Carter Complaint Part 3

8/9/2019 Carter Complaint Part 3

1/23

Roberts RICK ROSS, but none of the Defendants had a right to use the name,

and Defendants ignored letters from Plaintiffs lawyer in October-November,

2006 to Def Jam, to stop using RICK ROSS name, and the 2006 letters are

attached hereto as Exhibits C, D, and E. An online VH1.com news article dated

07/27/2006 confirms that Defendant Roberts got signed by Defendants Carter,

Def Jam and UMG who invested millions, and a copy of that article is

attached and incorporated by reference as Exhibit H, as well as the full page

back cover RICK ROSS magazine photo print ad for Roberts at Exhibit I.

137. Plaintiff Rick Ross is suing to take his name and image back from

Defendants control, and to stop Defendants from fraudulently misusing his

name.

138. Plaintiff could not discover, through the exercise of reasonable due

diligence, the full scope of Defendants fraudulent acts because Defendants

never responded to reasonable letters from Plaintiffs attorney sent directly to

Def Jam in 2006, which were acknowledged being received by Nicole by

telephone, plus Defendants fraudulently concealed their unlawful music

activities from the public and Defendants failed to disclose or give any notice of

name use to Plaintiff, or seek his consent, and Defendants material

misrepresentations and omissions were intentional and done with intent to

deceive Plaintiff and falsely induce reasonable reliance that the Defendants

Case 2:10-cv-04528-PA -RZ Document 1-2 Filed 06/18/10 Page 1 of 23


2/23

would do right, not the fraudulent, harmful acts done.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against each of the

Defendants, individually, and/or jointly with each other, for civil damages

sustained as a result of Defendants fraudulent actions, misrepresentations and

omissions, from 2006 to the present, concealed from Plaintiff, and Plaintiff

request that this Court award monetary damages to Plaintiff in excess of $1

Million for Defendants fraudulent actions, which caused this lawsuit, and

Plaintiff demands legal remedies available under California law, common law,

and the California Civil Code, in an amount to be determined at trial, but no less

than $1 Million in compensatory damages, plus$1 Million in punitive damages,

plus all injunctive remedies available in this Court as the direct result of

Defendants unlawful fraudulent activities, and an order compelling Defendants

to pay all costs, disbursements and expenses paid by or incurred by Plaintiff, as a

result of Defendants unlawful conduct, including attorneys fees and court

costs, interest to the extent provided by law, and all such other damages and

legal and equitable relief this Court deems proper.

COUNT VIII

COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD

Plaintiff v. all Defendants, individually and jointly

139. Plaintiff Ricky D. Ross a/k/a RICK ROSS incorporates by

reference all the prior averments made in Paragraph 1 through 138, as if set forth



3/23

at length.

140. Defendants jointly engaged in fraudulent acts or omissions, to

deceive the Plaintiff and deceive others, in collusion, agreements by two or more

persons to defraud a person of his rights or obtain an object forbidden by law,

and in this case and controversy, the object forbidden by law was Plaintiffs

name and rights that Defendants wanted, and acted fraudulently, and

maliciously, to control, use and convert to Defendant Roberts benefit and

Defendants ownership, unlawfully, and Defendantsjointly employed fraudulent

means to accomplish their unlawful purposes, and lawful means, to accomplish

their unlawful purposes, by concerted business actions, secret combinations and

agreements concealed from Plaintiff.

141. Defendants jointly conspired and agreed to act in concert for the

purposes of committing, by their joint efforts unlawful acts, or lawful acts, by

unlawful means, to achieve the unlawful purpose of controlling Plaintiffs name,

likeness and identity which Defendants had no authority nor right to do

individually, nor jointly, but Defendants acted, in secret combination, as if they

obtained lawful authority or rights from Plaintiff or the USPTO to so act, and

Defendants held themselves out to the world, falsely, as the holders and owners

of Plaintiffs name and rights, while they exploited the Plaintiff, who was in

prison with a life sentence, and maliciously used his name and identity for



4/23

unlawful monetary gains, in violation of the Plaintiffs rights.

142. Defendants acted in concert and in an unlawful conspiracy to

defraud Plaintiff out of his name, its value and to manipulate use of the Rick

Ross name, for Defendants unlawful commercial purposes, without Plaintiffs

consent, while Plaintiff was in prison, and from 2006 to present, the Defendants

spent and made millions by using Plaintiffs RICK ROSS name, image and

reputation in commerce, while Plaintiff suffered financial loss, disrespect and

humiliation from the fraud.

143. Defendants Roberts allegedly started his rap career when he was

with Suave House Records, and then went on to Slip-n-Slide Records, at some

point marketing himself as RICK ROSS, a non-fictitious real name which he

used while Plaintiff was in prison, and based on his hit Hustlin and the

attention RICK ROSS name brought to Roberts, Defendant Roberts caught the

attention of Defendants Def Jam, UMG, and Carter who agreed to sign and

distribute Roberts music under the RICK ROSS name, but Defendants never

registered or cleared use ofthe RICK ROSS name, before using it, to brand

Roberts RICK ROSS and to violate Plaintiffs rights, which Defendants knew

or should have known, because Defendants were experienced in music business,

but Defendants started spending and preparing for the release of Roberts new

music, under Plaintiffs name, doing media, photo shoots and recordings, and



5/23

promoting Roberts using Plaintiffs name and entered in conduct and agreements

that constituted unlawful acts, designed to wrongfully help Defendants profit off

the name without consent, and Defendants contracted with each other and third

parties, to further commit unlawful acts, by using Plaintiffs name, without

authority, and evenplanned to take control over Plaintiffs name and use it for

Defendants commercial gain in the future, without Plaintiffs consent, and

refused to respond to Plaintiffs lawyers who contacted Defendants for Plaintiff

in 2006 and 2010, and put them on notice.

144. In fall, 2006, Defendants avoided and ignored the Plaintiffs

lawyers letters, thus Defendants knowingly engaged in unlawful actions in bad

faith, with prior notice that they were requested to cease and desist before

using the name..

145. Defendants conspiracy is continuing, and has not stopped, and the

purposes of the conspiracy have not changed since it began before 2006, when

Defendant Slip-n-Slide was involved with Roberts in the conspiracy from the

very beginning, then Carter and Def Jam joined in, and by refusing to respond to

letters from Plaintiffs lawyer, Def Jam showed it was part of this conspiracy,

and Defendants acted out their master plan in concert to profit off of Plaintiffs

name, and Def Jam and UMGs unexplained failure, intentional decision or

refusal, to act



6/23

responsibly and as legally expected and respond to letters from Plaintiffs 2006

and 2010 lawyers at Exhibits C, D, E and J respectively, shows a bad

pattern of practices, and a negligent or intentionally bad faith course of conduct,

that Def Jam and UMG, principals who invested financially in the conspiracy,

intended to conceal their dealings and profit to the tune of millions of dollars

unjustly from all.

146. Since 2006, as a direct result of the scheme, Defendants represented

to the public, media and the music community, fraudulently and knowingly, that

they and Roberts had legal rights to exploit the name RICK ROSS, when they

did not have any rights to Plaintiffs name, and the USPTO never approved a

trademark , so Defendants Def Jam, Universal, Carter and others acted

unlawfully, in bad faith,

maliciously, fraudulently, and with the intent to deceive Plaintiff and the public.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, as

co-conspirators against Plaintiff and Plaintiffs name, and the Defendants are

jointly liable to Plaintiff, for their collusive actions and unlawful conspiracy, in

an amount to be determined at trial, but no less than $10 Million compensatory,

and punitive, damages for Defendants malicious, manipulative, outrageous, and

egregious acts, retroactive to October, 2006 and an award of attorneys fees and

court costs, to Plaintiff for Defendants calculated plan and scheme to defraud



7/23

Plaintiff out of his rights, and then defraud the public into believing that

Defendants owned, or had right to use, Plaintiffs name and rights Defendants

didnt own, or control, and Defendants willful misconduct, entitles Plaintiff to

immediate, injunctive relief, the seizure of Defendants business records to

determine the full extent of the conspiracy and the right to a formal accounting

of Def Jam and UMG books, because Defendants conspiracy succeeded and

Defendants made millions of dollars and are still making millions up to the

present unlawfully off Plaintiffs name, whereby Plaintiff demands an order be

entered immediately forcing Defendants to cease and desist from any and all

use of Plaintiffs name pending Court orders regarding injunctive relief

requested by the Plaintiff..

COUNT IXTORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS

RELATIONS



reference the averments in Paragraph 1 through 146 herein as if fully set forth at

length.

148. Plaintiff was recently released from federal prison in November,

2009 and since that time Plaintiff has been attempting to find lawful gainful

employment and pursuing entertainment business opportunities in Los Angeles,

California, as to avoid involvement with any illegal activities, for which he was



8/23

incarcerated, and to attempt to clear his name from its negative influences as

Plaintiff desires to change his life for good, and to do positive things in his

community, in pursuit of his new life, and Plaintiff has been shopping his life

story for adaptation as a new movie, and recently he signed a production deal for

his movie using Plaintiffs name.

149. Due to the sheer magnitude of Defendants investment in Plaintiffs

name, for branding of Defendant Roberts, amounting to spending of millions of

dollars, and Defendants major positions of authority in the entertainment

industry, the Plaintiff has been prevented from securing contractual

commitments and by design Defendants have directly and indirectly interfered

with Plaintiffs business and commercial opportunities in his name, especially

on the Internet and his Web 2.0 activities, which are unduly limited and

restricted, by Defendants control over his name, so Plaintiff used his nickname,

and became the first federal inmate to create a social networking website called

FREEWAY ENTERPRISE.com,but as to Plaintiffs RICK ROSS name,

Defendants dominate its use in commerce.

150. Plaintiff has been, and is being, damaged by his inability to use his

own name, RICK ROSS, to pursue lawful business opportunities and internet

options, Defendants wrongful acts are preventing exercise of his constitutional

rights, and his domain name rights at 15 U.S.C. Section 1114, and 1125(d)



9/23

cyber-piracy violations under the official RICK ROSS website.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants and in

his favor, for reasonable damages for Defendants unlawful tortious interference

with his business and employment opportunities in California, and on award of

$50,000.00 for compensatory damages and $50,000.00 punitive damages, plus a

declaratory judgment order awarding Plaintiff sole rights to use, control, and do

business in Plaintiffs RICK ROSS name, and simultaneously an order to stop

Defendants immediately from using Plaintiffs name in any Defendants

business, especially in the music or entertainment industry, in Los Angeles,

Miami or NYC,plus attorneys fees and court costs, and sanctions against

Defendants for any failure to adhere to and abide by the Courts order, by an

action for contempt.

COUNT XUNJUST ENRICHMENT



reference all of the prior averments in Paragraph 1 through 150, as if fully set

forth at length.

152. Defendants, by way of accomplishment of their individual or joint

unlawful schemes or conspiracies since 2006, when Plaintiff was in prison, and

continuing up to and including the present, which Defendants benefited from

financially to the tune of millions of dollars, have been unjustly enriched by their



10/23

unlawful actions, which requires a balancing of the equities in favor of Plaintiff.

153. Defendant Roberts and the other Defendants should not be

permitted, and should not have ever been permitted, to exploit, manipulate and

use Plaintiffs name for their unlawful benefit without Plaintiffs consent and

Plaintiff acted to prevent Defendants from infringing, using, and intruding upon

his name, but there was little that he could do while he was in prison, and but for

his early release from a life sentence in prison, Plaintiff would not have been

able to challenge Defendants unauthorized use of his name and identity, and in

2006, Plaintiff and his family hired a lawyer to contact the Defendants, and

request that Defendants cease and desist their unlawful use of his RICK ROSS

name, but Defendants intentionally refused to respond to Plaintiff lawyers 4 or

5 letters to Def Jams New York corporate offices but receipt of Plaintiffs 2006

lawyers letters were acknowledged as received by a Def Jam employee Nicole

by telephone.

154. Defendants enriched themselves to the tune of million of dollars in

profit from Defendant Roberts use of Plaintiffs name, and sales, which resulted

from Defendants Def Jam and UMG direct branding, marketing, promoting and

financing of Defendant Roberts as RICK ROSS, using Plaintiffs name, image

and identity, which unjust enrichment occurred at Plaintiffs expense, and

Defendants should be required to make restitution in the millions of dollars to



11/23

the Plaintiff for the harm done to Plaintiff from Defendants unlawful use of his

name, identity and persona maliciously, retroactively from 2006 to the present or

trial.

155. Given Defendants tortious, blatantly unlawful actions, restitution

to Plaintiff in the millions of dollars is deemed appropriate under the

circumstances, as Defendants concealed their unlawful conspiracy from Plaintiff

and acted jointly against Plaintiffs financial interests to Plaintiffs detriment,

and Defendants never contacted Plaintiff to seek authorization, and never offered

Plaintiff anything nor responded to Plaintiffs reasonable inquiries about use of

his name by U.S. mail, plus Defendants manipulated and exploited Plaintiffs

name, image, identity and persona by fraudulent means, and damaged Plaintiffs

names value by their unlawful actions, and the money Defendants owe

Plaintiff made Roberts a star.

156. Defendants Roberts, Def Jam & UMG were unjustly enriched by

their wrongful use of Plaintiffs name and theyve illegally retained all the

benefits of their unlawful actions as a direct result of using Plaintiffs name, but

the financial benefits, under equity and justice, belong to Plaintiff in half, or in

part.

157. Defendants wrongful actions have caused substantial commercial,

mental, emotional and psychological damage to Plaintiff due to his loss of name.



12/23

s.

158. Defendants unlawful actions made Defendant Roberts a rap star

based upon using Plaintiffs name and identity to brand Defendant Roberts as

RICK ROSS, and Defendants have made millions of dollars by Roberts using

Plaintiffs name as his rap name, they exploited Plaintiffs name to the

maximum extent, so much so that Defendant Roberts shouldnt be allowed to

use Plaintiffs name any more, and Defendant Roberts is recognizable now as a

successful rap star by his face, features, tattoos and his voice, independent of

RICK ROSS name, so justice and Plaintiff demands, and equity compels, that

Defendants and Defendant Roberts be prohibited from any future use of

Plaintiffs name and identity, for any reason, and that Defendants profits be

determined, and disgorged, by lawful means of an accounting, and be placed in a

constructive trust, for the benefit of Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Ricky D. Ross a/k/a RICK ROSS demands

that Defendants be compelled to make financial restitution to Plaintiff in an

amount determined at trial, but not less than $10 Million, retroactive to 2006, a

formal accounting, by Plaintiffs forensic accountant, for unjust enrichment

funds due Plaintiff to be placed in a constructive trust for Plaintiffs sole benefit,

that Defendants be forever prohibited from using RICK ROSS name in the

future, that Defendants, Roberts and Def Jam, UMG, Slip-n-Slide Records and



13/23

Does, be required to notice third parties that they can no longer use Plaintiffs

name, that all Internet orphysical references to Defendant Roberts as RICK

ROSS be disabled, terminated, taken out of commerce or be authorized to be

seized, with fines being levied for violations of this Court Order, and an award

of attorneys fees and court costs to Plaintiff for Defendants outrageous,

malicious misconduct.

COUNT XINEGLIGENCE AND IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiff v. Defendants Def Jam, Carter, UMG and Universal specifically


reference all of the averments made in Paragraph 1 through 158, as if fully set

forth at length.

160. Defendants Def Jam, a major national record label, and Defendant

Universal Music Group referred to herein as UMG, a major worldwide

distributor of content, signed Defendant Roberts directly or signed Slip-n-Slide

Records which furnished Defendant Roberts musical services, under major

recording and distribution Agreements which are the underlying contracts on

which Plaintiffs actions herein complained against are based, and consequently,

Def Jam, Carter, and Universal, industry veterans and corporate officials in the

music business, had a fiduciary duty of care they owed to the holders of

intellectual property rights, to make sure that they didnt infringe upon the rights



14/23

of intellectual property owners by checking records and engaging in legal

searches to determine if rights users they contract with, or for, have obtained the

appropriate approvals from owners, before engaging in known unauthorized uses

of intellectual property and content.

161. As representatives of the music industry Def Jam and Universal

have a duty to the public and the industry to examine names, titles and rights

issues before they contract with parties who allege that they own names, and

rights to names, and certainly after they contract with the users of content, and

non-proprietary intellectual property, Defendants have a contractual duty to

review, verify, and authorize all desired uses before they begin to contract

further on the basis of any parties names, symbols, etc., especially in the rap

music industry, where artists often indiscriminately use names of prior

intellectual property owners.

162. Defendants Def Jam and UMG had a contractual relationship and

legal duty, to conduct due diligence regarding the use of Plaintiff RICK

ROSS trade name, and they used Carter as an agent and established a duty of

care owed Plaintiff, and to intellectual property right holders, to the public and

the industry, and they intentionally chose to violate Plaintiffs common law

trademark, and trade name, in their blind pursuit of commercial gain, on their

commercial RICK ROSS musical projects, from 2006 to the present,



15/23

consequently any planned commercial release of any alleged William Leonard

Roberts II projects, in RICK ROSS name, which includes an imminent 2010

album, must be enjoined due to this negligence.

163. But for Defendants Def Jams, Carter, and Universal Music

Groups breach of duty and known misconduct by apparent failure to clear the

rights to use Plaintiffs name RICK ROSS, which Defendant Roberts now

falsely claims that he made up, and did not take from the ex-drug dealer Plaintiff

Rick Ross, Defendant Roberts would not have been able to violate Plaintiffs

legal rights, since the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office failed to approve Roberts

RICK ROSS registration, and actions, conspiracy, harm, fraud,

misrepresentation, rights violations, and torts complained about herein by

Plaintiff, would not have occurred or existed, but they did occur and do exist,

and Defendants Def Jam and Universals negligence is, and was, the proximate

cause of the commercial and other injuries to Plaintiff , which Plaintiff demands

damages and equitable relief for the reckless omissions of duty.

164. Defendants Def Jam, Universal Music Group and Carter, neglected

their duty of care owed to Plaintiff, the public and their artist Defendant Roberts,

by not conducting the proper due diligence, and not informing parties that the

Plaintiffs name was not cleared and was in dispute, and with agent Carter doing



16/23

the bidding in 2006 for the rights to Defendant Roberts services, Def Jam and

Defendants got caught up in the Roberts deals self-dealing and ignored their

due diligence duties, proximately causing harm as the direct result of their

breaches of fiduciary duties and their unmistaken negligence under the

circumstances.

165. Defendants Def Jam and UMG have been unjustly enriched by their

breach of fiduciary duty, and equity requires that they do not profit from their

negligence.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands that Defendants Def Jam, Universal and

Carter, be required to submit to an accounting by Plaintiff of all earnings they

made from Defendant Roberts projects under the name RICK ROSS, and be

required to remit all earnings to a constructive trust for Plaintiff, and that said

Defendants be ordered to disgorge all their profits and pay them over to plaintiff

in amounts to be determined at trial, but not less than $10 Million, exclusive of

interest and costs, plus be ordered to pay attorneys fees, court costs, and

appropriate equitable relief, and submit to implementing name changes, and

website changes.

COUNT XIIEQUITABLE RELIEF AND FORMAL ACCOUNTING

Plaintiff vs. all Defendants, individually and jointly



17/23


reference all the averments in Paragraph 1 through 165 herein as if fully set forth

at length.

167. Plaintiff, as the damaged party who has an interest in gross receipts

from the use of his RICK ROSS name that Defendants have, and had, no right

to use, has a right to demand, for any purposes, including determining the extent

to which Defendants have profited from his RICK ROSS name, due to their

unlawful conduct, all books and records of the Defendants regarding the RICK

ROSS projects from 2005 to the present including royalty and publishing

statements, Business Affairs and Legal Department records, contracts,

correspondence and reports, legal opinions, an accounting of each Defendants

RICK ROSS profits, distribution statements, executive compensation

agreements, packages and bonuses to employees, and proof of all profits

received subject to the rights of Plaintiff, and furthermore, the Plaintiffs RICK

ROSS name search and trademark records, records detailing the sale of music

products under the name of RICK ROSS worldwide, from recordings,

ringtones, ring-back tones, online downloads, music synchronization uses,

concerts and special performances, merchandising, music publishing, and

Maybach Music Groups books, business records, contracts, and merchandising,

for all the recordings in RICK ROSS name.



18/23

168. Equity compels an accounting and injunctive relief against Defendants.

169. Plaintiff demands a Temporary Restraining Order and a joint

Preliminary Injunction against Defendants under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and U.S Central District of California Local Rules, L.R. 65-1,

and L.R. 7-4 thru 7-8, at time of filing and presentation of this Verified

Complaint under federal law, to bar or prevent the continued use of Plaintiffs

name publicly, on music or other business and/or commercial products that can

result in further harm to Plaintiff and additional likelihood of confusion between

Plaintiff, and Defendant Roberts, who unlawfully claimed the name RICK

ROSS and Defendants shall be ordered to submit to a computer forensics expert

review, and financial audit, to determine extent ofPlaintiffs trademark and

name rights use.

170. Plaintiff demands a Jury Trial under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, according to the Seventh Amendment of the United States

Constitution.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests a formal accounting of all of RICK

ROSS profits accounted, collected, reported and paid quarterly, or in royalties

or otherwise, Defendants legal and business records, for net profits accounting

purposes, and General corporate ledgers, and Plaintiff demands comprehensive

earnings, royalty and accounting statements, and equitable relief ordered by this



19/23

Court by Order, and due to Defendants proven willful misconduct, Defendants

be ordered to pay Plaintiffs legal and forensic accounting fees, court courts, and

transcription costs, ordinary, necessary legal expenses, and a waiver of any costs

for a bond.

DATED: June 15, 2010 LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN T. SHARPE

By: ________________________________Melvin T. SharpeAttorney for Plaintiff



20/23



21/23



22/23



23/23


Carter Complaint Part 3

Documents

Transcript of Carter Complaint Part 3