order restraining runtown from performing

8/15/2019 Order Restraining Runtown From Performing

1/19


2/19

2

LLC, a New Yor k ent i t y. 3 Pr esent l y bef or e t he cour t i s

pl ai nt i f f ’ s r equest f or a t empor ar y r est r ai ni ng or der ( “TRO”) t o

enj oi n Runt own f r om appear i ng, per f or mi ng or par t i ci pat i ng i n

any l i ve show, per f or mance or concer t i n t he Uni t ed St at es.

Fur t her , pl ai nt i f f seeks t o enj oi n t he ot her named def endant s

f r om schedul i ng, pr omot i ng, adver t i si ng or ar r angi ng any shows,

per f or mances or concer t s, f eat ur i ng and/ or i ncl udi ng Runt own.

Background

Pl ai nt i f f al l eges br each of i t s agr eement bet ween

Er i cMany Lt d. and def endant Runt own, dated August 7, 2015 ( “t he

Agr eement ”) . See Af f i davi t of Pr i nce Okwudi l i Umenyi or a

( “Umenyi ora Af f . ”) ¶ 9- 10, ECF No. 2 at 17- 18 and Agr eement , ECF

No. 2 at 27- 32. 4 Runt own i s t he sol e act si gned t o Er i cMany. See

Umenyi ora Af f . ¶ 2, ECF No. 2 at 16. The excl usi ve Agr eement i s

appl i cabl e “wor l dwi de” and pr ovi des, inter alia, f or a r enewal

by mut ual consent f or si xt y- mont hs, and t he par t i es’ mut ual

agr eement t o pr oduce, pr omote, market , per f orm and r el ease t hr ee

al bums. See Agreement ¶¶ 1, 4, ECF No. 2 at 27- 29, Umenyi or a

3 Pl ai nt i f f al so named Savoy Ent er t ai nment Cent er and Level 13 Ul t r a Lounge asdef endant s i n t hi s act i on. Those par t i es, however , wer e di smi ssed on consentof pl ai nt i f f at t he J une 2, 2016 Show Cause Hear i ng.

4 Her ei naf t er , page number ci t es r ef er t o pagi nat i on assi gned by t he cour t ’ sel ect r oni c f i l i ng syst em, ECF.

Case 1:16-cv-02777-MKB-CLP Document 6 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 61


3/19

3

Af f . ¶ 3, ECF No. 2 at 17. The Agr eement al so pr ovi des t hat i t

i s t er mi nabl e by ei t her par t y upon t hr ee mont hs wr i t t en

not i f i cat i on, and t hat any di sput es be gover ned by the l aws and

pr ocesses of t he Feder al Republ i c of Ni ger i a. Id. ¶¶ 9- 10, ECF

No. 2 at 14. Pl ai nt i f f al l eges t hat i t i nvest ed over $600, 000

i nt o Runt own’ s r ecor di ng and musi cal car eer , i ncl udi ng a debut

al bum ent i t l ed “Ghet t o Uni ver si t y” and t hat Runt own has breached

t hei r Agr eement by pl anni ng a “wor l d t our ” wi t h t he ot her

def endant s, but wi t hout Er i cMany’ s consent or i nvol vement .

Umenyi ora Af f . ¶¶ 5, 9, ECF No. 2 at 17. Runt own, wi t h t he

assi st ance of hi s manager , def endant Bugu Aneto Okeke, al l egedl y

ent er ed i nt o agr eement s wi t h Ni yi Fat ogun, vi a hi s musi c

pr omot i on company Vi besl and Ent er t ai nment , t o pr omote Runt own’ s

U. S. t our . Umenyi or a Af f . ¶¶ 9- 10, ECF No. 2 at 17- 18; Compl ai nt

¶¶ 22- 23. The U. S. t our was t o begi n on J une 3, 2016 i n

Cal i f or ni a wher e Runt own was t o per f or m at t wo cl ubs. Umenyi or a

Af f . ¶ 22, ECF No. 2 at 21. Fur t her , pl ai nt i f f has al l eged t hat

Runt own and t he Bugu def endant s have made def amat or y st at ements

about Er i cMany vi a soci al medi a. Id. at ¶ 21, ECF No. 2 at 21.

Pl ai nt i f f seeks t o t empor ar i l y r est r ai n and enj oi n

def endant s f r om si ngi ng, per f or mi ng, pr omot i ng and per mi t t i ng

t he per f ormance of Runt own at any venue unt i l a hear i ng on i t s



4/19

4

r equest f or a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on. See generally ECF No. 2.

On J une 1, 2016, t hi s cour t i ssued an Or der t o Show Cause and

or der ed ser vi ce on al l def endant s by emai l or f acsi mi l e no l at er

t han 10: 00 a. m. EDT on J une 2, 2016, but r eser ved deci si on on

t he TRO unt i l t he Show Cause Hear i ng. On J une 2, 2016 at 2: 00

p. m. , t he cour t hel d a Show Cause Hear i ng. At t he hear i ng

pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel and Ni yi Fat ogun i n hi s i ndi vi dual capaci t y,

and on behal f of hi s company Vi besl and Ent ert ai nment , appear ed.

Runt own nor t he Bugu def endants appeared.

At t he hear i ng, pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel r epr esent ed and

Mr . Fat ogun agr eed that Runt own has si nce expr essed hi s i nt ent ,

vi a soci al medi a and by l et t er , t o l eave t he Er i cMany l abel . 5

Mr . Fat ogun pr ovi ded t he f ol l owi ng t est i mony whi ch t he cour t

f ound credi bl e: Runt own and Mr . Bugu t r avel ed t o Br ookl yn, New

York t o engage Mr . Fat ogun’ s promot i on ser vi ces. As a r esul t of

t hat meet i ng, t he par t i es agr eed t hat Mr . Fat ogun woul d or gani ze

a pr omot i onal t our i n t he U. S. f or Runt own’ s debut al bum “Ghet t o

Uni ver si t y, ” and post Runt own’ s appear ances on Vi besl and’ s

soci al medi a pages. The f i r st l eg of t he t our woul d be f ocused

on cl ub appearances wher e Runt own woul d not r ecei ve compensat i on

5

Because of t he expedi t ed nat ur e of t he pr oceedi ngs, t he t r anscr i pt i s notavai l abl e.



5/19

5

f or hi s appear ances. The par t i es expect ed t hat t he publ i ci t y

cr eat ed by t he f i r st l eg of t he U. S. t our woul d l ead t o mor e

YouTube vi ews and i Tunes pur chases of Runt own’ s musi c, and

ul t i mat el y t o pai d per f or mances at concer t s and f est i val s. Mr .

Fatogun spoke wi t h Er i cMany about hi s pl ans t o pr omote Runt own

and r ecei ved what he thought was appr oval f r omEr i cMany.

Er i cMany’ s counsel r esponded that Er i cMany was not i nvol ved i n

Runt own’ s engagement wi t h Vi besl and and l ear ned of t he

r el at i onshi p f r om soci al medi a.

Af t er Mr . Fat ogun l ear ned of t he di sput e bet ween

Runt own, t he Bugu def endant s and Er i cMany, Mr . Fat ogun t ol d al l

par t i es t hat he want ed no i nvol vement and cancel ed Runt own’ s

appear ances at t he two cl ubs i n Cal i f or ni a. Fur t her , Mr . Fat ogun

st ated hi s i nt ent i on t o end hi s engagement wi t h Runt own and the

Bugu def endant s unl ess and unt i l pl ai nt i f f and Runt own conf i r m

i n wr i t i ng that he and Vi besl and may pr omote Runt own. I n the

meant i me, Mr . Fat ogun st at ed t hat , t he pl anned U. S. t our wi l l be

cancel l ed and Mr . Fat ogun wi l l r emove al l pr omot i onal mat er i al s

r el at i ng t o Runt own’ s t our f r om al l medi ums wi t hi n hi s cont r ol .

Mr . Fat ogun has not post ed any negat i ve i nf or mat i on on soci al

medi a r egar di ng pl ai nt i f f or Runt own. Mr . Fat ogun request ed that

he and Vi besl and be di smi ssed f r om t hi s act i on.



6/19

6

Legal Standards

“[ T] he st andar d f or r el i ef appl i cabl e t o a t empor ar y

r est r ai ni ng or der i s t he same as f or a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on. ”

19 Fed. Pr oc. , L. Ed. § 47: 80 ( 2016) . I n or der t o pr evai l on a

mot i on f or a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on and, t her ef or e, on a TRO, a

par t y must est abl i sh: “( 1) i r r epar abl e har m i n t he absence of

t he i nj unct i on and ( 2) ei t her ( a) a l i kel i hood of success on t he

mer i t s or ( b) suf f i ci ent l y ser i ous quest i ons goi ng t o t he mer i t s

t o make t hem a f ai r gr ound f or l i t i gat i on and a bal ance of

har dshi ps t i ppi ng deci dedl y i n t he movant ’ s f avor . ’ ”

MyWebGrocer, LLC v. Hometown Info., Inc., 375 F. 3d 190, 192 ( 2d

Ci r . 2004) ( quot i ng Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, Inc. v. Otsar

Sifrei Lubavitch, I nc. , 312 F. 3d 94, 96 ( 2d Ci r . 2002) ) .

The i r r epar abl e har m r equi r ement i s “t he si ngl e most

i mpor t ant pr er equi si t e f or t he i ssuance of a pr el i mi nar y

i nj unct i on. ” Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 175 F. 3d 227, 234 ( 2d Ci r .

1999) ( per curiam) ( i nt er nal quot at i ons omi t t ed) . “I r r epar abl e

i nj ur y i s one t hat cannot be r edr essed t hr ough a monetary award.

Wher e money damages ar e adequat e compensat i on a prel i mi nar y

i nj unct i on shoul d not i ssue. ” JSG Trading Corp. v. Tray–Wrap,

Inc., 917 F. 2d 75, 79 ( 2d Ci r . 1990) . “To est abl i sh i r r epar abl e



7/19

7

har m, pl ai nt i f f s must demonst r at e an i nj ur y t hat i s nei t her

r emot e nor specul at i ve, but act ual and i mmi nent . ” Tucker Anthony

Realty Corp. v. Schlesinger , 888 F. 2d 969, 975 ( 2d Ci r . 1989)

( i nt er nal quot at i ons omi t t ed) .

Discussion

Based upon t he compl ai nt , af f i r mat i ons of pl ai nt i f f

and pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel , suppor t i ng exhi bi t s, t he t est i mony and

argument s at t he Show Cause Hear i ng on J une 2, 2016, and f or t he

r easons st at ed her ei n, t he cour t gr ant s pl ai nt i f f ’ s r equest f or

a TRO agai nst Runt own and t he Bugu def endants and t he court

deni es pl ai nt i f f ’ s r equest s f or a TRO agai nst Mr . Fat ogun and

Vi besl and Ent ert ai nment . The terms of t he TRO are pr ovi ded

her ei n. The par t i es shal l appear f or a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on

hear i ng bef or e t he assi gned J udge, t he Honor abl e Mar go Br odi e,

on J une 14, 2016 at 11: 00 a. m. i n Cour t r oom6F Nor t h at t he

Uni t ed St at es Cour t house, 225 Cadman Pl aza East , Br ookl yn, N. Y.

11201.

A. Plaintiff has provided specific facts establishing that it

will suffer immediate and irreparable harm.

Er i cMany Ltd. seeks a tempor ar y r est r ai ni ng or der t o

pr event i mmi nent i r r epar abl e har m t hat wi l l occur bef or e the

hear i ng on t he pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on schedul ed f or J une 14,

2016. Pl ai nt i f f ’ s CEO, Pr i nce Okwudi l i Umenyi or a ( a/ k/ a “Di l i ”)



8/19

8

has pr ovi ded speci f i c f act s est abl i shi ng t hat i r r epar abl e har m

i s i mmi nent : Pl ai nt i f f has i nvest ed appr oxi mat el y $600, 000 i nt o

pr oduci ng Runt own’ s debut al bum “Ghet t o Uni ver si t y” and

devel opi ng Runt own’ s career ; Runt own i s t he sol e ar t i st si gned

t o Er i cMany. Umenyi or a Af f . ¶¶ 2, 5, 8, ECF No. 2 at 16- 17.

Vi besl and announced, on i t s I nst agr ampage, t hat Runt own was

par t i ci pat i ng i n a U. S. t our . Umenyi or a Af f . ¶¶ 9- 10, ECF No. 2

at 17- 18. The tour was schedul ed t o begi n on J une 3, 2016 i n

Cal i f orni a. See id. ¶ 22, ECF No. 2 at 22. Al t hough pl ai nt i f f i s

under an excl usi ve wor l dwi de cont r act wi t h Runt own, pl ai nt i f f

was excl uded f r om pl anni ng t he tour and i s not ment i oned i n

Runt own’ s U. S. t our mat er i al s. Umenyi or a Af f . ¶¶ 9- 10, ECF No. 2

at 17- 18 and Agreement ¶ 1 ECF No. 2 at 27- 32. Pl ai nt i f f ’ s CEO,

Mr . Umenyi or a, f ur t her asser t s t hat Runt own’ s excl usi on of

pl ai nt i f f when par t i ci pat i ng i n “i ndust r y acti vi t y” 6 wi l l cause

i r r epar abl e har m t o Er i cMany’ s r eput at i on, goodwi l l and

pr of essi onal st andi ng, and wi l l be vi ewed, by t he Ni ger i an musi c

i ndust r y and others as a depart ur e by Runt own f r omt he

pl ai nt i f f ’ s l abel . Id. ¶¶ 13- 17, ECF No. 2 at 19- 20. Fur t her ,

Runt own’ s depar t ur e wi l l l i kel y di scour age ot her ar t i st s f r om

6 The term “i ndust r y” i s def i ned by t he Agr eement as t he “musi c andent er t ai nment i ndust r y. ” See Agreement ¶ 1, ECF No. 2 at 28.



9/19

9

si gni ng wi t h Er i cMany i n t he f ut ur e. Id. ¶ 17, ECF No. 2 at 20.

Pl ai nt i f f f ur t her asser t s t hat Runt own i s t he onl y ar t i st si gned

t o Er i cMany, and t hat Runt own’ s depar t ur e wi l l ef f ect i vel y

bankrupt and r ender Er i cMany a def unct ent i t y. Id. ¶ 14, ECF No.

2 at 19. Pl ai nt i f f has no ot her r evenue st r eams and Runt own’ s

depar t ur e and cont i nued excl usi on of pl ai nt i f f f r om hi s

“ i ndustr y act i vi t y” i s l i kel y t o prevent pl ai nt i f f f rom

r ecoupi ng i t s $600, 000 i nvest ment . Umenyi ora Af f . ¶¶ 4, 5, 13,

14, ECF No. 2 at 17, 19.

“[ W] hen cour t s cannot est abl i sh and measure t he i nj ur y

i n ter ms of money, cour t s have f ound i r r epar abl e har m. ” Coastal

Distrib., LLC v. Town of Babylon, No. 05 CV 2032 J S ETB, 2006 WL

270252, at *3 ( E. D. N. Y. J an. 31, 2006) , aff’d as modified , 216

F. App’ x 97 ( 2d Ci r . 2007) ( ci t i ng Register.com, Inc. v. Verio,

Inc., 356 F. 3d 393, 404 ( 2d Ci r . 2004) ) . “Loss of goodwi l l and

i nj ur y t o r eput at i on ar e i nj ur i es t hat ar e di f f i cul t t o measur e

i n dol l ar s, and t hus, t hese t ypes of i nj ur i es ar e i r r epar abl e

har m. ” Coastal Distribution, 2006 WL 270252, at *3 ( ci t i ng

Wr i ght , Mi l l er & Kane, supra § 2948. 1) . “Fur t her mor e, l oss of

busi ness oppor t uni t i es and r el at i onshi ps wi t h cl i ent s who coul d

‘ pr oduce an i ndetermi nate amount of busi ness over years t o come’

ar e al so har d t o measure i n dol l ar s and ar e pr oper l y consi der ed



10/19

10

i r r epar abl e har m. ” Coastal Distrib., 2006 WL 270252, at *3

( quot i ng Register.com, Inc., 356 F. 3d at 393) .

Her e, Er i cMany has shown t hat he i s at r i sk of

si gni f i cant f i nanci al and r eput at i onal damage whi ch wi l l l i kel y

l ead t o a l oss of busi ness oppor t uni t i es, r el at i onshi ps and

pot ent i al l y even bankr upt cy. Er i cMany i s l i kel y t o suf f er har m

because of t he pr omot i ons r el at i ng to Runt own’ s pr oposed U. S.

t our as Er i cMany was excl uded f r om al l t he pr omot i onal

mat er i al s. Runt own, wi t h t he assi st ance of t he Bugu def endant s

have excl uded Er i cMany f r om Runt own’ s “i ndust r y act i vi t i es” as

evi denced by thei r uni l at er al engagement of Vi besl and. Such

excl usi on appear s t o cont r avene t he excl usi vi t y pr ovi si on of t he

Agr eement and wi l l l i kel y cause Er i cMany f i nanci al and

r eput at i onal l osses. Fur t her , Runt own has made def amatory

st at ement s about Er i cMany on soci al medi a t hat ar e l i kel y t o

cause ser i ous r eput at i onal har m t o Er i cMany and may l ead t o a

l oss of busi ness oppor t uni t i es.

The t ot al i t y of pot ent i al l osses t hat Er i cMany wi l l

l i kel y f ace f r om Runt own’ s act i ons ar e i ncal cul abl e on t hi s

r ecor d. As pl ai nt i f f ’ s evi dence i ndi cat es, Ni ger i an musi c i s on

t he ver ge of cr ossi ng over i nt o Nor t h Amer i can popul ar musi c as

demonst r at ed by Ni ger i an musi cal ar t i st Wi zKi d’ s per f or mance on



11/19


12/19

12

t he Pl ai nt i f f [ ’ s] pr i or appr oval , dur i ng t he dur at i on of t he

Ar t i st e agr eement bet ween t he Pl ai nt i f f and [ Runt own] . ” Ni ger i an

Cour t Or der , ¶ 1, ECF No. 2 at 37. Wi t hout determi ni ng whether

t he Ni ger i an cour t ’ s or der i s bi ndi ng on t hi s cour t , t hi s cour t

nonet hel ess f i nds t hat t he Ni ger i an cour t ’ s i nj unct i on wei ghs i n

f avor of gr ant i ng a t emporar y r est r ai ni ng or der agai nst Runt own

because anot her cour t of compet ent j ur i sdi ct i on has al r eady

enj oi ned def endant Runt own f r om per f or mi ng as a si nger , musi cal

ar t i st e or per f or mer , et c.

Ther ef or e, pl ai nt i f f has est abl i shed t hat i t i s at

r i sk f or i mmi nent and i r r epar abl e har m as a r esul t of act i ons by

Runt own and the Bugu def endant s. 9 See Ticor Title Ins. Co. v.

Cohen, 173 F. 3d 63, 69 ( 2d Ci r . 1999) ( where t he Second Ci r cui t

af f i r med t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s f i ndi ng of i r r epar abl e har m,

not i ng t hat “i t woul d be ver y di f f i cul t t o cal cul at e monet ar y

damages t hat woul d successf ul l y redr ess t he l oss of a

r el at i onshi p wi t h a cl i ent t hat woul d pr oduce an i ndet er mi nat e

amount of busi ness i n years t o come”) ; Coastal Distrib., 2006 WL

270252, at *3 ( not i ng t hat “l oss of busi ness oppor t uni t i es and

9 Based on cr edi bl e test i mony by Mr . Fatogun at t he Show Cause Hear i ng, t hecour t f i nds t hat pl ai nt i f f f ai l ed t o establ i sh i r r epar abl e har m as t o Mr .Fat ogun and Vi besl and Ent er t ai nment . Ther ef or e, t he cour t deni es pl ai nt i f f ’ sr equest f or a TRO as t o Mr . Fat ogun and Vi besl and Ent er t ai nment .



13/19

13

r el at i onshi ps wi t h cl i ent s who coul d ‘ pr oduce an i ndet er mi nat e

amount of busi ness over year s t o come’ are al so har d t o measur e

i n dol l ar s and ar e pr oper l y consi der ed i r r epar abl e har m”)

( quot i ng Register.com, Inc., 356 F. 3d at 393) .

B. With respect to Runtown and the Bugu defendants, plaintiff

has established (1) a likelihood of success on the merits

and (2) serious question going to the merits making them

fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships

tipping deciding in plaintiff’s favor.

Second Ci r cui t case l aw r equi r es t hat a par t y show not

onl y i r r epar abl e har m but al so ei t her “( a) a l i kel i hood of

success on t he mer i t s or ( b) suf f i ci ent l y ser i ous quest i ons

goi ng t o t he mer i t s t o make t hem a f ai r gr ound f or l i t i gat i on

and a bal ance of har dshi ps t i ppi ng deci dedl y i n t he movant ’ s

f avor . ” MyWebGrocer, LLC v. Hometown Info., Inc., 375 F. 3d 190,

192 ( 2d Ci r . 2004) .

Gi ven t he f act s pr esent l y bef or e t he cour t , i t i s

l i kel y t hat pl ai nt i f f wi l l be successf ul on t he mer i t s ar i si ng

f r om Runt own’ s al l eged br each, wi t h t he assi st ance of t he Bugu

def endant s, of Runt own’ s agr eement wi t h pl ai nt i f f . The Agr eement

cont ai ns a choi ce of l aw pr ovi si on whi ch st at es t hat Ni ger i an

l aw and pr ocesses govern di sput es ar i si ng under t he Agr eement .

See Agr eement ¶ 10, ECF No. 2 at 31- 32. Not wi t hst andi ng t he

pr esent l ack of submi ssi ons r egar di ng Ni ger i an cont r act l aw and



14/19

14

t he Agr eement ’ s di sput e r esol ut i on pr ovi si on under Ni ger i an l aw,

pl ai nt i f f has pr esent ed evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hat def endant

Runt own, assi st ed by t he Bugu def endant s, have t aken act i ons

t hat appear t o be i n di r ect cont r avent i on of sever al pr ovi si ons

i n t he Agr eement , and t hat Runt own has engaged i n “i ndust r y

act i vi t y” wi t h t he Bugu def endant s wi t hout Er i cMany’ s consent or

i nvol vement . These act i ons may const i t ut e a br each of t he

Agr eement . Some of t he pr ovi si ons t hat ar e l i kel y t o be cr uci al

t o a br each of cont r act anal ysi s ar e:

• Para 1: The Agreement “shal l appl y wor l dwi de i n al l

t err est r i al envi r onment s and market s known and unknown. .

. . Ar t i st e shal l not ent er i nt o si mi l ar agr eement , or

agr eement deal i ng wi t h t he same subj ect - mat t er as i s

pr ovi ded f or her ei n, wi t h any t hi r d par t y, save and

except as . . . may be her ei n pr ovi ded f or . ” Agr eement ,

ECF No. 2 at 27- 32.

• Para 2: “Par t i es al so vouch t o r ef r ai n and t o abst ai n

f r om any and al l act i vi t y or act i vi t i es whi ch r easonabl y

can r esul t i n t he ci r cumvent i on of and or compet i t i on

wi t h t he l egal and per sonal i nt er est ( s) of t he ot her

Par t y. ” Id.



15/19

15

• Para 3: “Prof essi onal , al l - aspect s management , pr omot i on,

t hi r d par t y deal i ngs and r epr esent at i on of t he Ar t i st e

and of wor k(s) of t he Ar t i st e ei t her by t he Label

per sonal l y or out sour ced t o an agr eeabl e t hi r d par t y

pr omot er or ot her speci al i st agency. . . . ” Id.

• Para 3: “Secur i ng l i ve shows and per f or mances, i n publ i c

or by pr i vat e t r eat y, wher eat t he Ar t i st e per f or ms bef or e

an audi ence or audi ences. . . . ” Id.

•

Para 4: “[ I ] n a si t uat i on wher ei n t he Ar t i st e f avor abl y

consi der s i ndust r y act i vi t y or oppor t uni t y—i ncl udi ng

pr ess conf erences and mat t ers i n t he publ i c domai n—

never t hel ess out si de the Agr eement , t he Ar t i st e shal l

i mmedi at el y not i f y t he Label i n suf f i ci ent det ai l . . . . ”

Id.

Her e, pl ai nt i f f asser t s t hat Runt own, assi st ed by the

Bugu def endant s, ent ered i nt o agr eement s wi t h other part i es and

engaged pr omoters t hat organi zed and booked t he U. S. t our

wi t hout Er i cMany’ s consent or i nvol vement . These act i ons appear

t o be i n vi ol at i on of cer t ai n t er ms of t he Agr eement , and

t her ef or e, pl ai nt i f f l i kel y has a mer i t or i ous br each of cont r act

cl ai m agai nst Runt own.

The cour t has eval uat ed t he cur r ent r ecor d and i t



16/19

16

f i nds “suf f i ci ent l y ser i ous quest i ons goi ng t o t he mer i t s t o

make t hem a f ai r gr ound f or l i t i gat i on and a bal ance of

har dshi ps t i ppi ng deci dedl y i n t he movant ’ s f avor . ” MyWebGrocer,

LLC v. Hometown Info., I nc. , 375 F. 3d 190, 192 ( 2d Ci r . 2004) .

As di scussed above, pl ai nt i f f has present ed evi dence of a myr i ad

of act i ons t aken by Runt own, assi st ed by the Bugu def endant s,

whi ch appear t o r un i n di r ect cont r avent i on of t he Agr eement .

These ci r cumst ances present ser i ous quest i ons t hat may r equi r e

f ur t her cour t i nt er vent i on i n or der t o r each a r esol ut i on. I n

f act , t he pl ai nt i f f and Runt own ar e l i t i gat i ng i n t wo f or ums;

t hi s cour t and i n t he Ni ger i an Feder al Hi gh Cour t . Fur t her , t he

bal ance of har dshi ps t i ps deci dedl y i n pl ai nt i f f ’ s f avor as i t

i s l i kel y Er i cMany wi l l suf f er not onl y l oss of hi s i nvest ment

and f i nanci al oppor t uni t i es, but wi l l l i kel y suf f er i r r epar abl e

harm due t o r eput at i onal damage, i nsol vency and becomi ng a

r ecor d l abel wi t hout a r ecor di ng ar t i st because of Runt own and

t he Bugu def endant s’ act i ons. 10 Roso-Lino Beverage Distrib., Inc.

v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., 749 F. 2d 124, 125- 26 ( 2d Ci r .

1984) ( f i ndi ng t hat pl ai nt i f f ’ s l oss of di str i but or shi p wi t h

def endant , an ongoi ng r el at i onshi p r epr esent i ng many year s of

10 Because Runt own and t he Bugu def endant s f ai l ed t o appear or submi topposi t i on paper s, despi t e havi ng not i ce of t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s appl i cat i on, t hecour t consi der s a r ecor d devoi d of t hei r opposi t i on.



17/19

17

ef f or t and t he l i vel i hood of i t s husband and wi f e owner s, t i ps

i n f avor of pl ai nt i f f ) . Thus, pl ai nt i f f has sat i sf i ed t he second

pr ong of t he Second Ci r cui t ’ s t est f or est abl i shi ng adequat e

gr ounds f or a t emporary rest r ai ni ng order agai nst Runt own and

t he Bugu def endant s.

C. Plaintiff’s attorney has certified in writing the efforts

made to give notice to the defendants.

Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel made sever al at t empt s t o cont act

and not i f y al l named def endant s r egar di ng pl ai nt i f f ’ s i nt ent i on

t o seek an Or der t o Show Cause and appl i cat i on f or a TRO.

Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel spoke t o r epr esent at i ves f or t wo of t he

named def endant s on May 28, 2016 and May 30, 2016 and put t hem

on not i ce that Er i cMany woul d be maki ng t he pr esent appl i cat i on.

See ECF No. 2 at 7- 8. On May 30, 2016, af t er sever al at t empt s t o

r each t he ot her def endant s, but wi t h no avai l , pl ai nt i f f ’ s

counsel emai l ed al l def endant s and advi sed t hat t he pl ai nt i f f

woul d be seeki ng a t empor ar y rest r ai ni ng order . Id. Fur t her

not i ce to, and servi ce on, t he def endant s of t he Or der t o Show

Cause by emai l or f acsi mi l e was appr oved by the Cour t ’ s J une 1,

2016 Or der because Runt own’ s al l eged J une 3, 2016 per f ormance

was onl y t wo days away, and the Show Cause hear i ng r egardi ng t he

TRO was schedul ed f or J une 2, 2016 at 2 p. m. Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel



18/19

18

r epr esent ed t o t he cour t at t he Show Cause Hear i ng t hat on J une

1, 2016, she ser ved al l def endant s vi a emai l wi t h t he Or der t o

Show Cause.

Nonet hel ess, t he onl y def endant s t o appear on J une 2,

2016 wer e the Vi besl and def endants. They opposed t he TRO as t o

t hemsel ves and asked t hat t hey be di smi ssed f r om t hi s act i on.

Based on Mr . Fatogun’ s cr edi bl e t est i mony at t he Show Cause

Hear i ng and f or t he reasons set f or t h above, t he cour t deni es

pl ai nt i f f ’ s appl i cat i on f or a TRO agai nst Mr . Fat ogun and

Vi besl and Ent er t ai nment . The cour t advi sed t he Vi besl and

def endant s t hat i t woul d r espect f ul l y def er t hei r r equest s f or

di smi ssal f or deci si on by t he Honor abl e J udge Br odi e.

Accor di ngl y, i t i s her eby

ORDERED t hat suf f i ci ent r eason havi ng been shown,

t her ef or e, pendi ng t he hear i ng of pl ai nt i f f ’ s appl i cat i on f or a

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on, pur suant t o Fed. R. Ci v. P. Rul e 65 on

J une 14, 2016 at 11 a. m. bef or e t he Honor abl e Mar go Br odi e i n

Cour t r oom 6F Nor t h, Runt own and the Bugu def endant s are

t empor ar i l y r est r ai ned and enj oi ned f r om si ngi ng, appear i ng,

host i ng, per f or mi ng, pr omot i ng, ar r angi ng, f aci l i t at i ng,

schedul i ng, adver t i si ng or per mi t t i ng t he per f or mance of Dougl as

J ack Agu “Runt own” at any venue on or af t er J une 3, 2016; and i t



19/19

19

i s f urt her

ORDERED t hat because pl ai nt i f f had no knowl edge of

schedul ed perf ormances or pr omot i ons by or i nvol vi ng Runt own,

ot her t han t he per f or mances i n t he t wo Cal i f or ni a cl ubs and t he

pr omot i onal t our or gani zed by t he Vi besl and def endant s, and

because t he Vi besl and def endant s have cancel ed sai d t our and

agr eed t o cease al l pr omot i onal act i vi t i es on t he Vi besl and

def endant s’ soci al medi a account s and al l ot her Vi besl and

pr omot i onal vehi cl es r el at i ng t o Runt own, t he cour t or der s t hat

pl ai nt i f f post a bond of $5,000 t o cover t he cost s and damages

sust ai ned by any par t y f ound t o have been wr ongf ul l y r est r ai ned

pur suant t o t he Tempor ar y Rest r ai ni ng Or der , as provi ded i n Fed.

R. Ci v. P. 65( c) ; and i t i s f ur t her

ORDERED t hat act ual not i ce by personal ser vi ce or

ot her wi se of a copy of t hi s order upon t he def endant s or t hei r

counsel on or bef or e June 7, 2016, be deemed good and suf f i ci ent

ser vi ce.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: J une 3, 20167: 45 p. m.Br ookl yn, New Yor k

_______ ___/ s/ __Ki yo A. Mat sumot oUni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge


order restraining runtown from performing

Documents