Howard Films v. Miller - California Complaint PDF

(Page 1
of
32)
~--~-!
--,
S. 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
sUperlor~!hrEp
.
COuntv of l 0 California
08 Aoqeles
MAY 202016
$P
Sherri A. ca~
Attorney for Plaintiff

6 HOWARD FILMS, INC.
By_
unya
olden
OfficerlClert<
Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
11
.
0
.;;; ....
z
<
z
u~
<
~
:;~
~.
.-
:;d.
w =:::
w :i:~
,
e"
>
12
HOWARD FILMS, INC., a California

corporation,
13
Plaintiff
14
15
16
v.
JIMMY MILLER, an individual; JULIE
DARMODY, an individual; MOSAIC MEDIA
GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES I through 100,
17
18
19
20
Case No.
Be 6 21 21 7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:

1) BREACH OF CONFIDENCE
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
21
22
23
24
25
'-'
26
CD
27
28
COMPLAINT
Doc# 1 Page# 1 - Doc ID = 1653079228 - Doc Type = OTHER
(Page 2
of
32)
On information and belief, Plaintiff Howard Films, Inc. (hereinafter sometimes referred
to as "Howard Films") alleges as follows:
4
5
COMPLAINT
L
I.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
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
from the Defendants' unexcused breach of confidence that existed between Plaintiff and
Defendants.
10
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. Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiff s permission andlor without compensating Plaintiff in the form of payments,
19
credit and other consideration to the Plaintiff.
20
r:;::,
2.
4.
However, instead of compensating Plaintiff for its Concepts, Defendants
21
misappropriated, used, exploited Plaintiff s Concepts assisting in the production of the hit film
22
"Get Hard" without Plaintiffs 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.
,.i"1
','
'"
~,
26
27
II.
6.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
On May 4, 2011, a Ninth Circuit en bane panel published its decision, Montz v.
2)
:;;p
28
Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., 649 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2011) and determined that Plaintiffs
2
COMPLAINT
(Page 3
of
32)
claim for breach of confidence were not preempted by the Copyright Act. [d. at 979-91.
2
3
Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over this case.
7.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over each and everyone of the Defendants
4 and venue in this Court is proper in that Defendants reside and/or carryon business here, and
5
the wrongful acts of Defendants, in large part, originated here.
6
7
III.
8.
THE PARTIES
Plaintiff Howard Films, Inc. is a California corporation organized and existing
8 under the laws of the state of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles,
9
10
of the "Prison Coach," David Hayter and Tamer Howard, for all purposes, including the
11
exploitation of the treatment and the bringing of this action.
12
"
9.
David Hayter is a well-known writer and producer and is one of the top writers
13
in Hollywood having written such movies as "X-Men" (screenplay); "The Scorpion King"
14
(screenplay-starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson); and "X-Men 2" (story and screenplay);
15
"The Watchmen" (screenplay); Mr. Hayter was recently hired to write and direct Stan Lee's
16
"Black Widow." Tamer Howard is a writer, casting director, and producer.
17
;2)
S1
State of California. Plaintiff Howard Films, Inc., is the assignee of the rights of the co-writers
10.
Defendant Jimmy Miller is a producer and personal manager residing in the
18
County of Los Angeles, State ofCalifomia. Defendant Jimmy Miller is a principal of
19
Defendant Mosaic Media Group, Inc. and regularly conducts business in Los Angeles,
20
California.
21
II.
Defendant Julie Darmody is a producer and personal manager residing ih the
22
County of Los Angeles, State of California. Defendant Julie Darmondy was formerly
23
associated with Defendant Mosaic Media Group, Inc. and regularly conducts business in Los
24
Angeles, California.
25
12.
Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Defendant Mosaic Media Group, Inc.,
26
is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. In
27
addition, Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon allege that Defendant Mosaic
28
Media Group, Inc., is a business specializing in rendering production and personal
:;2:)
"::<)
::~,
3
COMPLAINT
Doc# 1 Page# 3 - Doc ID
1653079228 - Doc Type
OTHER
(Page 4
of
32)
management services. Defendant Mosaic Media Group, Inc. conducts business in Los
2
Angeles, California.
13.
[Intentionally left blank].
14.
15.
Plaintiff 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
11
Defendants DOES 1 through 100 when ascertained. These fictitiously named Defendants, and
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
~ ~ ~~
14
this action. Hereinafter Defendant Jimmy Miller, Defendant Julie Darmody, Defendant
~~ ~" :!;;
~~
15
Mosaic Media Group, Inc., and Does I through 100 will be collectively referred to as
16
"Defendants."
.
c
~~~
~ -d
'
~ .~ u ~
'
x
'"
>
17
Defendants at all times herein mentioned were agents, employees and/or alter
18
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
21
on information and belief and are likely to have further evidentiary support after a reasonable
22
opportunity for further investigation and/or discovery.
23
'"-.
16.
17.
At all material times hereto, Defendants, and each of them, were the alter ego of
24
each other, or were in a principal and agency relationship, and as such were acting with the
25
implied or ostensible authority of each other. On that basis, Plaintiff alleges that each of the
26
Defendants is the alter ego of each other Defendant in that each Defendant is but an
27
instrumentality or conduit of one or more of the other Defendants in the pursuit of a single
28
business venture such that disregard of the separate nature of the Defendants' corporate
"'1
'-'
:::;:.
~,
::;:!
::C'
4
COMPLAINT
1653079228 - Doc Type
OTHER
(Page 5
of
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
Defendants has common employees or agents, and at the time this matter arose, was operating
from the same business location, and using the financial resources of the other Defendants, and
each of the Defendants tends to benefit jointly from the transactions entered into by one or
more of the other Defendants.
8
9
10
II
12
18.
ALLEGATIONS COMMMON TO ALL COUNTS
When Plaintiff conceived the Concepts for the film the written format and
treatment had several variations.

19.
Plaintiff registered the treatment for the Concepts with the Writers' Guild at the
endof2011.
20.
The Concepts included ideas and material relating to a new, innovative, and
13
exciting film that included but was not limited to the elements set forth in Exhibit "A" and
14
incorporated herein as fully set forth.
15
21.
From about May of2012, Plaintiff and/or its agents, managers, counsel and/or
16
representatives on their behalf, presented the Concepts to Defendants, their predecessors,
17
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
_)
IV.
23.
25
26
and bilateral expectation that Defendants would not disclose, use, and/or exploit the Concepts
27
without Plaintiff s permission and/or without compensating Plaintiff in the form of payments,
28
credit and other consideration to the Plaintiff.
::-.;.:.)
~,
5
COMPLAINT
(Page 6
of
32)
>
" ::::,
25.
26.
27.
28.
After the massive
that Plaintiff pitched to Defendants, Defendants have made huge sums of money by producing
the film based on Plaintiff s Concepts without compensating or crediting Plaintiff for their
Concepts as they committed to do.
29.
10
30.
II
31.
12
32.
13
33.
..J
a;
c;-
14
34 .
15
35.
16
36.
17
37.
[Intentionally left blank] .
18
38.
< ,.
0 ....
:z; .. d~
<
'
:z;"j; ",",....
0>::
~ ~ i~
w ;:;
"
b
of "Get Hard" that is based on Plaintiff s Concepts
su~cess
'" '"
.,,:" ~
;:
24.
.
"
19
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
20
BREACH OF CONFIDENCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
21
22
23
24
.::::::)
25
39.
Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference ea<;h and every allegation
contained in each paragraph above.

40.
Starting in May of 20 12, Plaintiff and Defendants formed a confidential
relationship by their course of conduct.

41.
~-,
,y
OJ
26
27
and bilateral expectation that Defendants would not disclose, use, and/or exploit the Concepts
OJ
'"
28
6
COMPLAINT
(Page 7
of
32)
without Plaintiffs permission andlor without compensating Plaintiff in the fonn of payments,
2
3
credit and other considerations to Plaintiff.

42.
In light of well-established customs and practices of the entertainment industry
and on the mutually understood condition and bilateral expectation that Defendants would not
disclose, use andlor exploit the Concepts without Plaintiff s pennission andlor without
compensating Plaintiff in the fonn of payments, credit and other consideration to the Plaintiff,
Defendants' actions and conduct implied and led Plaintiff to reasonably believe that
Defendants would not disclose, use andlor exploit the Concepts without Plaintiffs pennission
andlor without compensating Plaintiff.
10
43.
Plaintiff perfonned all conditions, covenants and promises required on their part
11
to be perfonned in accordance with the tenns and conditions of their confidential relationship
12
with Defendants.
13
44.
Defendants breached the confidential relationship by, among other actions,
14
disclosing, misappropriating, and exploiting Plaintiff s Concepts by disclosing Plaintiff s
15
Concepts and producing the hit film "Get Hard" repackaged as Defendants' own projects
16
without Plaintiffs pennission andlor without compensating Plaintiff in the fonn of payments,
17
credit, and other consideration to Plaintiff.
18
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
20
the Concepts without Plaintiffs pennission andlor without compensating Plaintiff.
21
46.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' breaches described herein,
22
Plaintiff has suffered irreparable damages, including lost profits, and Plaintiff 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
28
48.
Defendants' conduct was malicious, fraudulent, oppressive and intended to
injure Plaintiff. Additionally, Defendants' conduct and the conduct of the Defendants'
7
COMPLAINT
(Page 8
of
32)
officers, directors, and/or managing agents who authorized, directed, and/or ratified the
2 Defendants' acts was willful and intentional and done with oppression and malice against
3 Plaintiff, and with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff rights. Therefore, under these
4
circumstances, Defendants' behavior is despicable and warrants the imposition of punitive
damages in a sum appropriate to punish the Defendants and deter future, similar misconduct.
V.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them as
8 follows.
9
I.
For injunction(s) ordering Defendants to stop using Plaintiffs concepts;
10
2.
For an order that Defendants destroy all materials of every nature and kind in
II
12
3.
For restitution in the amount of the benefit to Defendants;
13
4.
For general damages sustained by Plaintiff;
-.
J~
14
5.
For special damages sustained by Plaintiff;
~'
15
6.
For lost profits sustained by Plaintiff;
16
7.
For Defendants' profits;
17
8.
For an accounting;
18
9.
punitive damages;
19
10.
For Plaintiffs costs;
20
II.
For prejudgment interest; and
21
12.
For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
,,
0
0
i>: "; '"
~
..::
<II
'"
.,; " ~
> ....
-
~-o::"~~
....
"" , i~
,""
z
.their possession, custody or control that are based on Plaintiffs Concepts;
>
" " ]
22
23
24
::;)
VI.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial for all issues in this lawsuit.
DATED: May 18, 2016
THE KERNAN LAW FIRM
25
..n
,-.)
By:
26
S. Michael Kernan
Attorney for Plaintiff
:D
,)
S~(.-
27
:::;:)
~")
28
8
COMPLAINT
(Page 28
or
32)
- -
--_._------------,
FOR COURT USE ONL Y
The Kernan
FILED. .
9663 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 450

Beverly Hills, CA 90210
U-,4\1IJ-~rn'7
TELEPHONE NO.
FAX NO.
310-861-0503
aupelrior Court 01 Cahlomla
---------1
~AT~TO;R~N;EY~;;;,;;;'f.*~p.!~~~~c;F~IL~M~S~I~NfC~.
Is
Los
COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
"I Los Angeles
III North Hill Street
STREET ADDRESS
MAILING ADDRESS III North Hill Street
Officer/Cia!\(
l~:;:;~:JL~0~S~~~9~O~0~12~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~~~~~~~
:;..:~_ Deputy
CASE
Inc. v. Miller et al.

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
Unlimited
Limited
(Amount
demanded
exceeds
(Amount
demanded is
I
one
D
D
D
D
D
D
Uninsured motorist (46)
Asbestos (04)
Product liability (24)
D
D
Breach of contracUwarranty (06)
D
D
Medical malpractice (45)
Other collections (09)

Insurance coverage (18)
Other contract (37)
Wrongful eviction (33)
Intellectual property (19)
o
o
D
o
Professional negligence (25)
Judicial Review
Other non-PI/PDfIND tort (35)
Business tort/unfair business practice (07)

Defamation (13)
Fraud(16)
~Ioyment
AntitrusVTrade regulation (03)

Construction defect (10)
Mass tort (40)
Securities litigation (28)

EnvironmentallToxic tort (30)
Insurance coverage claims arising from the
above listed provisionally complex case
types (41)
Enforcement of Judgment
Other real property (26)
Unlawful Detainer
Civil rights (08)
Provisionally Complex Civil litigation

(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rule 3.740 collections (09)
Real Property
Eminent domain/Inverse
condemnation (14)
Dlher PIIPDNVD (23)
JUDGE:
Contract
Non-PI/PDIWD (Other) Tort
D
D
D
Joinder
DEPT:
Auto(22)
Other PI/PDIWD IPersonallnjury/Property

DamagelWrongful Death) Tort
Counter
for the case type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort
Complex Case Designation
Commercial (31)
Enforcement of judgment (20)
Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
o
o
Residential (32)
Oru9S(38)
RICO(27)
Diller complainl (not speCified above) (42)
Miscellaneous Civil Petition
Asset forfeiture (OS)
wrongful termination (36)
Partnership and corporate governance (21)

Diller petition (not specified above) (43)
2.
i i
factors requiring
complex under rule 3.400 of the Cal"lfornia Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
management:
Large number of separately represented parties
d.
Large number of witnesses
e.
c.
Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel

issues that will be time-consuming to resolve
Substantial amount of documentary evidence
f.
Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts

in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
Substantial posqudgment judicial supervision
8.
3. Remedies sought (check aI/ that apply): a.0 monetary b. [2] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief
4. Number Of causes of action (specify).' I Cause of Action: Breach ofContidence
c0punitive
5. This case
is
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
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
. L~_ _'J--L7,;'1}J\"""""tV""""-""'''''"=<>=o=-___
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.
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 .
Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onlv
:!"r
.:,i.
,._
Form AdoptB(j lot Mandatory Use
Judicial Council 01 California

CM..o,O [Re~. July 1. 2007]
1'"01 e 1 of 2
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
1653079228 - Doc Type
OTHER
(Page 29
or
32)
SHORT TITLE"
Be 6 21 21 7
Howard Films, Inc. v. Miller,
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 Angeles 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 Court 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
9. Location where one or more of the parties reside.
3. Location where cause of action arose.
10. Location of Labor Commissioner Office.
4. Mandatory personal injury filing in North District.
11. Mandatory filing location (Hub Cases - unlawful detainer, limited
S. Location where performance required or defendant resides.
non-collection, limited collection, or personal injury).
6. Location of property or permanently garaged vehicle.
A
Civil Case Cover Sheel
Category No.
Type of Action
(Check only one)
Applicable ReasonsSee Step 3 Above
Auto (22)
A7100 Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property DamageNVrongful Death
1, 4, 11
Uninsured Motorist (46)
A7110 Personallnjury/Property DamageNVrongful Death - Uninsured Motorist
1, 4, 11
A6070 Asbestos Property Damage
1. 11
A7221 Asbestos - PersonallnjuryNVrongful Death
1, 11
A7260 Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental)
1,4,11
A7210 Medical Malpractice - Physicians & Surgeons
1,4,11
A7240 Other Professional Health Care Malpractice
1, 4. 11
A72S0 Prem'lses Liabil"lty (e.g., slip and fall)
A7230 Intentional Bodily Injury/Property DamageNVrongful Death (e,g"

assault, vandalism, etc,)
A7270 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
A7220 Other Personal Injury/Property Damage.NVrongful Death
Ot:
~I-
Asbestos (04)
Product Liability (24)
Medical Malpractice (45)
Other Personal
Injury Property
Damage Wrongful
Death (23)
LAC IV 109 (Rev 2/16)

LASe Approved 03-04
1, 4, 11
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM

AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION
1, 4, 11
1,4, 11
1, 4, 11
Local Rule 2.3

Page 1 of4
(Page 30
or
32)
"
SHORT TITLE:
CASE
Howard Films, Inc, v, Miller,
."
Civil Case Cover Sheet

Category No.
~ ~
".
"
C Applicable
Reasons - See Step 3
Above
Type of Action .
(Check only one)
Business Tort (07)
A6029 Other Commercial/Business Tort (not fraud/breach of contract)
1,2,3
Civil Rights (08)
A6005 Civil RightslDiscrimination
1,2,3
a:m
Defamation (13)
A6010 Defamation (slander/libel)
1,2,3
,-" "
Fraud (16)
A6013 Fraud (no contract)
1,2,3
A6017 Legal Malpractice
1,2,3
A6050 Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal)
1,2,3
Other (35)
A6025 Other Non-Personallnjury/Property Damage tort
1,2,3
Wrongful Termination (36)
A6037 Wrongful Termination
1,2,3
A6024 Other Employment Complaint Case
1,2,3
A6109 Labor Commissioner Appeals
10
A6004 Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful

eviction)
2, 5
A6008 ContractlWarranty Breach -Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence)
A6019 Negligent Breach of ContractlWarranty (no fraud)
A6028 Other Breach of ContractlWarranty (not fraud or negligence)
A6002 Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff
A6012 Other Promissory Note/Collections Case
5, 11
A6034 Collections Case-Purchased Debt (Charged Off Consumer Debt

Purchased on or after Januarv 1 20141
5,6,11
A6015 Insurance Coverage (not complex)
1,2,5,8
A6009 Contractual Fraud
1,2,3,5
A6031 Tortious Interference
1,2,3,5
[!!
A6027 Other Contract Dispute(not breach/insuranceJfraud/negligence)
1,2,3,8,9
Eminent Domain/Inverse
Condemnation (14)
A7300 Eminent Domain/Condemnation
Wrongful Eviction (33)
A6023 Wrongful Eviction Case
2,6
A6018 Mortgage Foreclosure
2,6
A6032 Quiet Title
2,6
A6060 Other Real property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure)
2,6
Unlawful Detainer-Commercial
(31)
A6021 Unlawful Detainer-Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction)
6,11
Unlawful Detainer-Residential
(32)
A6020 Unlawful Detainer-Residential (not drugs or wrongfUl eViction)
6, 11
l'
3'
Unlawful DetainerPost-Foreclosure (34)
A6020F Unlawful Detainer-Post-Foreclosure
2,6,11
'?:>
Unlawful Detainer-Drugs (38)
A6022 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs
2,6,11
~1:!
"c. ...
0
0""
~~
0::
-
Cl
0::
ni
is;:;
..
I!?Qj
"
Cl
"~ E
o ..
zC
'E
"E
Professional Negligence (25)
,.,
0
C.
Other Employment (15)
Breach of ContracV Warranty

(06)
(not insurance)
U
E
E
0
Insurance Coverage (18)
Other Contract (37)
"c.2
.
"-
"
'"
~
"
.5:>
<:>
CJ
'"
Other Real Property (26)
1,2,5
1,2,5
5,6,11
Collections (09)
2, 5
Number of parcels_ _ _
2,6
'--~
LACIV 109 (Rev 2/16)

,LASC Approved 03-04

Local Rule 2,3

Page 2 of4
1653079228 - Doc Type
OTHER
(Page 31
or
32)
S"ORT TITLE
Howard Films, Inc. v. Miller,
CASE
.s:~
A6108 Asset Forfeiture Case
2,3,6
Petition re Arbitration (11)
A6115 Petition to Compel/ConfirmNacate Arbitration
2, 5
A6151 Writ - Administrative Mandamus
2,8
A6152 Writ - Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter
A6153 Writ - Other Limited Court Case Review
Other Judicial Rev'lew (39)
A615D OtherWr'lt IJudicial Review
2,8
AntllrusVTrade Regulation (03)
A6DD3 AnlitrusVTrade Regulation
1,2.8
Construction Defect (1 0)
A6007 Construction Defect
1,2,3
Claims Involving Mass Tort

(4D)
A6006 Claims Involving Mass Tort
1,2,8
Securities Litigation (28)
A6035 Securities Litigation Case
1,2.8
Toxic Tort
Environmental (30)
A6D36 Toxic Tort/Environmental
1,2,3,8
Insurance Coverage Claims

from Complex Case (41)
A6D14 Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only)
1,2,5,8
A6141 Sister Stale Judgment
2,5,11
A616D Abstract of Judgment
2,6
A61D7 Confession of Judgment (non-domestic relations)
2.9
A6140 Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes)
2.8
A6114 Petition/Certificate for Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Tax
2,8
A6112 Other Enforcement of Judgment Case
2,8,9
A6033 Racketeering (RICO) Case
1,2,8
A6030 Declaratory Relief Only
1,2,8
A6040 Injunctive Relief Only (not domestic/harassment)
2,8
A6011 Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tortlnon-complex)
1,2,8
.,
Writ of Mandate (02)
'u
"..,"
"0
~
:5'"..
.,
a.
E
0
<..>
.2n;
"U>
.2
.s:
~
"E
., "E.,
.,E
~
.E
"
"..,"'"
Enforcement
of Judgment (20)
w '0
RICO (27)
i!
.,"'"0 ...a.
" E0
.!!!
a;
<..> U
:E'" :?!
u
Other Complaints
(Not Specified Above) (42)
Partnership Corporation
Governance (21)
.,"'"0 ~"'"
.!!!
" ;;
a; "<..>
U> >
~::..f3
..n
Type of Action
(Check only one)
Asset Forfeiture (05)
a::
n;
C Applicable
Reasons - See Step 3
Above
"
. Civil Case Cover Sheet

Category No,
Other Petitions (Not

Specified Above) (43)
''--'
C,)
121 A6000 Other Civil Complaint (non-tortlnon-complex)
1,2,8
A6113 Partnership and Corporate Governance Case
2, 8
A6121 Civil Harassment
2,3,9
A6123 Workplace Harassment
2,3,9
A6124 Elder/DependentAdult Abuse Case
2, 3, 9
A6190 Election Contest
A6110 Petition for Change of Name/Change of Gender
2,7
A6170 Petition for Relief from Late Claim Law
2,3,8
A6100 Other Civil Petition
2,9
' .0
LACIV 109 (Rev 2116)

LASe Approved 03-04

Local Rule 2.3

Page 3 of 4
Doc# 1 Page# 31 - Doc ID - 1653079228 - Doc Type
OTHER
(Page 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
9663 Santa Monica Blvd.
REASON:
01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.011.
STATE.
CITY:
Beverly Hills
Step 5:
CA
ZIP CODE
90210
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
LACIV 109 (Rev 2116)
LASe Approved 03-04

Local Rule 2.3

Page 4 of 4

Howard Films v. Miller - California Complaint PDF

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Howard Films v. Miller - California Complaint PDF

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

(Page 1

S. Michael Kernan, State BarNo. 181747

Attorney for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

HOWARD FILMS, INC., a California

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:

Doc# 1 Page# 1 - Doc ID = 1653079228 - Doc Type = OTHER

NATURE OF THE ACTION

interest on the part of Defendants in the Concepts.

Plaintiff presented the Concepts to Defendants consistent with well-established

credit and other consideration to the Plaintiff.

However, instead of compensating Plaintiff for its Concepts, Defendants

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Doc# 1 Page# 2 - Doc ID = 1653079228 - Doc Type = OTHER

Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over this case.

the wrongful acts of Defendants, in large part, originated here.

Plaintiff Howard Films, Inc. is a California corporation organized and existing

exploitation of the treatment and the bringing of this action.

"Black Widow." Tamer Howard is a writer, casting director, and producer.

Defendant Jimmy Miller is a producer and personal manager residing in the

County of Los Angeles, State ofCalifomia. Defendant Jimmy Miller is a principal of

Defendant Julie Darmody is a producer and personal manager residing ih the

Media Group, Inc., is a business specializing in rendering production and personal

Doc# 1 Page# 3 - Doc ID

1653079228 - Doc Type

[Intentionally left blank].

[Intentionally left blank].

Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued

opportunity for further investigation and/or discovery.

Doc# 1 Page# 4 - Doc ID

1653079228 - Doc Type

organization, or other association, is necessary to prevent an injustice upon Plaintiff. In this

more of the other Defendants.

ALLEGATIONS COMMMON TO ALL COUNTS

treatment had several variations.

incorporated herein as fully set forth.

representatives on their behalf, presented the Concepts to Defendants, their predecessors,

representatives, presented the Concepts to at least Defendants' following predecessors, agents,

Plaintiff presented the Concepts to Defendants consistent with well-established

credit and other consideration to the Plaintiff.

Doc# 1 Page# 5 - Doc ID = 1653079228 - Doc Type = OTHER

[Intentionally left blank].

[Intentionally left blank].

[Intentionally left blank].

[Intentionally left blank].

After the massive

Concepts as they committed to do.

[Intentionally left blank].

[Intentionally left blank].

[Intentionally left blank].

[Intentionally left blank].

[Intentionally left blank].

[Intentionally left blank].

[Intentionally left blank].

[Intentionally left blank].

[Intentionally left blank] .

[Intentionally left blank].

of "Get Hard" that is based on Plaintiff s Concepts

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF CONFIDENCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference ea<;h and every allegation