noriega v blizzard complaint

7/21/2019 Noriega v Blizzard Complaint

1/13

-)

Fs

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

qoMo>THOMAS V. GIRARDI, State Bar No. [email protected] B. LIPPSMITH, [email protected] KEESE1126 Wilshire BoulevardLosAngeles,California90017Telephone: (213)977-0211Facsimile; (213)481-1554

WILLIAM T. GIBBS, Illinois Bar No. 6282949CORBOY & DEMETRIO33 North Dearborn St., Suite 2100Chicago, Illinois 60602Telephone: (312)346-3191 >Facsimile: (312)346-5562 \JAttorneys for PLAINTIFF

FILEDSuperior Court ofCaliforniaCountyofLos Angeles

JUL 15 2014Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerkfiy ^ * DeputyMoses Soto

WW \V-Uft |W C \k \

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

MANUEL NORIEGAPlaintiff,

v

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, Inc., acorporation, d/b/a ACTIVISION andTREYARCH, a corporation,Defendants.

CASE NO.:COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:1) Violation ofCalifornia Civil Code3344and Common Law Right ofPublicity2) Unjust Enrichment3) Unfair Business Practices in Violationof California Business an d ProfessionsCode17200

COMPLAINT

BCMi7tffAX

33rnom3> C ,Tr5 3 3

X - it

TO

r iinci-- j.


2/13

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223

2425262728

COMPLA INT

On information and belief, Plaintiff Manuel Noriega ( Plaintiff) alleges as follows:L NATURE OF T HE A CT IO N

1. Defendants, ACTIVISIONBLIZZARD, Inc., a corporation, d/b/aACTIVISION and TREYARCH, a corporation ( Defendants ), engaged in the blatant misuse,unlawful exploitation, and misappropriation of Plaintiffs image and likeness for economicgain in the video game they produced and distributed.

2. Defendants designed, created, advertised and sold the popular video gameCALL OF DUTY: BLACK OPS II ( Black Ops II ).

3. In an effort to increase the popularity and revenue generated by BLACKOPS II,Defendants used, without authorization or consent, the image and likeness of Plaintiff inBLACK OPS II .

4. Defendants' use of Plaintiffs image and likeness caused damage to Plaintiff.Plaintiffwas portrayedas an antagonistandportrayedas the culprit of numerous fictionalheinous crimes, creating the false impression that Defendants are authorized to use Plaintiffsimageand likeness. This caused Defendantsto receive profits they would not have otherwisereceived.

5. Plaintiff is portrayed in BLACK OPS II as a kidnapper, murderer and enemy ofthe state. An objective of one portion of BLACK OPS II is solely to capture Plaintiff.

6. Defendants ' video game, BLACK OPS II, features several non-fictioncharacters, including Plaintiff, for one purpose: to heighten realism in its video game, BLACKOPS II. This translates directly into heightened sales for Defendants.

7. Defendants deliberately and systematically misappropriated PlaintiffsCOMPLAINT


3/13

?g

1234567891011121314151617181920212223

2425262728

likeness to increase revenues and royalties, at theexpense of Plaintiffandwithout the consento f Plaintiff.

II . JUR ISDICT ION AND VENUE

1. ThisCourthas personal jurisdiction overeach and everyone of theDefendants.Venue in thisCourt is proper becauseDefendants reside and/or carry on business here, and thewrongful actsof Defendants originated here.

III. THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is an individual residing in Gamboa, Panama.2. Defendant ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, d/b/a ACTIVISION is, and at all times

mentioned herein, was a corporation existing under the laws of California. ACTIVISION isincorporated in Delaware, howevermaintains its headquarters andprincipleplaceof businessin Santa Monica, California.

3. Defendant TREYARCH is, and at all times mentioned herein, was a corporationorganized and existing under the taws of California.

4. Defendants are a multi-billion dollar interactive enter ta inment sof twarecompany (ACTIVISION) and its subsidiary (TREYARCH) that produce the Call of Dutyvideo game franchise, which includes the Black Ops series.

5. Defendant ACTIVISION describes itself as a leading worldwidedeveloper, publisher and distributor of interactive entertainment and leisure products. Itsrevenues support this claim. In 2012, ACTIVISION reported in its Annual 10-KReport to theUnited States Securities and Exchange Commission a consolidated net revenue of $4.9 billionfor 2012 and a consolidated net income of $1.1 billion. ACTIVISION'S principle place ofbusiness is California, but it sells its games directly to consumers throughout the country

3COMPLAINT


4/13

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

through itswebsite www.activision.com and indirectly through major retailers inall fifty statesand around the world.

IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTIONVIOLATION OFCALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3344 AND COMMON LAW RIGHT OF PUBLICITY

1. Plaintiff incorporates herein by this referenceeach and every allegationcontained in each paragraph above.

2. At all relevanttimes, Plaintiff had the sole andexclusiveright of publicitywith regard to the use of his name arid likenessas displayed and portrayed inBLACKOPS IIand all correspondingadvertisingmaterialsdisseminatedby Defendants.

3. Defendants used the name, image, and likeness of Plaintiff in the video gameBLACK OPS II without Plaintiffs or his representatives' permission, consent orauthorization.

4. Plaintiff was readily identifiable in the video game, insofar as one who viewsthe photograph with a naked eye can reasonablydetermine that the person depicted in thephotograph is thesamepersonwho is complaining of itsunauthorized use.

5. Plaintiff is identifiedby nameon numerous occasions throughout BLACKOPS II .

6. Defendants' unauthorized and unlawful use of Plaintiff s name an dlikeness was willful, intentional, and knowing and was done for the direct purpose ofprofiting off of and gaining a commercial benefit through the popularity and sales of BLACKOPS II .

7. The acts alleged above constitute a violation ofCalifornia Civil Code 3344 andPlaintiffs common law right of publicity.

COMPLAINT


5/13

iv

4567891011121314151617181920212223

2425262728

8. As a direct and proximate resultof Defendants' unauthorized andunlawfuluse ofPlaintiffs name and likeness, Plaintiff suffered harm, including but not limited todamage to his reputation and denial ofthe benefit ofthe rights ofpublicity which belong tohim.

9. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensation for the willful, intentional,unauthorized, and unlawful use ofhis name and likeness, in an amount to be proven at trial.

10. Defendants' conduct was malicious, fraudulent, oppressive and intended toinjure Plaintiff. Consequently. Plaintiff is entitled topunitive damages.

V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTIONUNJUST ENRICHMENT1. Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference each and every allegation

contained in eachparagraph above.2. At all relevant times, Plaintiff had the sole and exclusive right ofpublicity

with regard to the use ofhis image and likeness asdisplayed and portrayed in BLACK OPS IIand all corresponding advertising materials disseminated by Defendants.

3. Defendants appropriated the image and likeness of PlaintiffinBLACKOPS II and all corresponding advertising materials disseminated by Defendants without properpermission orauthorization. Defendants also intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs right topublicity bymisappropriating his image and likeness inBLACK OPS II.

4. Defendants' unauthorized and unlawful use ofPlaintiffs image andlikeness was intentional, willful, knowing and done for the purpose ofobtaining profit and forthe purpose ofdenying Plaintiffofhis rightful share of any profit to be made from thecommercial use of his image and likeness.

5COMPLAINT


6/13

U]

234567891011121314151617181920212223

2425262728

5. As a result ofDefendants' unauthorized and unlawful use ofPlaintiff's imageand likeness, Defendants have been unjustly enriched in an amount to be proven at trial.

6. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensation fortheunauthorized andunlawful use ofhis image and likeness, in anamount to be proven at trial.

VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIONUNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES INVIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 17200

1. Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference each and every allegationcontained in each paragraphabove.

2. Defendants have deceived and confused the public into believing thatPlaintiff authorized, approves, and endorses the use of its name and likeness in BLACK OPSII .

3. Defendants' acts, alleged above, constitute unfair competition inthat theyreflect untair, deceptive, untrue, and misleading business acts within themeaning ofBusinessand Professions Code 17200.

4. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Defendants haveunfairly andwrongfully obtained andmustdisgorge profits belonging to Plaintiffin an amountwhich shall be proved at trial.

VII . PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, asfollows:

1. For an injunction of the following conduct: Defendants' use of Plaintiffs' image and likeness without Plaintiffs

consent at any time in the future

COMPLAINT


7/13


8/13

ATTORNEYOR PARTYWITHOUTATTORNEY(Warns,Slate Barnumber,end address):Graham B. LippSmith (SBN 221984}Gi ra rc i i I Keese1126 W i ls h i r e B l v d .Los Angeles , CA 90017

telephone no.: 2 1 3 - 9 7 7 - 0 2 1 1 FAXNO.: 213 - 481 - 1554attorney for Namey. P l a i n t i f f Manuel NoriegaSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFLOS AngelesSTREET AOORESS: 111 N. Hill St.

mailing address: 111 N. Hill StreetcityandTip code: Lo s Angeles 90012branch name: S t an l e v Mosk Cou r t hou s eCASE NAME: Nor iega v . Act iv i s i on Bl izza rd , Inc .al.

et

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET1 x 1Unlimited 1 iLimited(Amount (Amountdemanded demanded isexceeds 25 ,000 ) 25, 000 or less)

Complex Case Designation| | Counter | ) JoinderFiled withfirstappearance by defendant(Cal. Rules ofCourt, rule 3.402)

FORCOURTUSE ONLYCM-010

Superior Court ofCaliforniaCounty ofLos AngelesJUL 15 2014

Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerkfly ^ ^kfo DeputyMoses SotoCASE NUMBER:

JUDGE:OEPT:

5 5174 7BY FAX

Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructionson page 2).1 Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:

Au to To rt Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation zAuto (22) Breach of contract/warranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)r Uninsured motorist (46) CZ Rule 3.740 collections (09) I | Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)Other PI/PO/WD(Personal Injury/Property n Other collections (09) I | Construction defect (10)Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort n Insurance coverage (18) I | Masstort (40)[ IAsbestos (04) L_ Other contract (37) I | Securities litigation (28)I IProduct liability (24) Real Property I J Environmental/Toxic tort (30)f ]Medical malpractice (45) I IEminentdomain/Inverse i I Insurancecoverageclaimsarisingfrom the[ | OtherPI/PO/WD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex caseNon-PHPO/WD (Other) Tort | | Wrongful eviction (33) types (41)I | Business tort/unfair business practice (07) I IOther real property (26) Enforcement of JudgmentI | Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer I | Enforcement ofjudgment (20)| | Defamation (13) I ICommercial (31) Miscellaneous CivilComplaint J Fraud (16) | | Residential (32) RICO (27)[__ Intellectual property (19) I IDrugs (38) | | Other complaint not specified above) (42)1 JProfessional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscel laneous Civil PetitionI x IOther non-PI/PD/WD tort (35) | IAsset forfeiture (05) Partnership andcorporate governance (21)Employment [ _J Petition re: arbitration award(11) I | Other petition not specified above) (43)[ ]] Wrongful termination (36) [ IWrit ofmandate (02)l jOther employment (15) [ IOther judicial review (39)This case ZH is l~x l isnot complex under rule 3.400 oftheCalifornia Rules ofCourt. If thecase iscomplex, mark thefactors requiring exceptional judicialmanagement:' ' d. ZD Large number ofwitnessese. I ICoordination with related actions pending inoneormore courts

in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court:c. I I Substantialamountofdocumentary evidence f. I I Substantialpostjudgment judicial supervisionx ] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. |~~x~l punitive

a. j I Largenumberofseparately represented partiesb. | | Extensivemotion practice raisingdifficult or novelissues that will be time-consuming to resolveC.l

3. - Remedies sought check all that apply): a. (~x~l monetary b.4 -Number of causes of action specify): t h r e e (3 )5- 'This case | I is LxJ is not a class action suit.6i/lf there are any known related cases, file and serve a noticeof related case. You mayuse form CM^015.)Date July 15 2014r h m B LippSmith S BN 2 21 98 4f (TYPE ORPRINT NAME)- , NOTICE Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filedrounder the Probate Code, Family Code, orWelfare and InstitutionsCode). (Cal. Rules ofCourt, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may resultr< insanctions.-'''File thiscoversheet inaddition to anycover sheet requiredby local court rule. If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on altother parties to the act ion or proceeding. Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet willbe used for statistical purposes only.Page1of2

Form Adoptedfor Mandatory UseJudicialCouncil d CaliforniaCM-OIOIRev. July 1, 2007]

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEETSolucions- 5* Plusoa l Cal. Rules ofCourt, rules 2.30. 3.220. 3.400-3.403, 3.740;

Cal. Standards of JgdidaJ Adminislrason, std. 3.10


9/13

instructions on how to complete thf cnvFR ^hfft ~,.,-.vstatistics about the types and numbesofwses ? vi f


10/13


11/13


12/13


13/13

noriega v blizzard complaint

Documents