• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 07/15/2020 06:09 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Clifton,Deputy Clerk 20STCV26508 Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Elaine Lu 1 Bryan J. Freedman, Esq. (SBN 151990) Brian E. Turnauer, Esq. (SBN 214768) 2 Steven B. Stiglitz, Esq. (SBN 222667) Sean M. Hardy, Esq. (SBN 266446) 3 FREEDMAN+ TAITELMAN, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 500 4 Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: (310) 201-0005 5 Fax: (310) 201-0045 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Migos, LLC, Quavious Marshall, Kiari Cephus, Kirsnick 7 Ball, and Migos Touring, Inc. 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 11 MIGOS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability ) CASE NO. company; QUAVIOUS MARSHALL PIK/A ) 12 QUA VO, an individual; KIARI CEPHUS ) PIK/A OFFSET, an individual; KIRSNICK ) COMPLAINT FOR: 13 BALL PIK/A TAKEOFF, an individual; ) (1) PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE MIGOS TOURING, INC., a Georgia ) (2) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 14 corporation, ) (3) VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & ) PROF. CODE SECTION 6147 15 ) (4) VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & ) Plaintiffs, PROF. CODE SECTION 6148 16 ) (5) VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & ) v. PROF. CODE SECTION 17200, ET. 17 ) SEQ. 18 DAMIEN GRANDERSON, an individual; )) (6) UNJUST ENRICHMENT DA VIS SHAPIRO LEWIT GRABEL & (7) DECLARATORY RELIEF 19 LEVEN, LLP, a New York limited liability )) partnership; GRANDERSON DES 20 ROCHERS, LLP, a California limited liability )) partnership; and DOES 1 through 100, ) 21 inclusive, Defendants. ) ) 22 ) ) 23 ) ) 24 ) ) 25 ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~-) 26 27 28 COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiffs Migos, LLC, Quavious Marshall p/k/a Quavo ("Quavo"), Kiari Cephus p/k/a 2 Offset ("Offeset"), Kirsnick Ball p/k/a Takeoff ("Takeoff'), and Migos Touring, Inc. 3 (collectively, "Plaintiffs") complain and allege as follows: 4 INTRODUCTION 5 1. This action arises out of that timeless tale about the world-famous music group 6 who was robbed and cheated out of millions of dollars by those individuals who the group hired 7 to look out for it and its members' best interests. Defendant Damien Granderson 8 ("Granderson") is the personification of a self-absorbed shyster lawyer who saw his clients as a 9 mechanism to get rich by any means necessary, including at his clients' expense. 10 2. Like many musicians, the multi-award-winning hip-hop trio Migos had no formal 11 training in law, accounting, finance or business management. As such, Migos retained, and 12 relied on, attorney Granderson to act as their fiduciary and use his expertise and best judgment to 13 make decisions that were in Migos' and each group members' best interests in all areas related to 14 his retention. 15 3. Granderson abused his position of trust as Mi gos' fiduciary from the moment he 16 was retained as Migos' lawyer. Granderson was working with Migos since the group's early 17 days, including on the 2014 deal to have 300 Entertainment distribute Migos' debut album, Yung 18 Rich Nation. At that time, the group's members were in their late teens and early twenties, and 19 had nothing more than a high school education. With greed on his mind, Granderson saw the 20 trio as easy targets to coax into one-sided deals that benefited Granderson and Granderson's 21 higher-priority client, Quality Control Music ("QCM"). Unbeknownst to Migos, Granderson's 22 representation of QCM created an incurable conflict-of-interest and Granderson's primary 23 loyalty was QCM, the upstart company that signed Migos to an exclusive recording contract in 24 2013. 25 4. From the commencement of his representation of Migos, Granderson plotted and 26 schemed to betray his clients so he could take care of himself and QCM, regardless of the 27 consequences and ramifications to Migos. Granderson first betrayed Migos when he failed 28 disclose both the complete nature of his relationship with QCM and the complete nature of the 2 COMPLAINT 1 conflict in representing both QCM and Migos. Although the nature of the conflict was incurable, 2 Granderson did not even attempt to obtain an informed conflict waiver from Migos, as obviously 3 would have been required by law (to the extent the conflict was waivable, which it was not). 4 Granderson next betrayed Migos when he orchestrated a legal dispute with 300 Entertainment to 5 facilitate a strategy to move Migos (and QCM's other bands) from 300 Entertainment to Capitol 6 Records. By helping to instigate that legal dispute, Granderson prioritized QCM's interests over 7 Migos' interests in breach of his fiduciary duty, effectively preventing Migos from releasing its 8 second album for over a year-and-a-half! 9 5. In late 2016 and early 201 7, when Mi gos and QCM were in the process of 10 negotiating a distribution agreement with new record label, Capitol Music Group ("Capitol"), 11 Granderson again breached his fiduciary duties to Migos. Among other betrayals, he concealed 12 from Migos that QCM had an exclusive label agreement with Capitol that would allow Capitol to 13 distribute all albums that QCM produced and that QCM was actually profiting far more 14 handsomely than was apparent from the face of the documents that Granderson personally 15 presented to Migos for immediate execution. Granderson later exacerbated the harm he caused 16 to Migos by negotiating a 2018 amendment to the exclusive label agreement between QCM and 1 7 Capitol Records. That amendment triggered an extension of the exclusive recording agreement 18 between QCM and Migos, which Granderson knew to contain terms that were unconscionable 19 for Migos. Despite these entanglements, Granderson again failed to obtain an informed conflict 20 waiver, as required by California law. 21 6. Granderson once again favored QCM over Migos when negotiating co-publishing 22 agreements. For example, a May 2018 amendment to Quavo' s co-publishing agreement with 23 Universal Music Publishing Group gave better terms to QCM than Qauvo's original co- 24 publishing agreement (which was negotiated when Quavo was not as big a star and had less 25 leverage). 26 7. Further, when it came time to negotiate agreements for Migos and/or the group's 27 individual members, Granderson performed incompetently. For example, Granderson 28 erroneously drafted an operating agreement with one of Migos' merchandizing partners to state 3 COMPLAINT 1 that the jointly owned entity would obtain a perpetual, exclusive license to make certain Migos- 2 branded merchandise, rather than a non-exclusive license. Migos remains embroiled in litigation 3 over that error to this day. Granderson also dropped the ball when Mi gos asked him to draft 4 agreements for them to work as featured artists on other groups' albums - or as actors in motion 5 pictures. In one instance, his failure to draft a necessary side agreement could not be remedied, 6 costing Mi gos hundreds of thousands of dollars. 7 8. To add to the list of his numerous negligent acts, Granderson had the complete 8 gall and audacity to practice law without a California license for five years after he moved to 9 Los Angeles and began practicing law from his Beverly Hills office. 10 9. His betrayal went even further. Shockingly, despite being incompetent, 11 Granderson took more compensation than is customary for other lawyers in the field. Moreover, 12 he failed to provide Migos with a written agreement explaining his excessive fees as is also 13 required by California law. Among his improper billing/collection practices, Granderson's law 14 firms always took a 5% contingency fee off the top of the proceeds that QCM collected, which 15 meant that Granderson received his cut before Migos paid their expenses. 16 10. Simply put, Damien Granderson had a complete disregard for the law, whether it 1 7 was being licensed in California or complying with the basic minimum standards of professional 18 conduct, like having a written fee agreement required for contingency matters. At a minimum, 19 Granderson and his firms should be repaying the millions of dollars in fees they obtained from 20 Migos, not to mention providing redress for millions of dollars in additional harm they caused 21 though their professional malfeasance. 22 THE PARTIES 23 11. PlaintiffKirsnick Ball p/k/a Takeoff ("Takeoff') is an individual currently 24 residing in the county of Los Angeles, California. 25 12. Plaintiff Quavious Marshall p/k/a Quavo ("Quavo") is an individual currently 26 residing in the county of Los Angeles, California. 27 13. Plaintiff Kiari Cephus p/k/a Offset ("Offset") is an individual currently residing in 28 the county of Los Angeles, California. 4 COMPLAINT 1 14. Migos, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of 2 business in Cherokee County, Georgia, which Takeoff, Quavo, and Offset jointly formed for the 3 purpose of selling certain clothing under the "Migos" trademark. 4 15. Migos Touring, Inc. is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business 5 in Cherokee County, Georgia, which Takeoff, Quavo, and Offset jointly formed for the purpose 6 of conducting certain business of their group, "Migos," including touring and featured artist 7 agreements. 8 16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Davis 9 Shapiro Lewit Gravel & Leven, LLP f/k/a Davis Shapiro Lewit Gravel Leven Granderson & 10 Blake, LLP ("Davis Shapiro") is a New York limited liability partnership with its principal place 11 of business in New York, New York, and which regularly conducted business in Los Angeles, 12 including from its Los Angeles Office, at times relevant to this action. 13 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Granderson 14 Des Rochers, LLP ("Granderson Des Rochers") is a California limited liability partnership with 15 its principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California.

Load more

  22

Copy Link