mhf

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT

Jonathan S. Shenson (State Bar No. 184250) [email protected] Lauren N. Gans (State Bar No. 247542) [email protected] SHENSON LAW GROUP PC 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 360 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: 310-400-5858

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

MHF ZWEITE ACADEMY FILM GMBH & CO. KG, a German limited partnership, and MHF ERSTE ACADEMY FILM GMBH & CO. PRODUKTIONS KG, a German limited partnership,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., a Delaware corporation, WB STUDIO ENTERPRISES INC., a Delaware corporation, WARNER BROS. PICTURES, INC., a Delaware corporation, WARNER BROS. INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION DISTRIBUTION INC., a Delaware corporation, WARNER BROS. TELEVISION DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Delaware corporation, WARNER BROS. HOME ENTERTAINMENT INC.,

(caption continued on next page)

Case No.: 2:15-cv-663


REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


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,

Defendants.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

281


Plaintiffs MHF Zweite Academy Film GmbH & Co. KG (“Zweite Academy”)

and MHF Erste Academy Film GmbH & Co. Produktions KG (“Erste Acadamy”,

and together with Zweite Academy, “MHF”), for their complaint against the above-

captioned defendants (collectively, including the corporate predecessors identified

herein, the “Defendants”) allege as follows:

OVERVIEW

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

United States, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., for willful copyright infringement by the

Defendants, unjust enrichment and breach of contract.

2. MHF produced and owns the copyrights to the following motion

pictures (collectively, the “Films”, and each, a “Film”): (i) “The Whole Ten Yards”;

(ii) “Laws of Attraction”; (iii) “Till Death Do Us Part” also known as “The In

Laws”; and (iv) “Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever.”

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

the Defendants for copyright infringement, breach of contract and unjust enrichment

arising out of Defendants’ continuing distribution and other exploitation of the

Films without permission or license from MHF and without appropriately

compensating MHF. MHF filed the complaint, styled as MHF Zweite Academy

Film GMBH & Co. KG et al. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., et. al, case no: CV

12-2381-JFW, in the United States District Court for the Central District of

California, Western Division (the “Initial Action”). A true and correct copy of the

complaint commencing the Initial Action is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

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

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

“Settlement Agreement”). A true and correct copy of the Settlement Agreement is

attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

282


parties submitted a stipulation to dismiss the Initial Action with prejudice, and on

February 22, 2013, the Court entered an Order dismissing the case.

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

paid MHF) an amount equal to $432,578 to settle MHF’s claims for the period of

time prior to September 30, 2012. And for the period of time commencing October

1, 2012 (the period of time on and after October 1, 2012, the “Post Settlement

Period”), Defendants agreed to provide an accounting to MHF for each of the Films

in accordance with a schedule and remit any MHF Corridor (defined below in

Paragraph 28) payments due therefrom (the “Post-Settlement Obligations”).

6. On June 29, 2013, four months after the parties settled, Defendants

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

statements “accompanied by payments of the amounts due thereupon” to MHF

“with regard to Ballistics: Ecks vs. Sever and Till Death Do Us Part (aka The In-

Laws)…within ninety (90) days after March 31”. On September 28, 2013, and

December 29, 2013, Defendants defaulted on like obligations with regard to Laws of

Attraction and The Whole Ten Yards, respectively. On June 29, 2014, for a second

year, Defendants defaulted on their obligations to provide accountings and payments

to MHF for “Ballistics: Ecks vs. Sever” and “Till Death Do Us Part (aka The In-

Law).” And on September 28, 2014, Defendants were again in default on their

accounting and payment obligations to MHF for the “Laws of Attraction”.

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

Civil Procedure 60(b), for entry of an order vacating the dismissal and settlement

and reinstating the Initial Action. On August 25, 2014, Defendants filed an

opposition to MHF’s motion to vacate and sent accountings and a payment for

$39,459, the aggregate amount Defendants alleged was due (or past due) to MHF

for the Films other than “Laws of Attraction”. In their opposition, Defendants also

contended the Settlement Agreement did not obligate them to pay the MHF Corridor


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

283


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

September 12, 2014, the Court denied MHF’s motion to vacate.

8. As detailed below, Zweite Academy is the producer of “Laws of

Attraction” and is the registered owner of the copyright for the Film. As part of the

Settlement Agreement, Defendants expressly acknowledged and agreed that MHF

Zweite Academy is the producer and owns the copyrights to “Laws of Attraction”

subject to a 1% interest in the legal title in favor of Franchise Pictures, LLC or one

of its special purpose entities. Nevertheless, despite failing to provide Zweite

Academy with any accounting or payments due to MHF during the Post-Settlement

Period, Defendants continue to distribute and otherwise exploit the “Laws of

Attraction” and/or facilitate the distribution and exploitation thereof.

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

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

MHF in accordance with terms provided in the Settlement Agreement.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. This Court has exclusive jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331, 1332, and 1338 in that this action involves claims and causes of action

arising under the United States Copyright Laws. And this Court has supplemental

jurisdiction over any causes of action arising under state law or contract law

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

in that each of the Defendants transacts business in Los Angeles County, California.

PARTIES

12. Plaintiff MHF Zweite Academy Film GmbH & Co. KG (defined above

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

existing under the laws of Germany. Zweite Academy is engaged in the production,

acquisition and distribution of motion pictures for theatrical exhibition and home


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

284


entertainment and other forms of distribution. Zweite Academy’s principal place of

business is Munich, Germany, though it has produced films for distribution

throughout the world.

13. Plaintiff MHF Erste Academy Film GmbH & Co. Produktions KG

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

limited partnership existing under the laws of Germany. Erste Academy is also

engaged in the production, acquisition and distribution of motion pictures for

theatrical exhibition and home entertainment and other forms of distribution. Erste

Academy’s principal place of business is Munich, Germany, though it has also

produced films for distribution throughout the world.

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

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

Burbank, California. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. is the corporate successor to

Warner Bros. Inc.

15. On information and belief, MHF alleges that Defendant WB Studio

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

Burbank, California.


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

Burbank, California.


International Television Distribution Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its

principal place of business in Burbank, California.


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

business in Burbank, California.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

285



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

business in Burbank, California. Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Inc. is the

corporate successor to Warner Home Video Inc.

20. On information and belief, MHF alleges that Defendant New Line

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

Los Angeles, California.


Cinema LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of

business in Los Angeles, California.


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

Los Angeles, California.

23. On information and belief, MHF alleges that Defendant Time Warner

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

place of business in New York, New York.

THE PROTECTED WORKS

24. “The Whole Ten Yards” is a comedy motion picture starring Bruce

Willis, Matthew Perry, Amanda Peet, and Kevin Pollak, which cost over $40 million

to produce. Zweite Academy is the producer of “The Whole Ten Yards” and owns

the copyright to it. “The Whole Ten Yards” is registered with the U.S. Copyright

Office, registration no. PA 1-242-530. Attached hereto as Exhibit “1” to Exhibit

“A” is a true and correct copy of said registration, which reflects that Zweite

Academy is the sole author and copyright claimant for “The Whole Ten Yards.”

25. “Laws of Attraction” is a romantic comedy motion picture starring

Pierce Brosnan and Julianne Moore, which cost over $32 million to produce.

Zweite Academy is the producer of “Laws of Attraction” and owns the copyright to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

286


it. “Laws of Attraction” is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, registration

no. PA 1-255-628. Attached hereto as Exhibit “2” to Exhibit “A” is a true and

correct copy of said registration, which reflects that Zweite Academy is the sole

author and copyright claimant for “Laws of Attraction.”

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

motion picture starring Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks, which cost over $40

million to produce. Erste Academy is the producer of “The In Laws” and owns the

copyright to it. “The In Laws” is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office,

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

true and correct copy of said registration, which reflects that Erste Academy is the

sole author and copyright claimant for “The In Laws.”

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

Banderas and Lucy Liu, which cost over $70 million to produce. Erste Academy is

the producer of “Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever” and owns the copyright to it. “Ballistic:

Ecks vs. Sever” is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, registration no. PA 1-

060-732. Attached hereto as Exhibit “4” to Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of

said registration, which reflects that Erste Academy is the sole author and copyright

claimant for “Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever.”

PLAINTIFFS’ EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO FRANCHISE PICTURES

28. In 2001 and 2002, MHF, on the one hand, and Franchise Pictures, LLC

and certain of its wholly-owned and/or controlled special purpose entities (the

“Franchise SPEs”), on the other hand, entered into Motion Picture Distribution

Agreements for the Films (collectively, the “Distribution Agreements” and, each, a

“Distribution Agreement”), pursuant to which MHF granted certain Franchise SPEs

certain distribution rights in the Films and MHF would be entitled to receive a

“minimum guaranty” and a portion of certain “gross receipts” from the distribution

and other exploitation of the Films earmarked for MHF (the “Exploitation


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT

Receipts”) including, without limitation, half of the “Payment Corridor” for each of

the Films (the “MHF Corridor”), an amount equal to 10% of the “Domestic Gross

Receipts” remaining after payment of a 15% distribution fee.

29. To ensure the Exploitation Receipts were remitted to MHF, the

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

irrevocably instruct all sub-distributors and all other entities exploiting the Picture

[i.e., the Defendants] to pay all amounts from the exploitation of the Picture … to

Fintage House, Netherlands, pursuant to the term of the Disbursement Agreement to

which reference is made hereby.” The payment to Fintage House, Netherlands was

to accounts for the benefit of MHF. The Distribution Agreements also conditioned

any sale or assignment of MHF’s copyrights (which would include a license) on the

proposed assignee expressly assuming Franchise’s obligations thereunder.

30. With respect to “Laws of Attraction”, by way of illustration, under the

Distribution Agreement, Zweite Academy granted to Lake Distribution, Inc. (one of

the Franchise SPEs) a license to “distribute, sub-distribute, exhibit, license, market,

broadcast, advertise, publicize and otherwise exploit” “Laws of Attraction” for a

term of 16 years in a defined territory. In consideration for these rights, among

other things, Zweite Academy was entitled to a “minimum guaranty” amount as

well as certain amounts set forth on the Recoupment Schedule (attached to the

subject Distribution Agreement) including the MHF Corridor. Like the Distribution

Agreements for the other Films; the Distribution Agreement for “Laws of

Attraction” (i) required these monies be remitted by sub-distributors, like New Line,

to an MHF account and (ii) conditioned any sale or assignment of MHF’s copyrights

(which would include a license) on the proposed assignee expressly assuming Lake

Distribution, Inc.’s obligations to thereunder.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


WARNER BROTHERS AND SUB-DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS

31. Franchise Pictures LLC and the Franchise SPEs (collectively,

“Franchise”) entered into various sub-distribution agreements with certain of the

Defendants with respect to the Films and other motion pictures (the “WB

Agreements”). On information and belief, MHF alleges that some or all of the

Defendants (thorough their officers, agents, and/or employees) reviewed the

Distribution Agreements and were aware of the obligation of sub-distributors to

remit Exploitation Receipts (including the MHF Corridor) to an MHF account via

Fintage House, Netherlands. Not only was the Distribution Agreement a critical

link in the Film’s chain of title, but also, MHF’s assignment of a 1% legal interest in

the subject copyright was made expressly subject to the terms and conditions of the

Distribution Agreement. Indeed, during the Franchise Pictures bankruptcy cases

(discussed next), Defendants conceded they were directly liable for remitting such

amounts to MHF and others owed similar corridor payments.

FRANCHISE BANKRUPTCY, PURPORTED TRANSFERS &

DEFENDANTS DISTRIBUTION AND COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

32. On August 18, 2004, August 23, 2004, March 11, 2005, November 21,

2005, and December 1, 2005, Franchise Pictures LLC and many of its affiliated

entities, including certain of the Franchise SPEs (the “Franchise Debtors”), filed for

chapter 11 bankruptcy (the “Franchise Cases”).

33. Prior to and during the Bankruptcy Cases, David Bergstein (together

with entities operated and/or controlled by him, “Bergstein”), through acquisition

vehicles (the “Bergstein Buyers”), attempted to acquire certain of the Franchise’

rights, title and interests in and to certain films and film-related assets of Franchise

and its affiliates including, without limitation, through two bankruptcy court-

approved sale transactions (the “Bergstein Sale”). The Bergstein Sale (and other

transactions involving Bergstein and Franchise) included purported transfers of the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

289


Franchise Debtors’ and Franchise SPEs’ rights, title and interest in and to each of

the Films, without the consent of MHF.

34. Insofar as the Distribution Agreements were property of the Franchise

Debtors’ bankruptcy estates, the Distribution Agreements were “rejected” by the

Franchise Debtors under section 365 of title 11 of the United States Code (the

“Bankruptcy Code”) and, thus, any right Franchise may have had to distribute or

otherwise exploit the Films terminated as of August 18, 2004, the date Franchise

Pictures LLC filed bankruptcy. And because Defendants’ rights to distribute were

derivative of Franchise’s rights, the Defendants likewise had no right to distribute or

otherwise exploit the Films as of August 18, 2004. Alternatively Franchise’s failure

to obtain MHF’s consent to any assignment of rights under the Distribution

Agreements where the assignee(s) did not assume Franchise’s obligations

thereunder rendered any such attempt to assign void and of no force and effect.

35. As a consequence, in either case, without any right or license to

distribute or otherwise exploit the Films, Defendants knowingly distributed and

otherwise exploited the Films in willful violation of copyright law and/or MHF’s

contract rights, bringing in millions of dollars to Defendants.

MHF’S 2012 LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

36. On March 20, 2012, MHF filed a complaint against Defendants, styled

as MHF Zweite Academy Film GMBH & Co. KG et al. v. Warner Bros.

Entertainment Inc., et. al, case no: CV 12-2381-JFW, in the United States District

Court for the Central District of California, Western Division (defined above as the

“Initial Action”), for copyright infringement, breach of contract and unjust

enrichment arising out of Defendants’ continuing distribution and other exploitation

of the Films without permission or license from MHF and without appropriately

compensating MHF.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

2810


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

session which ultimately resulted in the parties entering into the Settlement

Agreement. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the parties submitted a

stipulation to dismiss the Initial Action with prejudice, and on February 22, 2013,

the Court entered an Order dismissing the case.

38. Through the Settlement Agreement, the parties acknowledged and

agreed that MHF (through Zweite Academy and Erste Academy) holds the legal and

beneficial copyright interests in the Films subject, in the case of each Film, to a 1%

interest in the legal title in favor of the applicable Franchise SPE.

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

paid MHF) an amount equal to $432,578 to settle MHF’s claims for the period of

time prior to September 30, 2012. And for the period of time commencing October

1, 2012 (the period of time on and after October 1, 2012, the “Post Settlement

Period”), Defendants agreed to provide an accounting to MHF for each of the Films

in accordance with a schedule and remit any MHF Corridor (defined below in

Paragraph 28) payments due therefrom (the “Post-Settlement Obligations”).

DEFENDANTS’ BREACH OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND

CONTINUING COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

40. Four months after the parties settled, on June 29, 2013, Defendants

were in material breach of the Settlement Agreement by failing to provide

statements “accompanied by payments of the amounts due thereupon” to MHF

“with regard to Ballistics: Ecks vs. Sever and Till Death Do Us Part (aka The In-

Laws)…within ninety (90) days after March 31”. On September 28, 2013, and

December 29, 2013, Defendants defaulted on like obligations with regard to Laws of

Attraction and The Whole Ten Yards, respectively. On June 29, 2014, for a second

year, Defendants defaulted on their obligations to provide accountings and payments

to MHF for “Ballistics: Ecks vs. Sever” and “Till Death Do Us Part (aka The In-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

2811


Law).” And on September 28, 2014, Defendants were again in default on their

accounting and payment obligations to MHF for the “Laws of Attraction”.

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

Civil Procedure 60(b), for entry of an order vacating the dismissal and settlement

and reinstating the litigation. On August 25, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition to

MHF’s motion to vacate. On the same day, Defendants sent accountings and a

payment for $39,459, the aggregate amount Defendants alleged was due (or past

due) to MHF for the Films other than “Laws of Attraction”. In their opposition,

Defendants also contended they had no obligation to pay the MHF Corridor. In

their reply, MHF disputed Defendants’ contention. On September 12, 2014, the

Court denied MHF’s motion to vacate.

42. Defendants have failed to provide MHF with any accounting or

payments due to MHF for “Laws of Attraction” for the Post-Settlement Period. And

yet, Defendants continue to distribute and otherwise exploit the “Laws of

Attraction” and/or facilitate the distribution and exploitation thereof (without any

compensation to MHF). This constitutes infringement of MHF’s copyrights for

which MHF seeks damages. As to all of the Films, Defendants have also breached

and continue to breach their Post-Settlement Obligations under the Settlement

Agreement by failing to make payments to MHF in accordance with the terms and

schedule provided in the Settlement Agreement.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

43. MHF repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 42, as though fully set

forth herein.

44. The copyright in the Film “Laws of Attraction” is valid and owned by

Zweite Academy subject to a 1% legal interest in favor of Lake Distribution, Inc.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


45. Zweite Academy’s copyright right in the Film “Laws of Attraction” has

been duly registered at the United States Copyright office.

46. An actual controversy exists between MHF and Defendants as to their

respective rights related to “Laws of Attraction” and specifically whether and to

what extent Defendants are entitled to distribute and otherwise exploit the Film.

47. MHF requests a judicial determination and declaration that (a) Zweite

Academy is the producer of “Laws of Attraction” and owns the legal and beneficial

interests in the copyright for “Laws of Attraction”, subject to a 1% interest of the

legal title in favor of Lake Distribution, Inc. and (b) the 1% interest in the legal title

of the “Laws of Attraction” copyright in favor of Lake Distribution, Inc. did not and

does not confer co-owner status on Lake Distribution, Inc. or any of the Defendants

with respect to such copyright.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT


forth herein.

49. The copyright in the Film “Laws of Attraction” is valid and owned by

Zweite Academy as set forth above.

50. Zweite Academy’s copyright right in the Film “Laws of Attraction” has

been duly registered at the United States Copyright office.

51. The Defendants have infringed Zweite Academy’s exclusive rights in

the Film “Laws of Attraction”, by distributing it, copying it, publicly displaying it

and otherwise exploiting it.

52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Zweite

Academy is entitled to actual damages and the Defendants’ profits attributable to the

infringement, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b).


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

2813


53. In the alternative, MHF is entitled to the maximum statutory damages

pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) including separate awards where Defendants are

liable with third parties (eg., sub-distributors and downstream licensees), and such

other amounts as may be proper under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).

54. MHF is further entitled to its attorneys’ fees and full costs pursuant to

17 U.S.C. § 505.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

UNJUST ENRICHMENT


forth herein.

56. By virtue of its exploitation of “Laws of Attraction” without properly

paying MHF, Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of MHF.

Defendants have been unjustly enriched in an amount to be determined at trial and

to which MHF is rightfully entitled.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF:

BREACH OF CONTRACT (AS TO “LAWS OF ATTRACTION”, IN THE

ALTERNATIVE)


forth herein.

58. Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendants agreed, among other

things, to provide an accounting to MHF for each of the Films in accordance with a

schedule provided in the Settlement Agreement and remit to MHF any MHF

Corridor payments due therefrom.

59. Defendants’ failure to satisfy any Post-Settlement Obligations with

respect to “Laws of Attraction” constitutes, individually and collectively, a material

breach of the Settlement Agreement.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


60. Defendants’ failure to timely satisfy its Post-Settlement Obligations for

the Films constitutes, individually and collectively, a material breach of the

Settlement Agreements.

61. MHF has been damaged as a result of the Defendants breaches of the

Settlement Agreement.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, MHF prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

1. A judicial determination and declaration that (a) Zweite Academy is the

producer of “Laws of Attraction” and owns the legal and beneficial interests in the

copyright for “Laws of Attraction”, subject to a 1% interest of the legal title in favor

of Lake Distribution, Inc. and (b) the 1% interest in the legal title of the “Laws of

Attraction” copyright in favor of Lake Distribution, Inc. did not and does not confer

co-owner status on Lake Distribution, Inc. or any of the Defendants with respect to

such copyright.

2. An order, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504, awarding MHF actual damages

and Defendants’ profits resulting from Defendants’ unlawful conduct, or maximum

statutory damages with respect to “Laws of Attraction” including separate awards

where Defendants are liable with third parties including, without limitation, sub-

distributors and downstream licensees;

3. An order awarding compensatory damages in favor of MHF for all

damages sustained as a result of Defendants’ wrongdoing, including the amount by

which Defendants were unjustly enriched and/or all Exploitation Receipts that

should have been paid to MHF on account of “Law of Attraction”, but were not, in

an amount to be proven in trial;

4. In the alternative to (2) and (3), an order awarding compensatory

damages in favor of MHF for all damages sustained as a result of Defendants’


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

2815


breaches of contract with respect to “Laws of Attraction”, in an amount to be proven

at trial;

5. An order awarding compensatory damages in favor of MHF for all

damages sustained as a result of Defendants’ breaches of contract with respect to

Films, in an amount to be proven at trial;

6. An order awarding prejudgment interest;

7. An order requiring Defendants to pay MHF’s costs, expenses and

attorneys’ fees; and

8. An order granting MHF such other and further relief as the Court

deems just and proper.

DATED: January 28, 2015 By: /s/ Lauren N. Gans Jonathan S. Shenson Lauren N. Gans Shenson Law Group PC


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

2816


DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues triable by jury.

DATED: January 28, 2015 By: /s/ Lauren N. Gans Jonathan S. Shenson Lauren N. Gans Shenson Law Group PC


Documents

mhf