ORIGINAL 1 MICHAEL R. SHAPIRO, ESQ. (SBN 37011) ^asP LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL R. SHAPIRO, APC ^ 2 612 North Sepulveda Blvd.. Suite 11 Los Angeles, CA 90049 3 Tel.: (310)472-8900 oa 3 0 2015 Fax: (310)472-4600 4 Email: [email protected] SfremR.Carte.g»eOfficer/Clerk

5 Attorney for Plaintiff, Gerald E. Heller .

6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT 9

10 GERALD E. HELLER, an individual, BC 5 90 4 9 9 11 Case No.:

12 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR: 13 NBCUNIVERSAL, INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF 1. DEFAMATION (LD3EL & SLANDER) 14 COMCAST CORPORATION; F. GARY 2. TRADE LIBEL 3. FALSE LIGHT 15 GRAY, an individual; O'SHEA JACKSON SR, PKA ICE CUBE, an individual; ANDRE 4. MISAPPROPRIATION OF LIKENESS 5. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE 16 YOUNG, PKA DR DRE, an individual; THE WITH A PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ESTATE OF ERIC WRIGHT, PKA EAZY E, ADVANTAGE 17 an individual; TOMICA WOODS-WRIGHT, NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH individually and as the personal A PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC 18 representative ofthe ESTATE OF ERIC ADVANTAGE WRIGHT; COMPTOWN RECORDS, INC., 7. BREACH OF CONTRACT 19 (SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT) a corporation; MATT ALVAREZ, an 8. BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT individual; SCOTT BERNSTEIN, an OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR individual; LEGENDARY PICTURES, a DEALING (SETTLEMENT 21 corporation; XENON PICTURES, AGREEMENT) INC/XENON ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, 9. BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT 22 a corporation; JONATHAN HERMAN, an 10. BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT individual; ANDREA BERLOFF, an OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR 23 DEALING (ORAL CONXBA&B individual; S. LEIGH SAVIDGE, an 11. CONVERSION §§ ™o 3> "24 individual; ALAN WENKUS, an individual: 12. COPYRIGHT INFRINGE ~~ IT) and Does 1 -100, o o o n rn TJ .. a> gc x- X "Z> # IT 25 S £ w ni •• :*

Defendants. m .. '26 w o en --. •_ '--t o o 27 I-* en ?28 Plaintiff Gerald E. Heller (sometimes referred toas "Jerry" or "Plaintiff) submita-tHEs \0 ~-i

o « « » M 1 '-> o o cn Oi g> o '-• U COMPLAINT O O o o 1 Complaintand alleges, upon information and belief as follows: 2

3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4 1. As noted more fully in the FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS section ofthis 5 Complaint, thisaction arises outof actof defamation, conversion and othertortious

6 behavior and breach of a Settlement Agreement between PlaintiffGeraldE. Hellerand 7 Defendant Tomica Woods-Wright and Comptown Records, Inc. and Does 1-20, and 8 certain scenes, words, images, implicationsand innuendo within a theatrical Motion 9 Picture entitled, "Straight Outta Compton" that all Defendants noted inthe caption above 10 and Does 20-50 created, wrote, directed, produced and distributed globally tothe detriment

11 ofPlaintiffGerald E. Heller. 12 2. All ofthe above transactions and activities took place inthe County ofLos Angeles within 13 the jurisdiction of this Court. Ail individual Defendants reside in the County ofLos

14 Angeles, within the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendants NBCUniversal, Inc., a subsidiary

15 ofComcast Corporation and Defendant Legendary Pictures have their principal places of business in the County of Los Angeles, within thejurisdiction of thisCourt. 16 3;. Venue is proper in this Court under California Code ofCivil Procedure Section 395 as 17 many of thewrongful conduct alleged herein occurred inthisCounty, all oftheindividual 18 Defendants reside inLos Angeles County and as noted above, both NBCUniversal, Inc., a 19 subsidiary of Comcast Corporation and Defendant Legendary Pictures maintain businesses 20 in this County and all parties are either located in ordo business inthis County ofLos 21 Angeles, State ofCalifornia.

PARTIES 4. Plaintiff GERALD E. HELLER, an individual, as to the events outlined in this Complaint, H -,24 isand was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California ".25 5. Defendant NBCUNIVERSAL, INC., a subsidiary ofCOMCAST CORPORATION, a ;;26 corporation, does business and has itsprincipal place of business intheCounty ofLos Angeles, State of California.

°28 6. Defendant LEGENDARY PICTURES, acorporation, does business and has its principal

COMPLAINT 1 place of business inthe County of Los Angeles, State of California. 2 7. Defendant XENON PICTURES, INC/XENON ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, a

3 corporation, does business and has its principal place ofbusiness inthe County ofLos Angeles. State ofCalifornia.

5 8. F. GARY GRAY, an individual, as to the events outlined inthis Complaint, is and was a resident of theCounty of Los Angeles, State of California. 6 9. Defendant O'SHEA JACKSON SR., PKA ICE CUBE, an individual, asto theevents 7 outlined inthis COMPLAINT, is and was a resident ofthe County of Los Angeles, State of 8 California. 9 10. Defendant ANDREYOUNG, PKA DR. DRE, an individual, as to the events outlined in 10 thisComplaint, isandwas a resident of the County of LosAngeles, State of California. 11 11. Defendant THE ESTATE OF ERIC WRIGHT PKA EAZY E,is resident in the County of 12 Los Angeles, State ofCalifornia.

13 12. Defendant TOMICA WOODS-WRJGHT, an individual and as the personal representative

14 of the Defendant ESTATE OF ERIC WRIGHT, asthe events outlined inthis Complaint, is

15 and was a residentof the County of LosAngeles, Stateof California. 13. Defendant COMPTOWN RECORDS, INC., a corporation, does business and hasits 16 principal place of business in theCounty of Los Angeles, Stateof California. 17 14. Defendant MATT ALVAREZ, anindividual, as to the events outlined inthis Complaint, 18 is and wasa resident of the County of LosAngeles, Stateof California. 19 15. Defendant SCOTT BERNSTEIN, an individual, as to the eventsoutlined in this 20 Complaint, isand was a resident ofthe County of Los Angeles, State ofCalifornia. 21 16. Defendant JONATHAN HERMAN, an individual, as to theevents outlined in this 22 Complaint, is and was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

23 17. Defendant ANDREA BERLOFF, an individual, as to the eventsoutlined in this 'I'24 Complaint, isand was a resident ofthe County of Los Angeles, State ofCalifornia.

> 25 18. Defendant S. LEIGH SAVAGE, an individual, as to the events outlined in this Complaint, isand was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State ofCalifornia. : 26 f' •) 19. Defendant ALAN WENKUS, an individual, as to the events outlined in this Complaint, is '-. 27 and was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. M28

COMPLAINT 1 .20. Plaintiff GERALD E. HELLER is notaware of the truenames andcapacities of the 2 Defendants sued herein as Does 1-100 inclusive and therefore suethese Defendants by

3 their fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend theComplaint to reflect

4 the true names and capacities of said Does 1-100, inclusive when these have been ascertained. Plaintiffis informed andbelieves that said fictitiously namedDefendants, and 5 each of them, wereresponsible in some manner for the harm sustained by Plaintiffas set 6 forth herein. 7 21. PlaintiffGERALD E.HELLER alleges thateach Defendant wasthe agent, principal and/or 8 employee of each other in the acts, conduct and omissions alleged herein and therefore 9 incurred liability to PlaintiffGERALD E. HELLER for all such acts and/or omissions. 10

11 Plaintiff further alleges that all such Defendants were acting within the course and scope

12 oftheir employment and/or said agency.

13 FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

14 22. Plaintiff is a highly successfiil and respected business professional in the music industry,

15 since the late 1960's and I970's, functioning as both a creative and business executive.

16 23. Through a set of circumstances, in 1986-87, Plaintiffmet DefendantsEric Wright(pka

17 "Eazy E"), Andre Young (pka "Dr. Dre"), and O'Shea Jackson (pka "Ice Cube").

18 Subsequently, in early 1987, Defendant Eazy E formed an independent Record Company

19 called RUTHLESS RECORDS ("Ruthless"). Under his ManagementContractwith

20 Ruthless, Plaintiff was entitled to a 20% interest in Ruthless.

21 24. Ruthless entered into an exclusive Recording Contract withDefendants EazyE, Dr. Dre,

22 Ice Cube,and others and formed a group called N.W.A. Additionally, Ruthless arranged

23 forPlaintiff to provide management services tothemembers of N.W.A., except IceCube, i—< _24 for a standard 20% commission rate. Underhis Management Contract with Ruthless, Plaintiffsuccessfully managed N.W.A., (apartfrom Ice Cube)for several years, w26 25. Ruthless also entered intoa series of exclusive music publishing contracts with i'. i v27 Defendants EazyE, Dr. Dreand Ice-Cube, entitling Ruthless to a percentage of gross

28 music publishing revenues generated bymusic compositions written in whole or in partby

U1 COMPLAINT 1 these three artists. Those publishingdesigneesof Ruthlesswere and are "RUTHLESS 2 ATTACK MUZICK" and "DOLLARZ N SENSE MUSICK." 3 26. UnderPlaintiffs management, N.W.A. became hugely successful. Plaintiffis informed 4 i and believes, and thereon alleges, that N.W.A. continues to generate many-millions of : 5 dollars inrevenue from multiple revenue streams ona global basis. 6 i The Screenplay and The Book ! 7 1 27. In or around May 21,2001, Plaintiffentered into an oral contract for the services of 8 Defendants, S. Leigh Savidge and Alan Wenkus ofXenon Pictures, Inc./Xenon i 9 EntertainmentGroup ("Xenon") to collaboratewith Plaintiffto write an original j 10 screenplayrelating the story of Ruthlessand N.W.A. In furtherance of this agreement, 11 Defendants Savidge and Wenkus worked withandmet withPlaintiffand prepared at least 12 fourdraft screenplays, including November 14, 2002and August 16,2008 screenplays 13 entitled, "Straight Outta Compton." 14 28. At all times, under his agreement with Defendants Savidge/Wenkus/Xenon,the 15 screenplays were Plaintiff's property, and in exchange for their services, Defendants 16 Savidge/Wenkus/Xenon were to receive equal creditandequal compensation thatPlaintiff 17 would receive as a writer and producerof any film based upon the screenplaythat Plaintiff 18 commissioned them to write. 19 29. In or around 2005, Plaintiffalso began to writea book relating the story of Ruthless and 20 N.W.A. thatcontained similar substantive content as thescreenplays thatDefendants 21 Savidge and Wenkus were drafting. 22 30. In 2006, Simon and Schuster published the book written by Plaintiffand hisco-author, Gil 23 Reavill, entitled "RUTHLESS. AMEMOIR,"; "copyright © byJerry Heller." (See ! "24 Exhibit A attached) I •-. ^CO The Film: "Straight Outta Compton" I w26 31. On August 11, 2015, in LosAngeles, California, a theatrical motion picture entitled ! "27 "STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON" (the "Film") premiered and, subsequently, on M28

COMPLAINT 1 August 14,2015, the Filmwasreleased throughout the United States; the Film was 2 released throughout Germany on August 27, 2015; the Film was released throughout the 3 United Kingdom onAugust 28, 2015, the Film was released throughout South Korea on 4 September 10, 2015; and the Film was released throughout Brazil on October 4, 2015. 5 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that theFilm will soon bereleased 6 inJapan on December 19, 2015, in Russia onNovember 12; and, subsequently, inmost 7 countries in the world. 8 33. Plaintiffis informed and believes, andthereon alleges, thatthe Filmis basedon the 9 screenplay drafted by Defendants Savidge and Wenkus, and that Defendants 10 Savidge/Wenkus/Xenon sold the screenplay, behind Plaintiffs backand without Plaintiffs 11 authority or consent, to New Line Cinemas (who inturn soldthescreenplay to Defendant 12 NBCUniversal. Inc.). 13 34. In theFilm, the character "Jerry Heller" (i.e., Plaintiff) isplayed byactor Paul Giamatti. 14 Plaintiffdid not authorize anyone to use his name and likeness or otherwise consent to this 15 portrayal in.the Film. 16 35. Atnotime was Plaintiff compensated by any Defendant inany way for his rights, his 17 name and likeness thatwereutilized in theFilm without his consent, nor hasPlaintiff 18 received any benefits of the Film. Infact, no individual associated with the Film, including 19 any ofthe Defendants, ever bothered to contact Plaintiff before the Film was produced. 20 36. The Film is littered with false statements thatharm thereputation of Plaintiff andaimto 21 ridicule and lower him inthe opinion ofthe community and todeter third persons from 22 associating or dealing with him. 23 37. A non-exclusive list of examples of some of the defamatory statements inthe Film h;24 include, without limitation: Heller is die "bad-guy" in the movie who is solely responsible "'25 for the demise ofN.W.A.; Heller isa sleazy manager who took advantage ofDefendants ^26 Eazy E, Dr. Dre and Ice Cube; Heller steered Defendants Dr. Dre and Ice Cube away from ^'27 hiring anattorney to review any contracts sothey could never get paid; Heller intentionally -'28

COMPLAINT 1 withheld a $75,000 check from Defendant Ice Cube that rightfully belonged to Defendant 2 Ice Cube; Heller fraudulently induced Defendants Dr. Dre and Ice Cube to sign 3 unfavorable contracts; Heller made sure lie was paid more than his fair share tothe 4 detriment of the other members ofN.W.A.; Heller did not pay numerous bills and expenses 5 ofN.W.A., rather, he paid himself first; Heller intentionally kept the members ofN.W.A. 6 in thedarkregarding finances; Heller was enjoying "lobster brunches" while thecontracts 7 ofDefendants Dr. Dre and Ice Cube were "still being finalized"; Plaintiff was fired by 8 Defendant E^azy E. 9 38. In addition, these defamatory statements in the Film are attributable to Defendant Tomika 10 Woods-Wright(Eazy E's widow) and also constitute a clear breach ofthe non- 11 disparagement clause under the 1999 Settlement Agreement andReleases between Plaintiff 12 and Defendant Woods-Wright. 13 39. Moreover, a significant amount ofthe Film's content that isfactually accurate isblatantly 14 lifted, converted and stolen from Plaintiffs copyright protected and published book and/or 15 from the screenplays that Plaintiff owns. 16 40. A non-exclusive list of examples of someof thescenes in the Filmliftedfrom Plaintiffs 17 book and/or from his screenplays include, without limitation: The pivotal scene at the 18 Torrance recording studio where the police are forcibly detaining the members ofN.W.A.; 19 The pivotal scene where Marion "Suge" Knight uses physical force tocompel Defendant 20 Eazy E to sign away the exclusive contractual rights concerning Defendant Dr. Dre owned 21 by Ruthless. 22 41. The insidiousness ofDefendants' behavior is underscored by the fact that the Film may 23 well become the largest globally grossing music-story based film ever. The larger the •''" 1 success of thefilm, thegreater thedamages to Plaintiff, who has been andcontinues tobe r 25 defamed, ridiculed, and robbed ofhis personal and financial rights to the extent that the ;*26 intentional and egregious behavior ofDefendants demands the imposing ofpunitive ~27 damages, as alleged below. ^28 c_ :• t- =

COMPLAINT 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 2 [Defamation (Libel CC 45& Slander CC 46)] 3 (Against AH Defendants and Does 1 - 25) 4 42. Plaintiff re-alleges herein by this reference each and every allegation contained in 5 paragraphs 1 through 41, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 6 43. Plaintiff first became aware inor about August 2015 ofDefendants' malicious publishing 7 of false, defamatory, and disparaging statements about Plaintiff in the Film. These 8 statements, authored and published by Defendants, are easily accessible to the general 9 public, including Plaintiffs potential and actual business partners, connections, 10 acquaintances, venturers and contacts, with whom Plaintiff transacts business or plans to 11 transact business. 12 44. Through the Film, Defendants have actively, recklessly, maliciously, and aggressively 13 distributed false and defamatory information about Plaintiff to millions of individuals, 14 including persons in the State ofCalifornia, and around the world. The object isto destroy 15 Plaintiffs exemplary professional reputation, to make himtheobject of ridicule, hatred, 16 and personal attack, and to negatively influence other persons and entities and dissuade 17 them from doing business with Plaintiff in the future, based onthe defamatory information 18 in die Film. 19 45. Given the uncontroverted international distribution and success ofthe Film, it isclear that 20 Defendants' false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff are tremendously detrimental, 21 and can easily cause, and have caused, serious damages to the excellent professional 22 reputation which Plaintiff has worked tirelessly to establish. 23 46. At various times, in various combinations, Defendants, and each ofthem, conspired with I'24 each odier toengage iu the acts, as alleged inthis Complaint. ^25 47. Plaintiffs ability to pursue his professional endeavors depends heavily on his reputation ^-"26 for competence, high integrity, credibility, and honesty. "27 48. All ofthe defamatory statements in the Film, including those listed in paragraph 37, above, M28

8 COMPLAINT 1 are false, in their entirety, as they pertain to Plaintiff. All of said are slanderous because 2 the audiences who watched the film heard the statements described in paragraph 37 above 3 and understood that Defendants were portraying Plaintiff as a sleazy, greedy, selfish, 4 personal manager that took advantage of the members of N.W.A. and caused the demise 5 ofN.W.A. 6 49. All ofthe statements alleged in paragraph 37, above, are also libelous because they expose 7 Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy in that they insinuate that Plaintiff is a 8 sleazy, greedy, selfish persona! manager that took advantage of the members ofN.W.A. 9 and caused the demise ofN.W.A. 10 50. The large number of factual errors, incorrect speculations, innuendo, and out-and-out false 11 statements contained in the statements alleged in paragraph 37, above, indicate that 12 Defendants utterly failed to investigate the facts prior topublishing these statements inthe 13 Film, and shows a recklessdisregard or lack of concernfor the truth ofsaid statements. 14 51. The above-alleged defamatory statements in the Film were seen, or could be seen, 15 potentially, by millions of people who reside in California, and elsewhere. Defendants 16 made these defamatory statements intending to causePlaintiffs business interests to suffer 17 financial harm and have, in fact, caused such harm. Defendants made such statements 18 intentionally, knowing and/or having reason to know that the public and potential and 1.9 actual clients and business partners, venturers, and associates ofPlaintiffwould rely on 20 these defamatory statements andcease doing further business with Plaintiffas a result. 21 52. The above-alleged defamation was committed with express malice, hatred or ill-will, done recklessly, and made to advance Defendants' own selfish and pecuniary interests. 23 Defendants, and each of them, published the above-alleged defamatory statements either with knowledge that they were false and defamatory ofPlaintiff, orwith reckless disregard ~25 for their truth or falsity and the defamatory nature of the statements and the attendant harm °26 caused. '.27 53. As a proximate result ofthe above-described publications, Plaintiff has suffered loss of K28

COMPLAINT 1 and damage to his exemplary professional reputation, and creditworthiness, all to his 2 general damage inan amount to be determined according to proof attrial, but inan amount 3 well in excess of this Court'sgeneral jurisdiction. 54. The above-described defamatory statements were published by Defendants, and each of 5 them, with malice, oppression and fraud, and because oftheir feelings ofhatred and ill-will 6 toward Plaintiff, and with willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs right to conduct 7 his business, thereby justifying an award ofpunitive damages against Defendants, and each 8 of them. 9 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 10 (Trade Libel) 11 (Against AllDefendants and Does 1 - 35) 12 55. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each ofthe allegations contained in paragraphs 1through ' 13 54. inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 14 56. The above-alleged statements inparagraph 37 are false and, therefore, constitute trade libel 15 and trade disparagement ofPlaintiffs business. 16 57. Plaintiff is ahighly successful and respected business professional in the music industry, 17 since the late 1960's and 1970's, functioning as both a creative and business executive. 18 58. Defendants recklessly, willfully and maliciously made numerous false statements as 19 above-alleged, to countless third parties about the supposed impropriety and lawlessness 20 with which Plaintiffoperates his business. 21 59. In fact, Defendants' above-alleged published statements listed in paragraph 37 are false. 22 60. The above-alleged statements significantly disparaged Plaintiffs business, and Defendants made the above-alleged statements intending to cause Plaintiff and his business to suffer .24 substantial financial harm andhave, in fact, caused suchharm. s25 61. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew that the above-alleged statements were false, deceptive, and misleading when they were made. '27 Such false statements were intended by Defendants, and each ofthem, to mislead, and, in v!28

10 COMPLAINT 1 fact, did mislead, the public, as well as Defendants made such statements intentionally, 2 knowing and/or having reason to know that the public and potential and actual clients, 3 business partners, venturers, and associates would rely on these defamatory statements and 4 cease doing further business with Plaintiffas a result. 5 62. As a direct and proximateresult of the above-alleged statements, Plaintiff has suffered and 6 will continue to suffer substantial monetary and other damages, including but not limited 7 to, the expense of measures reasonably necessary to counteract the false statements, in an 8 amount according to proofat trial. 9 63. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the above-alleged defamation 10 was committed with express malice, hatred or ill-will and made to advance Defendants' 1 own selfish and pecuniary interests. Defendants, and each of them, knew their statements 12 were false when they were made and/or made such statements in reckless disregard oftheir 13 truth or falsity. Defendants knew that the above-alleged statements could and would cause 14 Plaintiffsevere harm and intended that they cause Plaintiff such harm. 15 64. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that in committing the despicable 16 acts set forth above, Defendants, and each of them, acted with malice, ill-will and with the

intent and design of damaging, oppressing and destroying Plaintiffs business enterprises 18 with reckless disregard of his rights, all on account of which Plaintiff is entitled to an 19 award ofpunitive damages against Defendants and each ofthem. 20 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(False Light) 22 (Against All Defendants and Does 1 - 45) 23 65. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each ^24 of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 64, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. •-. 25 66. Defendants published the above-alleged reckless, false and defamatory statements ^'26 regarding Plaintiffin the Film. •27 67. By attributing the statementsalleged above to Plaintiff, Defendants placed Plaintiffin a M28

11. COMPLAINT 1 false light beforethe public. 2 68. Defendants, by their false representations, have placed Plaintiff in a false light, which 3 would be highly offensive to anyreasonable person. 4 69. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew of the falsity 5 of the statements or acted in reckless disregard as to the truth orfalsity of the statements 6 andthe false light in which Plaintiff would beplaced bypublication of the statements. 7 70. Defendants gave publicity to the statements by publishing the statements in the Film, 8 which makes those statements accessible worldwide to potentially millions of individuals. 9 71. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that Defendants intended to depict 10 Plaintiffs in a false, fictionalized and sensationalized light in order to benefit themselves 11 through promoting the idea that Plaintiff was a sleazy, greedy, selfish personal manager 12 that took advantage of the members of N.W.A. and caused the demise of N.W.A. The 13 statements, as set out above, falsely portray Plaintiff as corrupt, deceitful, crooked, and 14 fraudulent. 15 72. As a result of the publication of the above-alleged statements, Plaintiff has suffered injury 16 tohisexemplary professional reputation and has been threatened with disruption ofhis 17 business activities and opportunities, resulting in a substantial loss of income and loss of 18 the value of his business. Although the full nature, extent, and amount of these damages 19 are currently unknown, this Complaint will be amended at or before trial to insert such 20 information if such an amendment is deemed necessary bytheCourt. 21 73. hi addition, Defendants' above-alleged conduct was done with a conscious disregard of the 22 rights ofPlaintiff, and was done with the intent to injure Plaintiffs exemplary professional 23 reputation. Defendants' acts constitute oppression, fraud, and/or malice, entitling Plaintiff "24 to an award of punitive damages inanamount appropriate to punish or set anexample of 25 ^26 the Defendants, to be determined at trial. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 27 (Misappropriation of Likeness) •:'28 (Against AH Defendants and Does I - 55)

12 COMPLAINT 1 74. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 73, inclusive, as thoughfully set forthherein. 3 75. Without Plaintiffs consent, Defendants used Plaintiffs exact identity in the Film.. In the 4 Film, "Jerry Heller" is played by actor Paul Giamatti. Plaintiff never approved to this 5 portrayal. Defendants did not even bother to give the character a fictional name, like 6 "Gary Belter," for example. 7 76. Instead, Defendants blatantly used Plaintiffs likeness in the Film for their advantage, 8 commercial or otherwise. 9 77. Defendants misappropriated Plaintiffs likeness with actual malice. 10 78. Defendants' conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the invasion of Plaintiffs 11 rights, including without limitation, his privacy rights. 12 79. Plaintiffsuffered the invasion of his rights, including without limitation, his privacy rights, 13 entitlinghim to legal damages, according to proofat trial. 14 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage) 16 (Against AH Defendants and Does 1 - 65) 17 80. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each of the allegations contained inparagraphs 1through 18 79, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 19 81. Plaintiff has aneconomic relationship with hisclients, which has theprobability for future 20 economic benefit to Plaintiff. 21 82. Plaintiffis informed and believes, andthereon alleges, that Defendants knew of these 22 economic relationships, and intentionally engaged inwrongful and deceptive acts with the 23 ^24 design to interfere with ordisrupt the prospective economic advantage that would inure to Plaintiffs benefit as a result, of these economic relationships. "25 83. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, thatDefendants' actions have °'26 actually disrupted or interfered with these relationships and made the performance of those -27

M relationships more burdensome and expensive for Plaintiff. 28

i. M 13 COMPLAINT 1 84. Plaintiff isinformed and believes, and thereon alleges, that as adirect and proximate result i 2 ofDefendants' conduct and the disruption ofthe economic relationship between Plaintiff 3 and itscustomers, Plaintiff has suffered significant legal damages, inamount that is 1 4 presently unknown, but which will be proven at trial. ! 5 85. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants' wrongful actions 1 6 were willful, malicious, oppressive and inconscious disregard ofPlaintiffs rights, and that ; 7 Plaintiff istherefore entitled to an award ofexemplary damages to punish Defendants for ! 8 their wrongful conduct. ; 9 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION ! 10 (Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage) 11 (Against AllDefendants and Does 1 - 75) 12 86. Plaintiff repeats and.re-alleges each ofthe allegations contained inparagraphs 1through 13 85, inclusive, as though fully set forthherein. 1^ 87. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff has aneconomic I 15 i relationship with itsclients, which hastheprobability forfuture economic benefit to ! 16 Plaintiff. I 17 i 88. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew, or should ! 18 j have known, of these economic relationships, and they did not actwith reasonable care | 19 with regard to Defendants' wrongful and deceptive acts designed tointerfere with or 20 disrupt theprospective economic advantage that would inure toPlaintiffs benefit asa ! 21 1 j 22 resultof theseeconomic relationships. 89. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants' actions have | 23 actually disrupted orinterfered with these relationships and made the performance ofthose i ^'24 relationships more burdensome andexpensive for Plaintiff. ? '"'25 90. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants' wrongful conduct < '"'''26 was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff. Defendants' conduct resultedin the , 27 disruption of the economic relationship between Plaintiff and his clients, Plaintiff has ; fo28

14. COMPLAINT 1 suffered damage to its business, and itsgood will, inamount thatis presently unknown, but

which will be proven at trial. 3 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4 (Breach of Contract-Settlement Agreement) 5 (AgainstDefendantTomikaWoods-Wright, Comptown Records, Inc. and Does 1-85) 6 91. Plaintiffrepeats and re-alleges eachof the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 7

i 90, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. | 8 92. On or around December 17, 1999, Plaintiff, on the one hand, and Defendant Tomika ! 9 Woods-Wright and Comptown Records, Inc. on the other hand, executed a written i 10 Settlement Agreement andGeneral Releases, resolving the actions between themthat were 11 consolidated as Los Angeles Superior CourtCaseNo. BC172414. A true andcorrectcopy 12 ofthe executed Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as'Exhibit B. 13 93. UnderParagraph 21 of the Settlement Agreement (NonDisparagement andNon 14 interference), Plaintiffand Defendant Woods-Wright and Comptown Records, Inc.agreed 15 that they "shall not make any statements, directly or indirectly in writing,orally, or in any 16 other form, whichdisparage in any way the other." 17 94. Plaintiff performedall, or substantially all, of the significantthings that the contract 18 required him to perform. 19 95. As alleged above, the tortious statements attributable to Defendant Woods-Wright and ! 20 j 21 Comptown Records, Inc. in the Film constitute a clear breach ofthe Settlement Agreement. 22 96. Thebreach of contract byDefendant Woods-Wright andComptown Records, Inc. caused 23 Hellerto suffersignificant legal damages, in an amountto be provenat the timeof trial. 1*24 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION ' 25 (Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) ! 0j26 (Against Defendant Tomika Woods-Wright, Comptown Records, Inc. and Does 1- 85) ; ,. 27 97. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each ofthe allegations contained inparagraphs I through w28

i_,

15 COMPLAINT 1 96, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 98. In every contract oragreement there isanunplied promise ofgood faith and fair dealing. 3 This means that each party will not do anything to unfairly interfere with the right ofany 4 other party to receive the benefits ofthe contract. 5 99. Onor around December 17,1999, Plaintiff, onthe one hand, and Defendant Tomika 6 Woods-Wright andComptown Records, Inc., on the otherhand, executed a written 7 Settlement Agreement and General Releases, resolving theactions between them that were 8 consolidated asLos Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC1724I4. Atrue and correct copy 9 ofthe executed SettlementAgreement is attachedhereto as Exhibit B. 10 100. Plaintiff performed all,or substantially all,of thesignificant things thatthecontract 11 required him to perform; 12 101. Defendant Woods-Wright and Comptown Records, Inc. unfairly interfered with 13 Plaintiffs right to receive the benefits ofthe contract. 14 102. Plaintiff was harmed byher conduct. This breach byDefendant Woods-Wright and 15 Comptown Records, Inc. caused Plaintiff to suffer significant legal damages, in anamount 16 to be proven at the time oftrial. 17 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 (Breach of Oral Contract) 19 (Against Defendants Savidge, Wenkus, and Xenon and Does 1 - 90) 20 103. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each ofthe allegations contained in paragraphs 1through 21 102, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 22 104.In or around May 21,2001, Plaintiffentered into an oral contract for the servicesof 23 Defendants S. Leigh Savidge and Alan Wenkus of Defendant Xenon Pictures, Inc/Xenon ;*24 Entertainment Group ("Xenon") tocollaborate with Plaintiff towrite an original screenplay relating the story ofRuthless and N.W.A, Infurtherance ofthis agreement, 26 Defendants Savidge and Wenkus worked with and met with Plaintiff and prepared atleast ^27

M four draft screenplays, including November 14,2002 and August 16,2008 screenplays 28

16 COMPLAINT 1 entitled, "Straight Outta Compton." 1 2 105. Atalltimes, under his agreement with Defendants Savidge/Wenkus/Xenon, the ! 3 | 4 screenplays were Plaintiffs property, and inexchange fortheirservices, Defendants i Savidge/Wenkus/Xenon were to receive equal credit and equal compensation that Plaintiff 5 1 would receive asa writer and producer ofany film based upon the screenplay that Plaintiff 6 commissioned them to write. • 7 106. Plaintiff performed all, or substantially all, of thesignificant things thatthecontract i required him to perform. 1 9 107. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that theFilm is based onthe 1 10 screenplay drafted by Defendants Savidge and Wenkus, and that Defendants | 11 | 12 Savidge/Wenkus/Xenon sold the screenplay, behindPlaintiffs back and withoutPlaintiffs authority or consent, to New Line Cinemas (who in turnsold thescreenplay to Defendant i 13 j NBC Universal). j 14 108. The breach of contract by Defendants Savidge, Wenkus, and Xenonhavecaused Plaintiff 15 to suffer significant legal damages, in an amount to beproven at thetime of trial. 16 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 17 (Breach of Implied Covenant of GoodFaith and FairDealing) j 18 j 19 (Against DefendantsSavidge,Wenkus, and Xenon and Docs 1 - 90) 109. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each ofthe allegations contained inparagraphs 1through 20 108, inclusive, as thoughfully set forth herein. 21 110. Inevery contract oragreement there is an implied promise ofgood faith and fair dealing. | 22 This means that each party will not do anything to unfairly interfere with the right ofany ! 23 other party to receive the benefits ofthe contract. h'24 111. In or around May 21, 2001, Plaintiffentered into an oral contract for the services of j T25 Defendants S. Leigh Savidge and Alan Wenkus of Xenon Pictures, lnc/Xenon ! ''26 Entertainment Group ("Xenon") to collaborate with Plaintiff towrite an original , 27 screenplay relating the story ofRuthless and N.W.A. In furtherance ofthis M28

17 COMPLAINT i

1 1 agreement,Defendants Savidgeand Wenkus workedwith and met with Plaintiffand j 2 i prepared atleast four draft screenplays, including November 14,2002 and August 16, 3 i 3 j 2008 screenplays entitled, "Straight Outta Compton". i i 4 112. Plaintiff performed all, orsubstantially all, ofthe significant tilings that the contract 5 | required him to perform. ! 6 i 113. Defendants Savidge, Wenkus, and Xenon have unfairly interfered with Plaintiffs right to

receive the benefits ofdie contract. 8 1 i 114. The breach ofcontract by Defendants Savidge, Wenkus, and Xenon have caused Plaintiff ; 9 i to suffer significant legal damages, in anamount to beproven at thetimeof trial. i 10 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11 (Conversion) 12 (Against All Defendants and Does 1 - 90) 13 115. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each ofthe allegations contained inparagraphs 1through 14 114, inclusive,as though fully set forthherein. 15 116. Plaintiff owned and had a right topossess the Book and the Screenplays. 16 117. Defendants intentionally andsubstantially interfered with Plaintiffsproperty rights to 17 die Book and the Screenplays by adopting them astheir own and misappropriating them to 18 make the Film. 19 118. Defendants took possession ofthe Book and the Screenplays. 20 119. Defendants prevented Plaintiff from having access to the Book and the Screenplays. 21 120. Plaintiffdid not consent to Defendants' actions. 22 121. Plaintiff isinformed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants' wrongful 23 conduct was a substantial factor incausing harm to Plaintiff, in amount that is presently

i T24 unknown, but which wilt be provenat trial. i ~ 25 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION ^26 (Copyright Infringement) "27 (Against AH Defendants and Does 1 - 90) f'v.'' 28

18 COMPLAINT 1 122. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each ofthe allegations contained in paragraphs 1through 2 121, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 3 123. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therein alleges that Defendants have violated one 4 or moreof the exclusive rights granted to Plaintiffas a copyright owner. 5 124. Plaintiff isthe owner ofa valid copyright. Specifically, Plaintiff is the original author of 6 the Book; Plaintiffs Book iscopyrightable; and Plaintiff complied with the applicable 7 statutoryformalities to secure his copyright. 8 125. Plaintiff secured a valid copyright registration certificate from theCopyright Office. 9 126. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants unlawfully copied 10 dieconstituent elements of theBook thatareoriginal, specifically, numerous scenes that 11 are factual in the Filmare blatantly lifted directly from the Book. 12 •127. Plaintiff is entitled to recover theactual damages hesuffered as a result of the 13 infringement, by Defendants and any profits ofthe Defendant infringers that are attributable 14 to the infringement andare not taken into account incomputing theactual damages, 15 according to proofat trial. 16 128. Alternatively, Plaintiff is entitled tostatutory damages. In a case where thecopyright 17 ownersustains the burdenof proving, and the court finds, that infringement wascommitted 18 willfully, thecourt in its discretion may increase theaward of statutory damages to a sum 19 ofnot more than $150,000. 20

21 PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each ofthem, as I'24 V'25 follows: 0126 1. Formonetary damages, in an amount to be proven at trial,believed to be not less than ':'27 $35,000,000.00; 2. For prejudgment interest at the maximum legalrate; M 28

19 COMPLAINT 1 3, For punitive and exemplary damages, in an amount tobe proven attrial believed tobe not 2 less than $75,000,000.00; 3 4, For restitution ofail gains, profits and advantages obtained by Defendants, and each of 4 them, as aresult oftheir wrongful and unlawful conduct, in an amount to be proven attrial; 5 5. Forcosts and expenses, including attorneys' fees; and 6 6. For such other and further relief as this Court deems proper.

8 Dated:. October 30, 2015 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL R. SHAPIRO, APC 9

10

11 By: 12 Michael R. Shapiro Attorney for PlaintiffGERALD E.HELLER 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 '"'24 ':'25 ^}26 '"27 K!28

20 COMPLAINT Heller v. NBCUniversal, Inc., Docket No. BC599499 (Cal. Super. Ct. Oct. 30, 2015), Court Docket

General Information

Court CA Superior Court - Los Angeles County

Docket Number BC599499

Status Open

© 2015 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 21