MHF

Case 2:15-cv-00663 Document 1 Filed 01/28/15 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:1
1 Jonathan S. Shenson (State Bar No. 184250)

jshenson@shensonlawgroup.com
2 Lauren N. Gans (State Bar No. 247542)
lgans@shensonlawgroup.com
3 SHENSON LAW GROUP PC
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 360
4 Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: 310-400-5858
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
8
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
9
10
11
12
13
MHF ZWEITE ACADEMY FILM

GMBH & CO. KG, a German limited
partnership, and MHF ERSTE
ACADEMY FILM GMBH & CO.
PRODUKTIONS KG, a German
limited partnership,
Case No.: 2:15-cv-663

COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT, UNJUST
ENRICHMENT AND BREACH OF
CONTRACT
14
Plaintiffs,
15
16
17
v.
26
WARNER BROS.
ENTERTAINMENT INC., a
Delaware corporation, WB STUDIO
ENTERPRISES INC., a Delaware
corporation, WARNER BROS.
PICTURES, INC., a Delaware
INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION
DISTRIBUTION INC., a Delaware
TELEVISION DISTRIBUTION,
INC., a Delaware corporation,
WARNER BROS. HOME
ENTERTAINMENT INC.,
27
(caption continued on next page)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
28
COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT
1
2
3
4
5
6
A Delaware corporation, NEW LINE

PRODUCTIONS, INC., a California
corporation, TIME WARNER
ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY,
L.P., a Delaware limited partnership,
NEW LINE CINEMA LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,
and NEW LINE DISTRIBUTION,
INC., a California corporation,
7
8
Defendants.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs MHF Zweite Academy Film GmbH & Co. KG (Zweite Academy)
2 and MHF Erste Academy Film GmbH & Co. Produktions KG (Erste Acadamy,
3 and together with Zweite Academy, MHF), for their complaint against the above4 captioned defendants (collectively, including the corporate predecessors identified
5 herein, the Defendants) allege as follows:
OVERVIEW
6
7
1.
This is a complaint seeking damages under the copyright laws of the
8 United States, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., for willful copyright infringement by the
9 Defendants, unjust enrichment and breach of contract.
10
2.
MHF produced and owns the copyrights to the following motion
11 pictures (collectively, the Films, and each, a Film): (i) The Whole Ten Yards;
12 (ii) Laws of Attraction; (iii) Till Death Do Us Part also known as The In
13 Laws; and (iv) Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever.
14
3.
As detailed below, on March 20, 2012, MHF filed a complaint against
15 the Defendants for copyright infringement, breach of contract and unjust enrichment
16 arising out of Defendants continuing distribution and other exploitation of the
17 Films without permission or license from MHF and without appropriately
18 compensating MHF. MHF filed the complaint, styled as MHF Zweite Academy
19 Film GMBH & Co. KG et al. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., et. al, case no: CV
20 12-2381-JFW, in the United States District Court for the Central District of
21 California, Western Division (the Initial Action). A true and correct copy of the
22 complaint commencing the Initial Action is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
23
4.
On February 5, 2013, MHF and Defendants participated in a mediation
24 session resulting in a settlement memorialized in writing that same day (the

25 Settlement Agreement). A true and correct copy of the Settlement Agreement is
26 attached hereto as Exhibit B. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the
27
28
1
1 parties submitted a stipulation to dismiss the Initial Action with prejudice, and on
2 February 22, 2013, the Court entered an Order dismissing the case.
3
5.
Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendants agreed to pay MHF (and
4 paid MHF) an amount equal to $432,578 to settle MHFs claims for the period of
5 time prior to September 30, 2012. And for the period of time commencing October
6 1, 2012 (the period of time on and after October 1, 2012, the Post Settlement
7 Period), Defendants agreed to provide an accounting to MHF for each of the Films
8 in accordance with a schedule and remit any MHF Corridor (defined below in
9 Paragraph 28) payments due therefrom (the Post-Settlement Obligations).
10
6.
On June 29, 2013, four months after the parties settled, Defendants
11 were in material breach of their Post-Settlement Obligations by failing to provide

12 statements accompanied by payments of the amounts due thereupon to MHF
13 with regard to Ballistics: Ecks vs. Sever and Till Death Do Us Part (aka The In14 Laws)within ninety (90) days after March 31. On September 28, 2013, and
15 December 29, 2013, Defendants defaulted on like obligations with regard to Laws of
16 Attraction and The Whole Ten Yards, respectively. On June 29, 2014, for a second
17 year, Defendants defaulted on their obligations to provide accountings and payments
18 to MHF for Ballistics: Ecks vs. Sever and Till Death Do Us Part (aka The In19 Law). And on September 28, 2014, Defendants were again in default on their
20 accounting and payment obligations to MHF for the Laws of Attraction.
21
7.
On August 8, 2014, MHF filed a motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of
22 Civil Procedure 60(b), for entry of an order vacating the dismissal and settlement
23 and reinstating the Initial Action.
On August 25, 2014, Defendants filed an
24 opposition to MHFs motion to vacate and sent accountings and a payment for
25 $39,459, the aggregate amount Defendants alleged was due (or past due) to MHF
26 for the Films other than Laws of Attraction. In their opposition, Defendants also
27 contended the Settlement Agreement did not obligate them to pay the MHF Corridor
28
2
1 on Laws of Attraction. In their reply, MHF disputed Defendants contention. On

2 September 12, 2014, the Court denied MHFs motion to vacate.
3
8.
As detailed below, Zweite Academy is the producer of Laws of
4 Attraction and is the registered owner of the copyright for the Film. As part of the
5 Settlement Agreement, Defendants expressly acknowledged and agreed that MHF
6 Zweite Academy is the producer and owns the copyrights to Laws of Attraction
7 subject to a 1% interest in the legal title in favor of Franchise Pictures, LLC or one
8 of its special purpose entities.
Nevertheless, despite failing to provide Zweite
9 Academy with any accounting or payments due to MHF during the Post-Settlement
10 Period, Defendants continue to distribute and otherwise exploit the Laws of
11 Attraction and/or facilitate the distribution and exploitation thereof.
12
9.
Defendants have also breached and continue to be in breach of their
13 obligations under the Settlement Agreement by failing to make timely payments to

14 MHF in accordance with terms provided in the Settlement Agreement.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15
16
10.
This Court has exclusive jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.
17 1331, 1332, and 1338 in that this action involves claims and causes of action
18 arising under the United States Copyright Laws. And this Court has supplemental
19 jurisdiction over any causes of action arising under state law or contract law
20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
21
11.
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400
22 in that each of the Defendants transacts business in Los Angeles County, California.
PARTIES
23
24
12.
Plaintiff MHF Zweite Academy Film GmbH & Co. KG (defined above
25 as, Zweite Academy) is a Kommanditgesellshaft, a form of limited partnership

26 existing under the laws of Germany. Zweite Academy is engaged in the production,
27 acquisition and distribution of motion pictures for theatrical exhibition and home
28
3
1 entertainment and other forms of distribution. Zweite Academys principal place of

2 business is Munich, Germany, though it has produced films for distribution
3 throughout the world.
4
13.
Plaintiff MHF Erste Academy Film GmbH & Co. Produktions KG
5 (defined above as, Erste Academy) is also a Kommanditgesellshaft, a form of

6 limited partnership existing under the laws of Germany. Erste Academy is also
7 engaged in the production, acquisition and distribution of motion pictures for
8 theatrical exhibition and home entertainment and other forms of distribution. Erste
9 Academys principal place of business is Munich, Germany, though it has also
10 produced films for distribution throughout the world.
11
14.
On information and belief, MHF alleges that Defendant Warner Bros.
12 Entertainment Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in

13 Burbank, California. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. is the corporate successor to
14 Warner Bros. Inc.
15
15.
On information and belief, MHF alleges that Defendant WB Studio
16 Enterprises Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in

17 Burbank, California.
18
16.
19 Pictures, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in

20 Burbank, California.
21
17.
22 International Television Distribution Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its

23 principal place of business in Burbank, California.
24
18.
25 Television Distribution, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

26 business in Burbank, California.
27
28
4
19.
2 Home Entertainment Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

3 business in Burbank, California. Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Inc. is the
4 corporate successor to Warner Home Video Inc.
5
20.
On information and belief, MHF alleges that Defendant New Line
6 Productions, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in

7 Los Angeles, California.
8
21.
9 Cinema LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of
10 business in Los Angeles, California.
11
22.
12 Distribution, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in

13 Los Angeles, California.
14
23.
On information and belief, MHF alleges that Defendant Time Warner
15 Entertainment Company, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal

16 place of business in New York, New York.
THE PROTECTED WORKS
17
18
24.
The Whole Ten Yards is a comedy motion picture starring Bruce
19 Willis, Matthew Perry, Amanda Peet, and Kevin Pollak, which cost over $40 million
20 to produce. Zweite Academy is the producer of The Whole Ten Yards and owns
21 the copyright to it. The Whole Ten Yards is registered with the U.S. Copyright
22 Office, registration no. PA 1-242-530. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 to Exhibit
23 A is a true and correct copy of said registration, which reflects that Zweite
24 Academy is the sole author and copyright claimant for The Whole Ten Yards.
25
25.
Laws of Attraction is a romantic comedy motion picture starring
26 Pierce Brosnan and Julianne Moore, which cost over $32 million to produce.
27 Zweite Academy is the producer of Laws of Attraction and owns the copyright to
28
5
1 it. Laws of Attraction is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, registration
2 no. PA 1-255-628. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 to Exhibit A is a true and
3 correct copy of said registration, which reflects that Zweite Academy is the sole
4 author and copyright claimant for Laws of Attraction.
5
26.
The In Laws (a/k/a Til Death Do Us Part) is a romantic comedy
6 motion picture starring Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks, which cost over $40
7 million to produce. Erste Academy is the producer of The In Laws and owns the
8 copyright to it.
The In Laws is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office,
9 registration no. PA 1-148-567. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 to Exhibit A is a

10 true and correct copy of said registration, which reflects that Erste Academy is the
11 sole author and copyright claimant for The In Laws.
12
27.
Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever is an action motion picture starring Antonio
13 Banderas and Lucy Liu, which cost over $70 million to produce. Erste Academy is
14 the producer of Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever and owns the copyright to it. Ballistic:
15 Ecks vs. Sever is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, registration no. PA 116 060-732. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 to Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of
17 said registration, which reflects that Erste Academy is the sole author and copyright
18 claimant for Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever.
19
20
PLAINTIFFS EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO FRANCHISE PICTURES

28.
In 2001 and 2002, MHF, on the one hand, and Franchise Pictures, LLC
21 and certain of its wholly-owned and/or controlled special purpose entities (the
22 Franchise SPEs), on the other hand, entered into Motion Picture Distribution
23 Agreements for the Films (collectively, the Distribution Agreements and, each, a
24 Distribution Agreement), pursuant to which MHF granted certain Franchise SPEs
25 certain distribution rights in the Films and MHF would be entitled to receive a
26 minimum guaranty and a portion of certain gross receipts from the distribution
27 and other exploitation of the Films earmarked for MHF (the Exploitation
28
6
1 Receipts) including, without limitation, half of the Payment Corridor for each of
2 the Films (the MHF Corridor), an amount equal to 10% of the Domestic Gross
3 Receipts remaining after payment of a 15% distribution fee.
4
29.
To ensure the Exploitation Receipts were remitted to MHF, the
5 Distribution Agreements provided, in pertinent part, that Distributor shall

6 irrevocably instruct all sub-distributors and all other entities exploiting the Picture
7 [i.e., the Defendants] to pay all amounts from the exploitation of the Picture to
8 Fintage House, Netherlands, pursuant to the term of the Disbursement Agreement to
9 which reference is made hereby. The payment to Fintage House, Netherlands was
10 to accounts for the benefit of MHF. The Distribution Agreements also conditioned
11 any sale or assignment of MHFs copyrights (which would include a license) on the
12 proposed assignee expressly assuming Franchises obligations thereunder.
13
30.
With respect to Laws of Attraction, by way of illustration, under the
14 Distribution Agreement, Zweite Academy granted to Lake Distribution, Inc. (one of

15 the Franchise SPEs) a license to distribute, sub-distribute, exhibit, license, market,
16 broadcast, advertise, publicize and otherwise exploit Laws of Attraction for a
17 term of 16 years in a defined territory. In consideration for these rights, among
18 other things, Zweite Academy was entitled to a minimum guaranty amount as
19 well as certain amounts set forth on the Recoupment Schedule (attached to the
20 subject Distribution Agreement) including the MHF Corridor. Like the Distribution
21 Agreements for the other Films; the Distribution Agreement for Laws of
22 Attraction (i) required these monies be remitted by sub-distributors, like New Line,
23 to an MHF account and (ii) conditioned any sale or assignment of MHFs copyrights
24 (which would include a license) on the proposed assignee expressly assuming Lake
25 Distribution, Inc.s obligations to thereunder.
26
27
28
7
1
2
WARNER BROTHERS AND SUB-DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS

31.
Franchise Pictures LLC and the Franchise SPEs (collectively,
3 Franchise) entered into various sub-distribution agreements with certain of the

4 Defendants with respect to the Films and other motion pictures (the WB
5 Agreements). On information and belief, MHF alleges that some or all of the
6 Defendants (thorough their officers, agents, and/or employees) reviewed the
7 Distribution Agreements and were aware of the obligation of sub-distributors to
8 remit Exploitation Receipts (including the MHF Corridor) to an MHF account via
9 Fintage House, Netherlands. Not only was the Distribution Agreement a critical
10 link in the Films chain of title, but also, MHFs assignment of a 1% legal interest in
11 the subject copyright was made expressly subject to the terms and conditions of the
12 Distribution Agreement. Indeed, during the Franchise Pictures bankruptcy cases
13 (discussed next), Defendants conceded they were directly liable for remitting such
14 amounts to MHF and others owed similar corridor payments.
15
FRANCHISE BANKRUPTCY, PURPORTED TRANSFERS &
16
DEFENDANTS DISTRIBUTION AND COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
17
32.
On August 18, 2004, August 23, 2004, March 11, 2005, November 21,
18 2005, and December 1, 2005, Franchise Pictures LLC and many of its affiliated
19 entities, including certain of the Franchise SPEs (the Franchise Debtors), filed for
20 chapter 11 bankruptcy (the Franchise Cases).
21
33.
Prior to and during the Bankruptcy Cases, David Bergstein (together
22 with entities operated and/or controlled by him, Bergstein), through acquisition

23 vehicles (the Bergstein Buyers), attempted to acquire certain of the Franchise
24 rights, title and interests in and to certain films and film-related assets of Franchise
25 and its affiliates including, without limitation, through two bankruptcy court26 approved sale transactions (the Bergstein Sale). The Bergstein Sale (and other
27 transactions involving Bergstein and Franchise) included purported transfers of the
28
8
1 Franchise Debtors and Franchise SPEs rights, title and interest in and to each of
2 the Films, without the consent of MHF.
3
34.
Insofar as the Distribution Agreements were property of the Franchise
4 Debtors bankruptcy estates, the Distribution Agreements were rejected by the

5 Franchise Debtors under section 365 of title 11 of the United States Code (the
6 Bankruptcy Code) and, thus, any right Franchise may have had to distribute or
7 otherwise exploit the Films terminated as of August 18, 2004, the date Franchise
8 Pictures LLC filed bankruptcy. And because Defendants rights to distribute were
9 derivative of Franchises rights, the Defendants likewise had no right to distribute or
10 otherwise exploit the Films as of August 18, 2004. Alternatively Franchises failure
11 to obtain MHFs consent to any assignment of rights under the Distribution
12 Agreements where the assignee(s) did not assume Franchises obligations
13 thereunder rendered any such attempt to assign void and of no force and effect.
14
35.
As a consequence, in either case, without any right or license to
15 distribute or otherwise exploit the Films, Defendants knowingly distributed and

16 otherwise exploited the Films in willful violation of copyright law and/or MHFs
17 contract rights, bringing in millions of dollars to Defendants.
MHFS 2012 LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANTS
18
19
36.
On March 20, 2012, MHF filed a complaint against Defendants, styled
20 as MHF Zweite Academy Film GMBH & Co. KG et al. v. Warner Bros.
21 Entertainment Inc., et. al, case no: CV 12-2381-JFW, in the United States District
22 Court for the Central District of California, Western Division (defined above as the
23 Initial Action), for copyright infringement, breach of contract and unjust
24 enrichment arising out of Defendants continuing distribution and other exploitation
25 of the Films without permission or license from MHF and without appropriately
26 compensating MHF.
27
28
9
37.
On February 5, 2013, MHF and Defendants participated in a mediation
2 session which ultimately resulted in the parties entering into the Settlement
3 Agreement. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the parties submitted a
4 stipulation to dismiss the Initial Action with prejudice, and on February 22, 2013,
5 the Court entered an Order dismissing the case.
6
38.
Through the Settlement Agreement, the parties acknowledged and
7 agreed that MHF (through Zweite Academy and Erste Academy) holds the legal and
8 beneficial copyright interests in the Films subject, in the case of each Film, to a 1%
9 interest in the legal title in favor of the applicable Franchise SPE.
10
39.
Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendants agreed to pay MHF (and
11 paid MHF) an amount equal to $432,578 to settle MHFs claims for the period of
12 time prior to September 30, 2012. And for the period of time commencing October
13 1, 2012 (the period of time on and after October 1, 2012, the Post Settlement
14 Period), Defendants agreed to provide an accounting to MHF for each of the Films
15 in accordance with a schedule and remit any MHF Corridor (defined below in
16 Paragraph 28) payments due therefrom (the Post-Settlement Obligations).
17
DEFENDANTS BREACH OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
18
CONTINUING COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
19
40.
Four months after the parties settled, on June 29, 2013, Defendants
20 were in material breach of the Settlement Agreement by failing to provide

21 statements accompanied by payments of the amounts due thereupon to MHF
22 with regard to Ballistics: Ecks vs. Sever and Till Death Do Us Part (aka The In23 Laws)within ninety (90) days after March 31. On September 28, 2013, and
24 December 29, 2013, Defendants defaulted on like obligations with regard to Laws of
25 Attraction and The Whole Ten Yards, respectively. On June 29, 2014, for a second
26 year, Defendants defaulted on their obligations to provide accountings and payments
27 to MHF for Ballistics: Ecks vs. Sever and Till Death Do Us Part (aka The In28
10
1 Law). And on September 28, 2014, Defendants were again in default on their
2 accounting and payment obligations to MHF for the Laws of Attraction.
3
41.
On August 8, 2014, MHF filed a motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of
4 Civil Procedure 60(b), for entry of an order vacating the dismissal and settlement
5 and reinstating the litigation. On August 25, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition to
6 MHFs motion to vacate. On the same day, Defendants sent accountings and a
7 payment for $39,459, the aggregate amount Defendants alleged was due (or past
8 due) to MHF for the Films other than Laws of Attraction. In their opposition,
9 Defendants also contended they had no obligation to pay the MHF Corridor. In
10 their reply, MHF disputed Defendants contention. On September 12, 2014, the
11 Court denied MHFs motion to vacate.
12
42.
Defendants have failed to provide MHF with any accounting or
13 payments due to MHF for Laws of Attraction for the Post-Settlement Period. And
14 yet, Defendants continue to distribute and otherwise exploit the Laws of
15 Attraction and/or facilitate the distribution and exploitation thereof (without any
16 compensation to MHF). This constitutes infringement of MHFs copyrights for
17 which MHF seeks damages. As to all of the Films, Defendants have also breached
18 and continue to breach their Post-Settlement Obligations under the Settlement
19 Agreement by failing to make payments to MHF in accordance with the terms and
20 schedule provided in the Settlement Agreement.
21
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
22
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
23
43.
MHF repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 42, as though fully set
24 forth herein.
25
44.
The copyright in the Film Laws of Attraction is valid and owned by
26 Zweite Academy subject to a 1% legal interest in favor of Lake Distribution, Inc.

27
28
11
45.
Zweite Academys copyright right in the Film Laws of Attraction has
2 been duly registered at the United States Copyright office.

3
46.
An actual controversy exists between MHF and Defendants as to their
4 respective rights related to Laws of Attraction and specifically whether and to

5 what extent Defendants are entitled to distribute and otherwise exploit the Film.
6
47.
MHF requests a judicial determination and declaration that (a) Zweite
7 Academy is the producer of Laws of Attraction and owns the legal and beneficial
8 interests in the copyright for Laws of Attraction, subject to a 1% interest of the
9 legal title in favor of Lake Distribution, Inc. and (b) the 1% interest in the legal title
10 of the Laws of Attraction copyright in favor of Lake Distribution, Inc. did not and
11 does not confer co-owner status on Lake Distribution, Inc. or any of the Defendants
12 with respect to such copyright.
13
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
14
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
15
48.
16 forth herein.
17
49.
The copyright in the Film Laws of Attraction is valid and owned by
18 Zweite Academy as set forth above.

19
50.
Zweite Academys copyright right in the Film Laws of Attraction has
20 been duly registered at the United States Copyright office.

21
51.
The Defendants have infringed Zweite Academys exclusive rights in
22 the Film Laws of Attraction, by distributing it, copying it, publicly displaying it
23 and otherwise exploiting it.
24
52.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct, Zweite
25 Academy is entitled to actual damages and the Defendants profits attributable to the
26 infringement, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504(b).
27
28
12
53.
In the alternative, MHF is entitled to the maximum statutory damages
2 pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504(c) including separate awards where Defendants are

3 liable with third parties (eg., sub-distributors and downstream licensees), and such
4 other amounts as may be proper under 17 U.S.C. 504(c).
5
54.
MHF is further entitled to its attorneys fees and full costs pursuant to
6 17 U.S.C. 505.
7
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
55.
10 forth herein.
11
56.
By virtue of its exploitation of Laws of Attraction without properly
12 paying MHF, Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of MHF.
13 Defendants have been unjustly enriched in an amount to be determined at trial and
14 to which MHF is rightfully entitled.
15
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
16
BREACH OF CONTRACT (AS TO LAWS OF ATTRACTION, IN THE
17
ALTERNATIVE)
18
57.
19 forth herein.
20
58.
Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendants agreed, among other
21 things, to provide an accounting to MHF for each of the Films in accordance with a
22 schedule provided in the Settlement Agreement and remit to MHF any MHF
23 Corridor payments due therefrom.
24
59.
Defendants failure to satisfy any Post-Settlement Obligations with
25 respect to Laws of Attraction constitutes, individually and collectively, a material

26 breach of the Settlement Agreement.
27
28
13
60.
Defendants failure to timely satisfy its Post-Settlement Obligations for
2 the Films constitutes, individually and collectively, a material breach of the

3 Settlement Agreements.
4
61.
MHF has been damaged as a result of the Defendants breaches of the
5 Settlement Agreement.
6
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, MHF prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
1.
A judicial determination and declaration that (a) Zweite Academy is the
9 producer of Laws of Attraction and owns the legal and beneficial interests in the
10 copyright for Laws of Attraction, subject to a 1% interest of the legal title in favor
11 of Lake Distribution, Inc. and (b) the 1% interest in the legal title of the Laws of
12 Attraction copyright in favor of Lake Distribution, Inc. did not and does not confer
13 co-owner status on Lake Distribution, Inc. or any of the Defendants with respect to
14 such copyright.
15
2.
An order, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504, awarding MHF actual damages
16 and Defendants profits resulting from Defendants unlawful conduct, or maximum

17 statutory damages with respect to Laws of Attraction including separate awards
18 where Defendants are liable with third parties including, without limitation, sub19 distributors and downstream licensees;
20
3.
An order awarding compensatory damages in favor of MHF for all
21 damages sustained as a result of Defendants wrongdoing, including the amount by

22 which Defendants were unjustly enriched and/or all Exploitation Receipts that
23 should have been paid to MHF on account of Law of Attraction, but were not, in
24 an amount to be proven in trial;
25
4.
In the alternative to (2) and (3), an order awarding compensatory
26 damages in favor of MHF for all damages sustained as a result of Defendants

27
28
14
1 breaches of contract with respect to Laws of Attraction, in an amount to be proven

2 at trial;
3
5.
An order awarding compensatory damages in favor of MHF for all
4 damages sustained as a result of Defendants breaches of contract with respect to

5 Films, in an amount to be proven at trial;
6
6.
An order awarding prejudgment interest;
7.
An order requiring Defendants to pay MHFs costs, expenses and
8 attorneys fees; and

9
8.
An order granting MHF such other and further relief as the Court
10 deems just and proper.

11
By:
12 DATED: January 28, 2015

13
14
/s/ Lauren N. Gans

Jonathan S. Shenson
Lauren N. Gans
Shenson Law Group PC
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
1
2
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues triable by jury.
3
4
5 DATED: January 28, 2015
By:
6
7
/s/ Lauren N. Gans

Jonathan S. Shenson
Lauren N. Gans
Shenson Law Group PC
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16

MHF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

MHF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case 2:15-cv-00663 Document 1 Filed 01/28/15 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:1

1 Jonathan S. Shenson (State Bar No. 184250)

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

MHF ZWEITE ACADEMY FILM

Case No.: 2:15-cv-663

(caption continued on next page)

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 2:15-cv-00663 Document 1 Filed 01/28/15 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:2

A Delaware corporation, NEW LINE

Case 2:15-cv-00663 Document 1 Filed 01/28/15 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #:3

This is a complaint seeking damages under the copyright laws of the

MHF produced and owns the copyrights to the following motion

As detailed below, on March 20, 2012, MHF filed a complaint against

On February 5, 2013, MHF and Defendants participated in a mediation

24 session resulting in a settlement memorialized in writing that same day (the

Case 2:15-cv-00663 Document 1 Filed 01/28/15 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #:4

Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendants agreed to pay MHF (and

11 were in material breach of their Post-Settlement Obligations by failing to provide

On August 8, 2014, MHF filed a motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of

On August 25, 2014, Defendants filed an

Case 2:15-cv-00663 Document 1 Filed 01/28/15 Page 5 of 18 Page ID #:5

1 on Laws of Attraction. In their reply, MHF disputed Defendants contention. On

As detailed below, Zweite Academy is the producer of Laws of

Nevertheless, despite failing to provide Zweite

Defendants have also breached and continue to be in breach of their

13 obligations under the Settlement Agreement by failing to make timely payments to

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400

25 as, Zweite Academy) is a Kommanditgesellshaft, a form of limited partnership

Case 2:15-cv-00663 Document 1 Filed 01/28/15 Page 6 of 18 Page ID #:6

1 entertainment and other forms of distribution. Zweite Academys principal place of

Plaintiff MHF Erste Academy Film GmbH & Co. Produktions KG

5 (defined above as, Erste Academy) is also a Kommanditgesellshaft, a form of

On information and belief, MHF alleges that Defendant Warner Bros.

12 Entertainment Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in

On information and belief, MHF alleges that Defendant WB Studio

16 Enterprises Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in

On information and belief, MHF alleges that Defendant Warner Bros.

19 Pictures, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in

On information and belief, MHF alleges that Defendant Warner Bros.

22 International Television Distribution Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its

On information and belief, MHF alleges that Defendant Warner Bros.

25 Television Distribution, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

Case 2:15-cv-00663 Document 1 Filed 01/28/15 Page 7 of 18 Page ID #:7

On information and belief, MHF alleges that Defendant Warner Bros.

2 Home Entertainment Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

On information and belief, MHF alleges that Defendant New Line

6 Productions, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in

On information and belief, MHF alleges that Defendant New Line

On information and belief, MHF alleges that Defendant New Line

12 Distribution, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in

On information and belief, MHF alleges that Defendant Time Warner

15 Entertainment Company, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal

The Whole Ten Yards is a comedy motion picture starring Bruce

Laws of Attraction is a romantic comedy motion picture starring

Case 2:15-cv-00663 Document 1 Filed 01/28/15 Page 8 of 18 Page ID #:8

The In Laws (a/k/a Til Death Do Us Part) is a romantic comedy

The In Laws is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office,

9 registration no. PA 1-148-567. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 to Exhibit A is a

Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever is an action motion picture starring Antonio

PLAINTIFFS EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO FRANCHISE PICTURES

Case 2:15-cv-00663 Document 1 Filed 01/28/15 Page 9 of 18 Page ID #:9

To ensure the Exploitation Receipts were remitted to MHF, the

5 Distribution Agreements provided, in pertinent part, that Distributor shall