Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Trial Division
Civil Cover Sheet E-Filing Number: 1809039280
PLAINTIFF'S NAME DEFENDANT'S NAME
A. CHARLES PERUTO, JR. SIXX DEGREES MEDIA
1V - REPLEVIN
RELATED PENDING CASES (LIST BY CASE CAPTION AND DOCKET NUMBER) IS CASE SUBJECT TO
COORDINATION ORDER?
YES NO
SEP 19 2018
A. SILIGRINI
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Plaintiff/Petitioner/Appellant: A. CHARLES PERUTO, JR.
Papers may be served at the address set forth below.
83282 jbj@beasleyfirm.com
docu-series slated for 2019 release by the Amazon and Roc Nation defendants.
4. After the interview concluded and Mr. Peruto instructed the defendants’
personnel to go off the record, the defendants’ personnel stated that they were off the
6. These defendants intentionally digitized and stored this intercepted off the
record conversation; this has made permanent the sounds of the conversation, and its
7. These illegally obtained and digitized recordings fall under the definition
of property.
§5701, et seq) (Wiretap Act) is plain that Pennsylvania is a “two consent” state, meaning
intercept the oral communication after Mr. Peruto instructed them to go off the record.
for the on the record interview once that interview was concluded and the parties went
11. These defendants illegally intercepted the entire off the record oral
communication; Mr. Peruto is an Aggrieved Person under the Wiretap Act, as these
Complaint in Replevin demands that these defendants immediately return this property
to him, with sole, temporary possession of digitized audio of the illegally intercepted
oral communication while this lawsuit is pending, and then permanent, sole possession
of the digitized audio of the illegally intercepted oral communication upon a final
judgment.
13. Mr. Peruto also demands that the defendants permanently destroy all
electronic or other files in which the intercepted oral communication exists, and not use
these intercepted oral communications for any purposes, including the upcoming Meek
14. Therefore, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1701, Mr. Peruto brings this Action in
PARTIES
engaged by Meek Mill and, upon information and belief, is working with the co-
defendants in the upcoming Meek Mill Documentary Series; Sixx Degrees Media
substantial business in Philadelphia County, and has an address for service of process
identified above.
18. Defendant Amazon Digital Services, LLC is a branch of Amazon, and has a
19. Defendant Amazon Prime Video is a branch of Amazon, and has a service
20. Defendant The IPC Corporation (IPC) is the entity that conducted the 30
May 2018 interview at Mr. Peruto’s Philadelphia office; a Ms. Kim (believed to be Hoo
In Kim of IPC) attended and participated in the interview. IPC has an address
identified above.
21. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1072 and 1073, Jurisdiction and venue is proper in
Philadelphia County as the Defendants all participated in the Mr. Peruto interview in
Philadelphia, and intercepted and digitized the off the record discussion in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia County.
23. On 30 May, 2018, Hoo In Kim, on behalf of IPC and the other defendants,
conducted an interview of Mr. Peruto in his Philadelphia office for purposes of the
24. Defendant IPC describes on its website the purpose of the Meek Mill
Documentary Series:
25. As part of the defendants’ preparation for this Documentary Series, they
26. This 30 May 2018 interview was conducted on behalf of all defendants.
27. After the interview was completed, Mr. Peruto instructed the interviewer,
believed to be Ms. Kim, to go off the record and to stop recording; she agreed and had
record oral conversation and permanently digitizing the illegally intercepted oral
communication.
29. The only reason that Mr. Peruto agreed to participate in the off the record
discussion was because he withdrew permission and consent to intercept any aspect of
30. Had these defendants informed Mr. Peruto that they were continuing the
audio recording, and intercepting the oral communication, he would have ceased the
speak so that they could intercept and permanently digitize the protected oral
communications.
33. These illegally intercepted and digitized oral communications were then
edited and leaked to the press so that Mr. Peruto’s off the record words would be
manipulated against him and his client, Judge Brinkley, and to maliciously further their
own agenda in maximizing the buzz and profitability of the upcoming Meek Mill
Documentary Series.
COUNT I
REPLEVIN
34. Mr. Peruto incorporates the prior paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
off the record oral communications, and permanently digitized the illegally intercepted
oral communication.
defendants.
38. Mr. Peruto has an immediate right to the sole possession of the digitized
oral communication.
40. Defendants must return all digitized recordings of Mr. Peruto’s off the
record discussion, destroy any copies they have after returning Mr. Peruto’s property to
him, and further be prohibited from using any part of it in any way.
41. Mr. Peruto demands sole, temporary possession of digitized audio of the
illegally intercepted oral communication while this lawsuit is pending, and then
permanent, sole possession of the digitized audio of the illegally intercepted oral
• a prohibition against any and all of the defendants from using of any
illegally intercepted and digitized recordings in any fashion;
ANY ENTITY OVER WHICH ANY PARTY TO THIS ACTION HAS CONTROL, OR
FROM WHOM ANY PARTY TO THIS ACTION HAS ACCESS TO, ANY DOCUMENTS,
This case is subject to the Commerce Program because it is not an arbitration matter and it falls within one or
more of the following types (check all applicable):
1. Actions relating to the internal affairs or governance, dissolution or liquidation, rights or obligations
between or among owners (shareholders, partners, members), or liability or indemnity of managers
(officers, directors, managers, trustees, or members or partners functioning as managers) of business
corporations, partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability companies or partnerships,
professional associations, business trusts, joint ventures or other business enterprises, including but
not limited to any actions involving interpretation of the rights or obligations under the organic law
(e.g., Pa. Business Corporation Law), articles of incorporation, by-laws or agreements governing such
enterprises;
2. Disputes between or among two or more business enterprises relating to transactions, business
relationships or contracts between or among the business enterprises. Examples of such transactions,
relationships and contracts include:
e. Surety bonds;
f. Purchases or sales or leases of, or security interests in, commercial, real
or personal property; and
g. Franchisor/franchisee relationships.
X 4. "Business torts," such as claims of unfair competition, or interference with contractual relations or
prospective contractual relations;
6. Actions relating to securities, or relating to or arising under the Pennsylvania Securities Act;
7. Derivative actions and class actions based on claims otherwise falling within these ten types, such as
shareholder class actions, but not including consumer class actions, personal injury class actions, and
products liability class actions;
9. Declaratory judgment actions brought by insurers, and coverage dispute and bad faith claims brought
by insureds, where the dispute arises from a business or commercial insurance policy, such as a
Comprehensive General Liability policy;
10. Third-party indemnification claims against insurance companies where the subject insurance policy
is a business or commercial policy and where the underlying dispute would otherwise be subject to
the Commerce Program, not including claims where the underlying dispute is principally a personal
injury claim.