I also vaguely recall Mosesmentioning that, although their budget was exhausted, that he may want to use the projectfor a new artist that was coming out and that he would speak some guys that he knew tosee if they would be interested ifLightyear was not. However, he stated that he wouldbring her project into his boss, Greg Riles, to get his feedback.
Moses left the room and, several minutes later, Greg Riles emerged. Greg was extremelyexcited about the project; particularly the song by Trajik, "Holla'back", which herepeatedly stated to Carla and me several times - "this song is a hit."
We had lunch with Moses that afternoon and returned back to Lightyear's office at whichtime Carla and I were introduced to the owner of the company Arnie Holland. Arnie toldCarla that she had "great stuff." A follow-up meeting was then set up for January 5,2000.
As I understand, that meeting never took place due to the fact that Carla was involved ina major car accident on the way to this meeting.
I am available for any additional questions youmay have regarding this issue.
Lynda "Tamara" Ramsey
EXfflBIT H
©Page 1 of 1
Steven has advised me that, despite our priorconference where we were advised that defendants could notmake Sanctions Motion, they indeed made such motion yesterday.
Further, Steven also insinuated, that despite receiptof the full paymentof $17,500 inadvance forthe motionwork, heexpects some additional compensation for thesanctions motion and, perhaps weshould consider pullingout of suit with 21 day safe harbour.
This is very disconcerting for the following reasons:1. Ifthiswas a frivoulous suit why would we continue fighting period; the $17,500should never have beenrequested nor paid, nor should any amounts have been spent period; therefore, the full amount should bereturned. The damage to our label's name and reputation would be irreparable.
2. If it is not a frivoulous lawsuit which iswhat has been advised, forcing us toabandon thesuit, despite myreluctance to do so, simply because an additional 10-15k as d'isengenuous as these frivoulous motions.Our original discussion, re# ofhour for each motion, entailed 100 for Motion toDismiss and and additional maybe50 for Sanctions Motion.
Thefolloow upe:mail sent byus, prior to receipt ofany motion, stipulated that sinceyou would nottake more ofcase on contingency and since we must manage ou rg were allocating the same 100 hours to do allworkassociated with these motions. This is when we expected both the Sanctions Motion and the Motion to Dismiss.Yet, oncethe Dismiss motion was received, we had conference during which prepayment ofentire feewasrequested and paid in a timely fashion.
We have fulfilled our part of agreeement.
Friday, January 14,2005 America Online: BHolaback
A0L.COM | Message View
CD
JB»
Subj:Date:
From:
To:
Cc:
Carla,Cynthia Arato called yesterday to discuss scheduling on defendants' proposedmotion for summary judgment. She also reaffirmed that they intend to make anadditional motion for sanctions under Federal Rule 11 on the grounds thatcomplaint is completely without any reasonable basis. While Bruno and Icompletely disagree with Cynthia's claim that the case is frivolous and withoutany reasonable basis, nonetheless her position indicates that there might well besubstantially more work involved and therefore more cost for you. We will haveto oppose not only the proposed summary judgment motion but the sanctionsmotion as well. Since you and Joe have expressed some concern about the costsof the continuing litigation, I want to give you a heads-up on what may very well
&<
Boone v. Jackson
10/15/2004 12:58:24 PM Eastern Daylight TimeGarudaMan
BHolaback
E_] Include original text in reply.
Is love in
your stars?
1 Of 21 NEXT
http://webmail.aol.com/msgview.adp?folder=U2F2ZWQ=&uid=9892847
Page 1 of 1
RflHV
FOBWAD D
fttPEf AIL
ADD
ADDRMS
^ i .-ft*t>
10/16/2004
(s>
&
(9
G>
A0L.COM | Message View Page 1 of 1
Subj: Re: Boone v. JacksonDate: 10/16/2004 9:29:44 PM Eastern Daylight TimeFrom: BHolaback
To: GarudaMan
Firstly, we were never advised that Cynthia had ever stated that she wasconsidering filing for sanctions; therefore, this is news to us.
Secondly, these sanctions would not just be against us; yet could be against thefirm also. Further, I am not too concerned with us being sanctioned as all we didwas rely on the advice of 2 lawfirms and an additional 2 musicologists to supportour believe that our copyright had been violated.
Yet, correct us if we're wrong, you are looking for us to pay for an open endedamount of "extensive, additional research" to prevent your firm from potentiallybeing charged sanctions for filing a frivoulous suit?
Steven: You continue to profess your confidences in this case; yet we are unsure asto how confident you guys really are at this point.After all, the majority of the expenses are ours; yet a substantial windfall couldbefall all of us if we continue to pursue this case vigorously.
In fact, what would prevent and unscrupulous attorney (i.e. our previous counsel)(^\ from continuing to charge their client an open ended hourly wage to research what
could amount to their fees for such frivolous claim?
We certainly don't place you guys in this category; yet average JOe's (excuse thepun) continue to be left holding the bag in these situations.
\S> We are also unsure as to whether it is in any of our best interest to, continuouslybe reminded of the costs involved in this case; we both should be willing tosacrifice for the end result intended (the $6M judgement).
We cannot agree to any additional, extensive research on this case withoutadditional discussions.
Specifically, it may be in all of our best intersts to discuss otherfinancial/contingency arrangements to ensure that we can see this thing through.
•jA Obviously, Cynthia's objective is to exhaust our financial resources by needlesslyv—and recklessly dragging this litigation out.
Can we, as a team, come up with a better scenario to see this thing all the waythrough?
How much do we really believe in this case?
Or is the safe harbour provision our way out?
The only approval you have from us is, what was requested originally, an immediateconference scheduling with Judge Daniel's to discuss these unwarrnted delay tacticsand solely based on deposition testimony highlighting similaries exposed by theirand our experts.
We would also like to know when the conference would be scheduled as we would liketo attend.
&
hi^://webniail.aol.com/frnsgview.adp?folder=TlVUQk9Y«feuid=9896661 10/16/2004