Howard Films v. Miller - California complaint.pdf
-
Upload
mark-h-jaffe -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Howard Films v. Miller - California complaint.pdf
-
8/16/2019 Howard Films v. Miller - California complaint.pdf
1/13
1 o 32)
--
0
,
0
•
.
·
;;; ....
•
<
:;d.
z
<
z
.
•
=:::
w
•
w
,
>
•
'-'
CD
•
. Michael Kernan, State BarNo. 181747
R. Paul Katrinak, State Bar No. f64057
2 Sean A. Pope, State Bar No. 299018
THE KERNAN LAW FIRM
3 9663 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 450
Beverly Hills, California 90210
4 Telephone: (310) 490-9777
Facsimile: (310) 861-0503
5
Attorney for Plaintiff
6 HOWARD FILMS, INC.
7
•
s U p e r l o r ~ h r E p .
Ountv
of l
alifornia
8 Aoqeles
M Y 202016
Sherri
A c a ~ •
y_ OfficerlClert
§n unya
olden Deputy
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11
HOWARD FILMS, INC., a California
12 corporation,
13
Plaintiff
14
v.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
15
JIMMY MILLER, an individual; JULIE )
DARMODY, an individual; MOSAIC MEDIA )
16 GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; and )
DOES I through 100, )
17
)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.
Be
6
21
21
7
COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES
FOR:
1) BREACH OF CONFIDENCE
COMPLAINT
Doc
1 Page 1 - Doc ID
=
1653079228 - Doc
Type =
OT
-
8/16/2019 Howard Films v. Miller - California complaint.pdf
2/13
2 o 32)
r:;::
,.i 1
','
'
2
:;;p
•
•
OMPLAINT
2 On
information and belief, Plaintiff Howard Films, Inc. (hereinafter sometimes referred
3 to as Howard Films ) alleges as follows:
4
L
NATURE
OF THE ACTION
5
I This action arises from the Defendants' misappropriation, unauthorized use and
6 exploitation of Plaintiffs work, ideas and concepts for an innovative film entitled Get Hard,
7 also koown as Tbe Prison Coach (collectively referred to herein as Concepts ) resulting
8 from the Defendants' unexcused breach
of
confidence that existed between Plaintiff and
9 Defendants.
10
2.
The treatment, ideas, and story materials referred to herein were submitted and
II presented to Defendants Jimmy Miller, Julie Darrnondy, Mosaic Media Group, Inc. and Does 1
12 through 100 in or about May of2012. Pla intif fs agent followed up multiple times regarding
13 the submission with Defendants and received no response. Plaintiff believed that there was no
14 interest on the part
of
Defendants in the Concepts.
15
3.
Plaintiff presented the Concepts to Defendants consistent with well-established
16 customs and practices of the entertainment industry and on the mutually understood condition
17
and bilateral expectation that Defendants would not disclose, use andlor exploit the Concepts
18 without Plainti ff s permission andlor without compensating Plaintiff in the form of payments,
19 credit and other consideration to the Plaintiff.
20
4. However, instead
of
compensating Plaintiff for its Concepts, Defendants
21
misappropriated, used, exploited Pla intiff s Concepts assisting in the production of the hit film
22
Get Hard without Plainti ffs permission andlor without compensating Plaintiff in the form of
23
payments, credit, and other consideration to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not discover the use of
24
Plaintiffs Concepts by Defendants until after the release
of
Get Hard on March 27, 2015.
25
5.
Get Hard has now enriched Defendants to the tune of millions of dollars.
26
II
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
27
6. On May 4, 2011, a Ninth Circuit n bane panel published its decision, Montz v.
28
Pilgrim Films Television Inc. 649 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2011) and determined that Plaintif fs
2
COMPLAINT
Doc 1 Page 2 -
Doc
ID = 1653079228 -
Doc
Type =
OT
-
8/16/2019 Howard Films v. Miller - California complaint.pdf
3/13
-
8/16/2019 Howard Films v. Miller - California complaint.pdf
4/13
4 o
32
• •
anagement services. Defendant Mosaic Media Group, Inc. conducts business in Los
2 Angeles, California.
3
4
5
13.
14.
15.
[Intentionally left blank].
[Intentionally left blank].
Plainti ff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued
6 hereunder as DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, and therefore sue these Defendants by such
7 fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the
8 fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein
9 alleged, and that Plaintiff 's damages which are herein alleged were proximately caused by their
10
conduct. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities
of
Defendants DOES 1 through 100 when ascertained. These fictitiously named Defendants, and
c
12 each of them are, and at all times mentioned were, acting in concert with Defendants, and the
.
13 parties DOES 1 through 100 inclusive are sued herein individually and joined as Defendants in
d '§
4 this action. Hereinafter Defendant Jimmy Miller, Defendant Julie Darmody, Defendant
u
: ;;
5 Mosaic Media Group, Inc., and Does I through 100 will be collectively referred to as
w '
x 6
Defendants.
'
>
•
'
'1
.
-
:::;:.
::;:
::C'
17
16.
Defendants
at
all times herein mentioned were agents, employees and/or alter
8 egos of one another as co-defendants. In doing things hereinafter alleged, Defendants were
19 acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment and/or alter ego capacity with
20 the permission and consent of the co-defendants. The allegations of this Complaint are stated
2 on information and belief and are likely to have further evidentiary support after a reasonable
22 opportunity for further investigation and/or discovery.
23
24
25
26
27
28
17. At all material times hereto, Defendants, and each of them, were the alter ego of
each other,
or
were in a principal and agency relationship, and as such were acting with the
implied or ostensible authority of each other. On that basis, Plaintif f alleges that each of the
Defendants is the alter ego of each other Defendant in that each Defendant is but an
instrumentality or conduit of one or more of the other Defendants in the pursuit of a single
business venture such that disregard of the separate nature of the Defendants' corporate
4
COMPLAINT
Doc 1
Page
4 - Doc ID
1653079228
- Doc Type OT
-
8/16/2019 Howard Films v. Miller - California complaint.pdf
5/13
5 o 32)
•
•
organization, or other association, is necessary to prevent an injustice upon Plaintiff. In this
2 regard, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each
of
the
3 Defendants has common employees or agents, and at the time this matter arose, was operating
4
from the same business location, and using the financial resources of the other Defendants, and
5
each of the Defendants tends to benefit jointly from the transactions entered into by one or
6 more of the other Defendants.
7
IV.
ALLEGATIONS COMMMON
TO
ALL COUNTS
8
18
When Plaintiff conceived the Concepts for the film the written format and
9 treatment had several variations.
1
19. Plaintiff registered the treatment for the Concepts with the Writers' Guild at the
endof2011.
12
13
14
15
16
17
20. The Concepts included ideas and material relating to a new, innovative, and
exciting film that included but was not limited to the elements set forth in Exhibit
A and
incorporated herein as fully set forth.
21. From about May of2012, Plaintiff and/or its agents, managers, counsel and/or
representatives on their behalf, presented the Concepts to Defendants, their predecessors,
agents, employees and/or alter egos acting within the course and scope
of
such agency,
18 employment and/or alter ego capacity, and with the permission and consent
of
Defendants, and
19 all ofthem.
20
22.
From about May of2012, Plaintiff, its agents, managers, legal counsel, and/or
21 representatives, presented the Concepts to at least Defendants' following predecessors, agents,
22 employees and/or alter egos, all operating within the course and scope
of
their agency on
23
Defendants' behalf.
24
23. Plainti ff presented the Concepts to Defendants consistent with well-established
25 customs and practices of the entertainment industry and
on
the mutually understood condition
26 and bilateral expectation that Defendants would not disclose, use, and/or exploit the Concepts
_) 27 without Plaintiffs permission and/or without compensating Plaintiff in the form of payments,
::-.;.:.
28 credit and other consideration to the Plaintiff.
5
COMPLAINT
Doc 1 Page 5 -
Doc
ID 1653079228 -
Doc
Type
OT
-
8/16/2019 Howard Films v. Miller - California complaint.pdf
6/13
6 of 32)
0
.
> • N
:::: 0
, .
;: ' '
.,,: §
< ,. 0 ....
..J a; c;-
:z; ..
<
•
:z; j;
, ,....
0>:: 0 _ 0
i ~
w ; ;
.
b :
.
•
.::::::
y
OJ
v
OJ
'
2
3
4
5
•
•
4. [Intentionally left blank].
25.
26.
27.
28.
[Intentionally left blank].
[Intentionally left blank].
[Intentionally left blank].
After the massive
s u ~ e s s of
Get Hard that is based on
Plaintiff
s Concepts
6 that Plaint iff pitched to Defendants, Defendants have made huge sums
of
money by producing
7
the film based on Plaintiff s Concepts without compensating or crediting Plaintiff for their
8
Concepts as they committed to do.
9
29.
[Intentionally left blank].
10
30. [Intentionally left blank].
31.
[Intentionally left blank].
12
32.
[Intentionally left blank].
13
33.
[Intentionally left blank].
14
34 .
[Intentionally left blank].
15
35.
[Intentionally left blank].
16
36. [Intentionally left blank].
17
37. [Intentionally left blank] .
18
38.
[Intentionally left blank].
19
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
20
BREACH OF CONFIDENCE AGAINST ALL
DEFENDANTS
21
39. Plaint iff incorporates herein by this reference ea
-
8/16/2019 Howard Films v. Miller - California complaint.pdf
7/13
7 o 32)
• •
without
Plaintiffs
permission andlor without compensating Plaintiff in the
fonn of
payments,
2 credit and other considerations to Plaintiff.
3
42.
In light of well-established customs and practices of the entertainment industry
4 and on the mutually understood condition and bilateral expectation that Defendants would not
5 disclose, use andlor exploit the Concepts without Plaintiff s pennission andlor without
6 compensating Plaintiff in the fonn of payments, credit
and
other consideration to
the
Plaintiff,
7
Defendants' actions and conduct implied and led Plaint iff to reasonably believe that
8 Defendants would not disclose, use andlor exploit the Concepts without Plaintiffs pennission
9 andlor without compensating Plaintiff.
1
43. Plaintiff
perfonned
all conditions, covenants and promises required
on
their part
to be
perfonned in
accordance with
the
tenns
and
conditions of their confidential relationship
12 with Defendants.
13
14
15
16
17
18
44. Defendants breached the confidential relationship by, among other actions,
disclosing, misappropriating, and exploiting Plaintiffs Concepts by disclosing Plaintiff s
Concepts and producing the hit film Get Hard repackaged as Defendants' own projects
without
Plaintiffs
pennission andlor without compensating Plainti ff in the fonn of payments,
credit, and other consideration to Plaintiff.
45
Defendants' breaches of the confidential relationship are ongoing, and unless
19 Defendants are enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue to disclose, use andlor exploit
2 the Concepts without
Plaintiffs
pennission andlor without compensating Plaintiff.
21
46
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' breaches described herein,
22
Plainti ff has suffered irreparable damages, including lost profits, and Pla intif f will continue to
23
suffer irreparable damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
24
47. Plaintiff is entitled to a pennanent injunction restraining Defendants
and
their
25 officers, agents, employees and all persons acting
in
concert
with them
from engaging in
any
26
further acts in violation of the
Plaintiff
s rights.
27
48.
Defendants' conduct was malicious, fraudulent, oppressive and intended to
28
injure Plaintiff. Additionally, Defendants' conduct and the conduct of the Defendants'
7
COMPLAINT
Doc 1 Page 7 -
Doc
ID 1653079228 -
Doc
Type OT
-
8/16/2019 Howard Films v. Miller - California complaint.pdf
8/13
8 of 32)
0
0
, ,
i>:
;
'
-
8/16/2019 Howard Films v. Miller - California complaint.pdf
9/13
28
r
32)
--_._------------
FOR COURT
USE
ONL Y
The Kernan
9663 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 450
FILED. .
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TELEPHONE NO.
U - , 4 \ 1 I J - ~ r n 7
FAX NO. 310-861-0503 aupelrior Court 01 Cahlomla
~ A T ~ T O ; R ~ N ; E Y ~ ; ; ; , ; ; ; ' f . * ~ p . ~ ~ ~ ~ c ; F ~ I L ~ M ~ S ~ I ~ N f C ~ .
---------1 I Los Angeles
Is
COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
Los
STREET ADDRESS III
North Hill Street
MAILING
ADDRESS
III
North Hill Street
Officer/Cia \(
~ : ; : ; ~ : J L ~ 0 ~ S ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ O ~ 0 ~ 1 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CASE
Inc.
v.
Miller et
al.
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
o
Unlimited
0 Limited
(Amount (Amount
demanded demanded is
exceeds I
Complex Case
Designation
o Counter
0 Joinder
one
Auto Tort
for the case type that best describes this case:
o Auto 22)
D
Uninsured motorist (46)
Other PI/PDIWD
IPersonallnjury/Property
DamagelWrongful
Death)
Tort
o Asbestos 04)
D
Product liability (24)
D Medical malpractice
(45)
D Dlher PIIPDNVD (23)
Non-PI/PDIWD
(Other)
Tort
D Business tort/unfair business practice (07)
D
Civil rights (08)
D Defamation (13)
o Fraud(16)
D Intellectual property (19)
D Professional negligence (25)
D Other non-PI/PDfIND tort (35)
~ o y m e n t
U wrongful termination (36)
I
Contract
D
Breach of contracUwarranty (06)
D
Rule
3.740
collections (09)
D
Other collections (09)
D Insurance coverage (18)
o Other contract (37)
Real Property
D Eminent domain/Inverse
condemnation (14)
D Wrongful eviction
(33)
o Other real property
(26)
Unlawful
Detainer
o Commercial (31)
D Residential (32)
o Oru9S 38)
Judicial Review
D
Asset forfeiture
OS)
o
: ; : ~ _
Deputy
JUDGE:
DEPT:
Provisionally Complex Civil
l i t igation
(Cal. Rules of Court, rules
3.400-3.403)
D
AntitrusVTrade regulation (03)
D
Construction defect
(10)
D
Mass tort (40)
D Securities litigation (28)
D
EnvironmentallToxic tort (30)
D
Insurance coverage claims arising from the
above listed provisionally complex case
types (41)
Enforcement of Judgment
D
Enforcement of
udgment
(20)
Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
o
RICO(27)
o Diller complainl
not speCified above) 42)
Miscellaneous Civil Petition
D Partnership and corporate governance (21)
o
Diller petition not specified above) (43)
2. complex under rule 3.400
of
the Cal"lfornia Rules
of
Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring
i
i management:
8. D Large number
of
separately represented parties d. D Large number
of
witnesses
b D Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel
e.
D Coordination with related actions pending
in
one or more courts
issues that
will
be time-consuming to resolve
in
other counties, states,
or
countries, or in a federal court
c.
D
Substantial amount
of
documentary evidence f.
D
Substantial posqudgment judicial supervision
3.
Remedies sought
check aI/ that apply):
a 0 monetary
b. [2]
nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief
c· puni t ive
4.
Number
Of causes of action (specify). I Cause of Action: Breach ofContidence
5.
This case
D
is
0 is
not a class action suit.
6. If
there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice
of
related case. You may use form CM-01S.)
Date
May
16,2016
/
S. Michael Kernan .
J--L7,;
1}J\£ tV - ==o=-
_
TYPE OR PRINT NAME) iSIGNATUREOFARTY OR AnORNEY
FOR
PARTY)
, NOTICE
Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed
in
the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
. ~ . under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfi;lre and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules
of
Court, rule
3.220.)
Failure to file may result
-•
)
in
sanctions.
: "r File this cover sheet
in
addition to any cover slleet required by local court rule .
•.• If this case is complex under rule 3.400
et
seq.
of
the California Rules
of
Court, you must serve a copy
of
this cover sheet on all
: ~ : other parties to the action or proceeding
. i.
Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onlv
,._
1' 01 e
1
of
2
Form AdoptB(j
ot
Mandatory
Use
Judicial
Council 01
California
CM..o,O
[ R e ~
July 1. 2007]
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
Cal. Rules 01 Cour1. rules 2.30. 3.220, 3.400-3.403. 3.740:
Cal. Standards
of Judicial AdminiSlratiOl1,
sid. 3.10
www.cour1info.c:a.gov
Doc 1 Page
28
- Doc
ID
1653079228 - Doc
Type
O
-
8/16/2019 Howard Films v. Miller - California complaint.pdf
10/13
29 or 32)
SHORT TITLE
Howard Films, Inc. v. Miller,
Be 6
2
1 21 7
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND
STATEMENT OF LOCATION
(CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION)
This form is required pursuant to Local Rule 2.3 In all
new civil
case filings In the Los ngeles Superior Court
Step
1: After
completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet (Judicial Council form CM-OlO), find the exact
case
type in
Column A that corresponds to the case type indicated in the Civil
Case
Cover Sheet.
Step 2:
In
Column B, check the box
forthe
type of action that best describes the nature of the
case.
Step 3: In Column
C,
circle the number which explains the reason for the court filing location you have
chosen.
Applicable Reasons
for
Choosing Cour t Filing Location (Column
C
1.
Class actions must be filed in the Stanley Mask Courthouse. Central District.
7 Location where petitioner resides.
2.
Permissive filing
in
central district.
8
Location wherein defendanUrespondent functions wholly
3.
Location where cause of action arose.
9.
Location where one
or more of
the parties reside.
4. Mandatory personal injury filing in North District.
10. Location
of
Labor
Commissioner
Office.
S. Location where performance required or defendant resides.
11. Mandatory
filing location
Hub
Cases
- unlawful
detainer, limited
non-collection, limited collection,
or
personal injury).
6.
Location of property or permanently garaged vehicle.
O t
- 0
A
Civil Case
Cover Sheel
Categor y No.
Auto (22)
Uninsured Motorist
(46)
Asbestos (04)
Product Liability (24)
Medical Malpractice (45)
Other Personal
Injury Property
Damage Wrongful
Death (23)
LAC V 109 (Rev 2/16)
LASe Approved 03-04
,
.
B
Type
of
Action
(Check only one)
0
A7100
Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property DamageNVrongful Death
0
A7110
Personallnjury/Property DamageNVrongful Death - Uninsured Motorist
0
A6070
Asbestos Property Damage
0
A7221
Asbestos - PersonallnjuryNVrongful Death
0
A7260
Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental)
0 A7210
Medical Malpractice - Physicians & Surgeons
0 A7240
Other
Professional Health Care Malpractice
0 A72S0 Prem'lses Liabil lty (e.g., slip and fall)
0 A7230
Intentional Bodily Injury/Property DamageNVrongful Death (e,g
assault, vandalism, etc,)
0
A7270
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
0
A7220
Other
Personal Injury/Property Damage.NVrongful Death
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM
AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION
C
Applicable Reasons-
See Step
3
Above
1,
4,
11
1,
4,
11
1. 11
1, 11
1,4,11
1,4,11
1,
4.
11
1
4,
11
1,
4, 11
1,4, 11
1,
4,
11
Local Rule 2.3
Page 1
of4
Doc 1 Page
29
-
Doc
ID
=
1653079228 -
Doc
Type
=
O
-
8/16/2019 Howard Films v. Miller - California complaint.pdf
11/13
30
o r 32)
"
,
I HORT TITLE:
Howard Films, Inc, v, Miller,
I ASE
.
A
Civil Case Cover Sheet
Category No.
Business Tort (07)
~ 1 :
Civil Rights (08)
0
.
...
0
a:m
Defamation (13)
" "
--
::
Cl
Fraud 16)
- ::
ni e
is;:;
I ?Qj
Cl
Professional Negligence (25)
"-
E
o ..
zC
Other
35)
'E
Wrongful Termination (36)
"
,.,
0
C.
Other Employment (15)
E
w
Breach of ContracV Warranty
(06)
(not insurance)
U
E
Collections (09)
E
0
u
Insurance Coverage (18)
Other Contract (37)
Eminent Domain/Inverse
Condemnation (14)
"
Wrongful Eviction (33)
c.
2
"-
"
'
Other Real Property (26)
Unlawful Detainer-Commercial
31)
"
5:>
Unlawful Detainer-Residential
32)
3
Unlawful Detainer-
l
Post-Foreclosure (34)
'"
J
Unlawful Detainer-Drugs (38)
?:>
- - ~
LACIV 109 (Rev
2/16
,LASC Approved 03-04
B
"
.
.
.
Type of Action .
(Check only one)
0 A6029 Other Commercial/Business Tort (not fraud/breach of contract)
0 A6005
Civil RightslDiscrimination
0 A6010 Defamation (slander/libel)
0
A6013
Fraud (no contract)
0
A6017
Legal Malpractice
0 A6050 Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal)
0
A6025
Other Non-Personallnjury/Property Damage tort
0 A6037
Wrongful Termination
0 A6024 Other Employment Complaint Case
0 A6109
Labor Commissioner Appeals
0 A6004
Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer
or
wrongful
eviction)
0 A6008 ContractlWarranty Breach -Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence)
0
A6019
Negligent Breach
of
ContractlWarranty (no fraud)
0
A6028
Other Breach of ContractlWarranty (not fraud or negligence)
0 A6002
Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff
0 A6012 Other Promissory Note/Collections Case
0
A6034
Collections Case-Purchased Debt (Charged Off Consumer Debt
Purchased
on
or after Januarv 1 20141·
0
A6015
Insurance Coverage (not complex)
0
A6009
Contractual Fraud
0 A6031
Tortious Interference
[
A6027 Other Contract Dispute(not breach/insuranceJfraud/negligence)
0 A7300
Eminent Domain/Condemnation
Number
of
parcels___
0
A6023
Wrongful Eviction Case
0 A6018 Mortgage Foreclosure
0 A6032 Quiet Title
0 A6060
Other Real proper ty (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure)
0 A6021 Unlawful Detainer-Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction)
0
A6020
Unlawful Detainer-Residential (not drugs or wrongfUl eViction)
0
A6020F Unlawful Detainer-Post-Foreclosure
0 A6022 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM
AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION
C
Applicable
Reasons - See Step 3
Above
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
10
2, 5
2, 5
1,2,5
1,2,5
5,6,11
5, 11
5,6,11
1,2,5,8
1,2,3,5
1,2,3,5
1,2,3,8,9
2,6
2,6
2,6
2,6
2,6
6,11
6, 11
2,6,11
2,6,11
Local Rule 2,3
Page 2 of4
Doc# 1
Page
30 - Doc ID
1653079228
- Doc
Type O
-
8/16/2019 Howard Films v. Miller - California complaint.pdf
12/13
31 o r 32)
.
I
ORT TITLE
Howard
Films,
Inc. v. Miller,
I
I
ASE
A
. Civil Case Cover Sheet
Category No,
Asset Forfeiture (05)
Petition re Arbitration (11)
.s:
.,
a::
n;
Writ of Mandate (02)
'u
.,
Other Judicial Rev'lew (39)
AntllrusVTrade Regulation (03)
0
Construction Defect (1
0)
'
:5
Claims Involving Mass Tort
.,
(4D)
a.
E
0
Securities Litigation (28)
>
.2-
n;
Toxic Tort
2
Environmental (30)
U
.s:
Insurance Coverage Claims
from Complex Case (41)
"E
"E
.,
.,
E
E Enforcement
.,
'
of
Judgment (20)
E
.,
'0
RICO (27)
'
i
...
,
a.
E
Other Complaints
a;
0
U
(Not Specified Above) (42)
'
E
:?
u
Partnership Corporation
Governance (21)
' '
,
;;
Other Petitions (Not
a;
-
Specified Above) (43)
=
~ : : f 3
..n
-
-'
C,
-
.0
LACIV 109 (Rev
2116)
LASe Approved 03-04
·
Type of Action
(Check only one)
0
A6108 Asset Forfeiture Case
0
A6115 Petition to Compel/ConfirmNacate Arbitration
0
A6151 Writ - Administrative Mandamus
0
A6152 Writ - Mandamus
on
Limited Court Case Matter
0
A6153
Writ - Other Limited Court Case Review
0 A615D OtherWr'lt IJudicial Review
0
A6DD3 AnlitrusVTrade Regulation
0 A6007 Construction Defect
0
A6006 Claims Involving Mass Tort
0
A6035 Securities Litigation Case
0
A6D36
Toxic Tort/Environmental
0 A6D14 Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only)
0
A6141 Sister Stale Judgment
0 A616D Abstract of Judgment
0
A61D7 Confession
of
Judgment (non-domestic relations)
0 A6140 Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes)
0
A6114 Petition/Certificate for Entry
of
Judgment on Unpaid Tax
0 A6112 Other Enforcement of Judgment Case
0
A6033 Racketeering (RICO) Case
0 A6030 Declaratory Relief Only
0
A6040
Injunctive Relief Only (not domestic/harassment)
0
A6011
Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tortlnon-complex)
121
A6000 Other Civil Complaint (non-tortlnon-complex)
0
A6113 Partnership and Corporate Governance Case
0 A6121
Civil Harassment
0
A6123
Workplace Harassment
0 A6124 Elder/DependentAdult Abuse Case
0
A6190
Election Contest
0 A6110 Petition for Change of Name/Change of Gender
0
A6170
Petition for Relief from Late Claim Law
0
A6100
Other Civil Petition
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM
AND
STATEMENT
OF LOCATION
C Applicable
Reasons - See Step 3
Above
2 3 6
2,
5
2 8
2
2
2 8
1 2.8
1 2 3
1 2 8
1 2.8
1 2 3 8
1 2 5 8
2 5 11
2 6
2.9
2.8
2 8
2 8 9
1 2 8
1 2 8
2 8
1 2 8
1 2 8
2,
8
2 3 9
2 3 9
2,
3,
9
2
2 7
2 3 8
2 9
Local Rule 2.3
Page 3 of 4
Doc# 1
Page#
31 - Doc ID - 1653079228 - Doc Type
O
-
8/16/2019 Howard Films v. Miller - California complaint.pdf
13/13
32 or 32)
SHORT TITLE:
Howard Films, Inc. v.
Step 4: Statement of
Reason and
Address:
Check the appropriate boxes
for
the numbers shown under Column C
for
the
type of action that you have selected. Enter the address which is the basis for the filing location, including zip code.
No address required for class action cases .
ADDRESS
REASON:
9663 Santa Monica Blvd.
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 010 011
CITY:
STATE·. ZIP CODE·
Beverly Hills CA
90210
Step 5:
Certification
of
Assignment: I certify that this
case is
properly filed in the Central District of
the Superior Court of California, County
of Los
Angeles [Code
Civ.
Proc., §392 et seq., and Local
Rule
2.3 a) 1) E)].
Dated: May 16, 2016
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY/FILING PARTY)
PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO
BE
FILED
IN
ORDER TO PROPERLY
COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE:
1.
Original Complaint or Petition.
2.
If filing a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk.
3.
Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-010.
4.
Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 Rev.
02/16 .
5.
Payment in full of the filing fee, unless there
is
court order for
waiver,
partial or scheduled payments.
6.
A signed order appointing the Guardian
ad
Litem, Judicial Council form CIV-01
0,
if the plaintiff or petitioner is a
minor under 18 years of age will be required
by
Court
in
order to issue a summons.
7.
Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies
of
the cover sheet and this addendum
must be served along with the summons and complaint, or other initiating pleading in the case
L CIV
109
Rev
2116)
LASe Approved 03-04
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM
AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION
Local
Rule 2.3
Page
4 of 4