Norman v. Ross

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/18/2020 10:11 AM Sherri R.
Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by D. Williams,Deputy Clerk

20STCV35711
Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Malcolm Mackey
1 PLONSKER LAW LLP

Michael J. Plonsker, (State Bar No. 101235)
2 MPlonsker@plonskerlaw.com
Rex D. Glensy, (State Bar No. 198909)
3 RGlensy@plonskerlaw.com
100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700
4 Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: 310.861.2050
5 Facsimile: 310.496.2577
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff
HAYLEY MARIE NORMAN
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
PLONSKER LAW LLP
11 HAYLEY MARIE NORMAN, an Case No.:

A TTORNEYS A T L AW
individual,
12 COMPLAINT FOR
L OS A NGELES
Plaintiff,
13 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT
v.
14 2. BREACH OF THE IMPLIED
TRACEE ELLIS ROSS, an individual; COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND
15 KENYA BARRIS, an individual; BRIAN FAIR DEALING
DOBBINS, an individual; BIG
16 BREAKFAST LLC, a limited liability 3. PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
company; ARTISTS FIRST, a business
17 entity; TOUCHSTONE TELEVISION 4. BREACH OF IMPLIED IN FACT
PRODUCTIONS LLC d/b/a ABC CONTRACT
18 STUDIOS, a California Limited Liability
Company; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, 5. BREACH OF CONFIDENCE
19
Defendants. 6. INTENTIONAL
20 MISREPRESENTATION
21 7. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH CONTRACT
22
8. INDUCING BREACH OF CONTRACT
23
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
24
25
26
27
28
7077
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 Plaintiff Hayley Marie Norman (“Norman” or “Plaintiff”) for her complaint (the
2 “Complaint”) hereby alleges as follows:
3 I. INTRODUCTION
4 1. This Complaint involves a situation that is all too common in Hollywood - the
5 insidious power structures that rely on abusing and silencing people for the benefit of the people
6 in power. In this situation, Plaintiff Hayley Marie Norman (“Norman”), a young hard-working
7 woman of color, who has been paving her way in the entertainment business for years and who
8 had an original idea for a television series (originally called “Mixed” and referred to as
9 “Norman’s Series”) and a dream that she could one day make a difference and inspire others, was
10 unscrupulously preyed upon. Norman’s Series is a 30-minute sitcom, employing flashbacks, that
PLONSKER LAW LLP
11 follows the journey of a mixed-race female protagonist as she grapples with her biracial identity
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
12 while living in the suburbs surrounded by both sides of her African American and Caucasian
L OS A NGELES
13 families. She was groomed with manifestations of mentorship and friendship, and then discarded
14 without qualm by those whom she looked up to (one most glaringly, Defendant Tracee Ellis Ross
15 (“Ross”)) who stole Norman’s Series and called it “Mixed-ish.” This situation – especially
16 regarding the treatment of people of color – has been repeated multiple times in the entertainment
17 industry, kept alive by the notion that those exploited and powerless, without sufficient monetary
18 resources, will simply go away and let the cycle repeat itself all over again with another
19 unsuspecting victim.
20 2. In 2017, Norman was able to secure herself a contract with Big Breakfast LLC
21 (“Big Breakfast”), a well-known production company which was interested in working with
22 Norman to further develop her series and then present it, jointly with Norman, to producers and
23 broadcasters. In return for sharing her concept with Big Breakfast, Norman was contractually
24 promised a starring role in the show, as well as both a writing and executive producing role. This
25 was especially exciting for Norman because aside from Big Breakfast’s prominence (this
26 company has produced multiple successful content in a diverse array of media), the company was
27 a sister company of Artists First (both being owned by a company called Electus) which was
28 producing the hit ABC Studios (“ABC”) show “Black-ish” and had clients involved in that
7077 -1-
1 production (Artists First is both a production and a management company). The excitement did
2 not end there in that early in the relationship between Norman and Big Breakfast, Norman
3 proposed that Ross, one of the stars of “Black-ish” represented by Artists First be brought onto
4 the project. To Norman’s delight, Big Breakfast sent the materials to Ross, who read the
5 treatment for Norman’s Series and then met with Norman to discuss the series. Ross then decided
6 she wanted to be involved in the project, knowing that it was created by Norman, and that
7 Norman was going to be a writer, actor and producer on it, and would be compensated and
8 credited if it was produced.
9 3. During the following months, Norman, at times with suggestions from Ross and
10 Big Breakfast, worked constantly on the development of her series, sharing all of her creative
PLONSKER LAW LLP
11 ideas with Ross and Defendant Brian Dobbins (“Dobbins”), Ross’s manager at Artists First who
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
12 was also involved in the development of Norman’s Series, in preparation for pitch meetings.
L OS A NGELES
13 Dobbins pitched Norman’s Series to Kenya Barris (“Barris”), one of the creators of “Black-ish,”
14 who was also represented by Artists First. It was pitched to Barris with the understanding that if
15 he was interested, Norman would be a producer, writer and actress on the series and would be
16 compensated and credited for her involvement. According to Dobbins, Barris declined to be
17 involved.
18 4. In or about November 2018, following extensive preparations by Norman and the
19 others, pitches were set up with six different broadcasters. These pitches went very well, but in
20 December 2018, Norman was advised by Ross and Dobbins that none of the broadcasters were
21 interested in financing or producing Norman’s Series.
22 5. In January 2019, Ross told Norman, under the guise of mentorship, that they were
23 going to put a hold on the Norman Series and revisit it in a few months’ time after rethinking how
24 to pitch it to other broadcasters that were interested.
25 6. Incredibly, in February 2019, Norman learned from articles in the press that ABC
26 was in development of a new series, a spin-off of “Black-ish,” created by, among others, Ross
27 and Barris, to be produced by Artists First, the sister company of Big Breakfast and which
28 represents both Ross and Barris. And, this supposed newly-created show was going to be about
7077 -2-
1 exactly what Norman’s Series is about – a 30-minute sitcom that, employing flashbacks, follows
2 the journey of a mixed race female protagonist as she grapples with her biracial identity while
3 living the suburbs surrounded by both sides of her African American and Caucasian families.
4 And what was this show going to be called? “Mixed-ish.”
5 7. To say that Norman was stunned would be an understatement. Big Breakfast,
6 Dobbins, and, to an even greater extent, Ross portrayed themselves as friends and mentors to
7 Norman, while at the same time they were plotting and scheming to steal her show and pass it off
8 as their own. Indeed, it bears repeating, Ross knew how much Norman looked up to her, and
9 Ross’s audacity is not only highlighted by her obvious disregard for her supposed friendship and
10 “sisterhood” (Ross’s words) with Norman, but also by the fact that Ross committed this act of
PLONSKER LAW LLP
11 treachery while, upon information and belief, under contract with Big Breakfast for Norman’s
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
12 Series.
L OS A NGELES
13 8. Before “Mixed-ish” was aired by ABC, Norman, through counsel, sent a letter to
14 all Defendants asserting her rights and advising them of the various obligations that they had to
15 Norman, including that the Norman Series had been pitched to Barris, and that by proceeding
16 with “Mixed-ish” Defendants would be participating in and furthering this illicit scheme.
17 Shockingly, all Defendants, including her friend and mentor Ross, ignored her.
18 9. Let it be very clear: “Mixed-ish” is Norman’s Series. The premise is identical, its
19 portrayal is identical, its setting is identical, and its tone is identical. Moreover, literally everyone
20 involved in the “creative” and “production” aspect of “Mixed-ish” was either directly or
21 indirectly involved with Norman and the development of Norman’s Series—from Big Breakfast
22 and Ross to Artists First and Dobbins, to Barris who ostensibly passed on Norman’s Series after
23 being presented with it, and to ABC, which knowingly proceeded with airing a series it knew was
24 the result of a theft and rip off perpetrated by the above-mentioned parties.
25 10. In this lawsuit, Norman seeks damages she has suffered as a result of the
26 despicable behavior of the Defendants, especially Ross, in whom Norman placed her trust and
27 looked upon her as a mentor.
28
7077 -3-
1 II. THE PARTIES
2 11. Plaintiff Hayley Marie Norman is an individual who at all times hereto was
3 residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
4 12. Defendant Tracee Ellis Ross is an individual who, upon information and belief,
5 was at all times hereto residing in the County of Los Angles, State of California.
6 13. Defendant Kenya Barris is an individual who, upon information and belief, was at
7 all times hereto residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
8 14. Defendant Brian Dobbins is an individual who, upon information and belief, was
9 at all times hereto residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
10 15. Defendant Big Breakfast LLC, is, upon information and belief, a limited liability
PLONSKER LAW LLP
11 company with its principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
12 16. Defendant Artists First, is, upon information and belief, a business entity with its
L OS A NGELES
13 principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
14 17. Defendant Touchstone Pictures Productions, LLC, is a California limited liability
15 company with its principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
16 Touchstone Pictures Productions, LLC, does business as ABC Studios.
17 18. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
18 otherwise, of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 25 are presently unknown to
19 Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities
20 of DOES 1 through 25 when the same have been ascertained. For convenience, each reference to
21 “Defendants” herein shall also refer to DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and all Defendants are
22 sometimes collectively referred to herein as “Defendants.”
23 19. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at all times herein
24 mentioned, each of the defendants may have been the agent, partner, representative, employee
25 and/or joint venturer of the remaining defendants, and each of them, and is, and at all times
26 mentioned herein may have been, acting within the course of the scope of such agency,
27 partnership, representation, employment and/or joint venture. Plaintiff is further informed and
28 believes, and based thereon alleges, that the acts and conduct alleged herein concerning each such
7077 -4-
1 defendant was known to, authorized by, and/or ratified by the other defendants, and each of them.
2 III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
3 20. In or about 2014 and 2015, Norman conceived of an idea for a comedy television
4 series (“Norman’s Series”). It was based on her own background as a mixed-race person where
5 one of her parents was African American and the other was Caucasian. It focused on the
6 dichotomy of these two identities and the issues confronted by the clash of two different
7 backgrounds that would be explored comedically, but with an underlying message of affirmation
8 and inclusion. Norman spent a significant amount of time creating this idea during which she
9 developed the proposed concept into a written treatment (the “Treatment”). She registered the
10 Treatment, called “Mixed,” with the WGA in 2016.
PLONSKER LAW LLP
11 21. On October 9, 2017, Norman entered into an agreement with Big Breakfast with
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
12 respect to the development of Norman’s Series (the “Agreement”). Pursuant to the Agreement,
L OS A NGELES
13 Big Breakfast agreed, among other things, that it would attempt to “set up” Norman’s Series
14 “with a broadcaster, network, online distributor, studio or other financier.” Had Big Breakfast
15 succeeded in doing so, it agreed that Norman would “be attached to render executive producer
16 services,” “be attached to render writer services,” and “be attached to render on camera services.”
17 Attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference is copy of the Agreement
18 entitled “Term Sheet” and the “Amendment to Term Sheet.” The Amendment to Term Sheet
19 extended the term of the Agreement to March 15, 2019.
20 22. Toward the end of 2017, the creative deck prepared by Norman, which
21 incorporated the Treatment created and developed by Norman (“the Deck”), was sent by Big
22 Breakfast for consideration by Ross via Dobbins, her manager at Artists First. Ross responded
23 very favorably to the Deck and sought a meeting with Norman that occurred in early January
24 2018. A few days after this meeting, Ross told Norman that she wanted to be involved in this
25 project, knowing that Norman was going to be a writer, actor and producer on it, and would be
26 compensated and credited if it was produced.
27 23. To push matters forward, later in January 2018, Big Breakfast set up a telephone
28 call between Norman, her representatives at Big Breakfast including Jillian Vogel, Ross, and
7077 -5-
1 Dobbins. Dobbins was at that time an executive producer on the show “Black-ish,” and now has
2 the same role on “Mixed-ish”. His company, Artists First is also credited as a producing entity of
3 both “Black-ish,” and now “Mixed-ish.” Upon information and belief, Artists First and Big
4 Breakfast have (or had at that time) common ownership.
5 24. By April 2018, all parties (Norman, Ross, Dobbins and others who were engaged
6 to work on Norman’s Series) were exchanging ideas and concepts to finalize the Deck and to
7 prepare for the pitch to be presented to production companies/distributors (the “Pitch”). The
8 Pitch was not far removed creatively from the original Treatment that Norman had created prior
9 to her entering into the Agreement. The Agreement provided that Norman would be present at all
10 pitches. Throughout this period, until approximately September 2018, the Deck was sent by,
PLONSKER LAW LLP
11 among others, Big Breakfast, Artists First and UTA (Ross’s talent agency) to proposed show
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
12 runners, writers and production companies, and all involved continued to discuss and strategize
L OS A NGELES
13 regarding the creative direction and appropriate business decisions to make regarding Norman’s
14 Series.
15 25. Throughout the Summer and Fall of 2018, for example, Dobbins gave the Deck to
16 numerous people. One of these was Kenya Barris, the credited creator of both “Black-ish” and
17 “Mixed-ish,” who was asked to become involved with the project by Dobbins with the
18 understanding that Norman would be involved as a producer and actor and compensated and
19 credited. Another person who was proposed to Norman to become involved was Peter Saji
20 (“Saji”), who was suggested as a potential show runner. Upon information and belief, Saji is
21 credited with having co-written the “backdoor pilot” for “Mixed-ish” with Ross and Barris. Two
22 other people who are known to have received the Deck are Karin Gist and Courtney Lily (who
23 was also suggested as a potential show runner), both of whom have been or are currently show
24 runners on “Mixed-ish.” It thus appears that everyone in a senior position on “Mixed-ish”
25 received, at some point in 2018, the Deck and were involved during the development of
26 Norman’s Series.
27 26. On November 12 and 13, 2018, Norman’s Series was pitched to six
28 networks/production companies: Showtime, Netflix, HBO, Hulu, Amazon, and Starz. Between
7077 -6-
1 the end of November and the beginning of December, among others, Ross’s team at UTA and/or
2 Dobbins followed up with each of the networks and Norman was told that all of them had passed
3 on the project. After the networks had passed, Ross called Norman to tell her that she (Ross)
4 believed that other options still existed, such as Apple, and they talked about getting together at
5 Ross’s home. Norman did not hear from Ross again until after the New Year.
6 27. On January 22, 2019, Ross texted Norman asking if the two could talk. In the
7 conversation that took place, Ross advised Norman that she was still interested in pursuing
8 Norman’s Series, but it was probably best if they took a “hiatus” for a few months and revisit the
9 situation at that time. Ross advised that it was best to let the dust settle before getting back to it.
10 28. Ross did not mention at this time, or ever before, that a spinoff of “Black-ish, the
PLONSKER LAW LLP
11 series she was then working on, had ever been discussed based on the premise of Norman’s
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
12 Series.
L OS A NGELES
13 29. Despite all of the above, on February 11, 2019, Norman learned from the press that
14 the producers of “Black-ish” were producing a “backdoor pilot” for a possible spinoff based on
15 the trials and tribulations about being mixed race. The “backdoor pilot” was written by Saji,
16 Barris, and Ross (who, upon information and belief, was still under contract at the time with Big
17 Breakfast to develop Norman’s Series). All people who had been involved in developing the
18 Norman Series and/or, on information and belief, had received and reviewed the Deck were
19 involved with this “new” series.
20 30. The following day, Norman called Luke Kelly Clyne (“Clyne”), the President of
21 Big Breakfast. Clyne feigned total surprise and said he would pursue the matter internally. He
22 later told Norman that he spoke to Drew Buckley (“Buckley”) who, upon information and belief,
23 is an executive with Electus, the company that owns both Big Breakfast and Artists First. As
24 reported by Clyne, Buckley claimed he had known about the proposed “Black-ish” spinoff for a
25 year and that it was “totally different.”
26 31. Norman immediately contacted Ross and spoke to her on February 16, 2019. Ross
27 admitted to her that the subject matter and format of the two projects was identical. Ross said that
28 she was going to serve as an Executive Producer on the new show. Ross also said, incredibly,
7077 -7-
1 that she and Barris, the credited creator of “Black-ish” and “Mixed-ish” (who shares the same
2 manager with Ross, and, upon information and belief, is in an intimate relationship with Ross),
3 came up with the idea a mere three weeks earlier, completely contradicting what Norman had
4 been told by Clyne. Ross stated that a script for the new show was already being written. As
5 mentioned above, almost everyone in a senior creative and executive position associated with this
6 new series, which Norman later learned was to be called “Mixed-ish,” was involved in the
7 development of Norman’s Series and, on information and belief, had access to the Deck and
8 everything else relating to the Norman Series. Ross never provided any explanation to Norman
9 regarding why Norman was not being included in the new series.
10 32. On June 24, 2019, through counsel, Norman contacted ABC, among others
PLONSKER LAW LLP
11 (including Barris and Artists First), explaining that “Mixed-ish” was Norman’s Series and that
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
12 proceeding with the production of “Mixed-ish” without Norman would be a breach of various
L OS A NGELES
13 express and implied agreements that Norman had with, among others, Ross, Big Breakfast, and
14 Artists First. ABC responded with a brush off, and has, in the intervening time, decided that it
15 will do nothing to rectify this wrong; indeed, it has participated in such wrong by willfully going
16 ahead with “Mixed-ish,” even after being informed of the contractual arrangements illustrated
17 above and of Norman’s rights in the series.
18 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
19 (Breach of Written Contract Against Big Breakfast)
20 33. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the allegations in
21 Paragraphs 1 through 32, above, as though fully set forth herein.
22 34. On or about October 9, 2017, Norman and Big Breakfast entered into the written
23 Agreement. On or about October 19, 2018, Norman and Big Breakfast entered into the
24 amendment of the Agreement.
25 35. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, among other things, Big Breakfast agreed
26 that it would attempt to “set up” Norman’s Series “with a broadcaster, network, online distributor,
27 studio or other financier.” The Agreement provides that had Big Breakfast succeeded in doing so,
28 it agreed that Norman would “be attached to render executive producer services,” “be attached to
7077 -8-
1 render writer services,” and “be attached to render on camera services.”
2 36. Big Breakfast breached the Agreement by setting up Norman’s Series with ABC
3 (through its sister company Artists First) and then not, among other things, attaching Norman as
4 an executive producer, not attaching Norman to render writer services, and not attaching her to
5 render on camera services.
6 37. Norman performed all of her contractual conditions, covenants and promises,
7 except those that have been waived, excused or prevented by Big Breakfast’s actions or
8 omissions.
9 38. As a direct and proximate result of the material and substantial breaches of the
10 referenced agreement, Norman has been damaged in an amount equal to at least $5,000,000, the
PLONSKER LAW LLP
11 specific amount of which will be determined at trial, plus interest thereon at the maximum legal
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
12 rate.
L OS A NGELES
13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

14 (Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Against Big Breakfast)
17 40. The Agreement contains a covenant implied by law that Big Breakfast will act
18 toward Norman in good faith and with fair dealing.
19 41. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing imposes on Big Breakfast the
20 duty not to take any action with the motive to frustrate Norman’s exercise of her rights under the
21 Agreement. Big Breakfast, in doing the acts alleged herein, even if not a direct breach of the
22 contractual language, has breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the
23 Agreement in that Big Breakfast in bad faith and with a motive to intentionally frustrate the actual
24 benefits to which Norman was entitled under the terms of the Agreement, has perpetrated the
25 above-described acts and omissions, and through its bad faith willful acts of, among other things,
26 usurping the business opportunity that rightly belonged to Norman, and having its sister
27 company, Artists First exploit Norman’s Series, involving personnel and clients, such as Ross,
28 Dobbins, and Barris, usurp Norman’s Series for its own use.
7077 -9-
1 42. As a direct and proximate result of the material and substantial breaches of the
2 covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the Agreement referenced above, Norman has
3 been damaged in an amount equal to at least $5,000,000, the specific amount of which will be
4 determined at trial, plus interest thereon at the maximum legal rate.
5 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
6 (Promissory Estoppel Against Tracee Ellis Ross)
9 44. In or around January 2018, Ross made a clear and unambiguous promise to
10 Norman that she would help guide Norman and ensure that Norman’s Series would be developed
PLONSKER LAW LLP
11 with Ross’s experienced knowhow in the entertainment industry and that Norman would be
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
12 involved in all aspects of the show should it get picked up by a broadcaster.

L OS A NGELES
13 45. Relying on the representations that Ross was best positioned to “take care” of
14 Norman and bring Norman’s Series to production, Norman shared all of her creative ideas and
15 her Treatment (and later the Deck) with Ross, and continued to work with her on the project.
16 46. Given Ross’s experience and superior knowledge of the entertainment industry,
17 and given Ross’s expressions of friendship and trust towards Norman, Norman did not have any
18 basis on which to judge Ross’s motives and actions, and that Norman did not have any reason at
19 that point to mistrust Ross, Norman’s reliance on Ross’s statements was both reasonable and
20 foreseeable.
21 47. As a direct and proximate result of Ross’s actions, Norman has been damaged in
22 an amount equal to at least $5,000,000 the specific amount of which will be determined at trial,
23 plus interest thereon at the maximum legal rate.
24 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 (Breach of Implied in Fact Contract Against Big Breakfast, Tracee Ellis Ross,
26 Kenya Barris, and Artists First)
7077 - 10 -
1 49. In or around October 2017, and continuing throughout the summer and fall of
2 2018, when Norman began sharing the contents of her Treatment and materials that was
3 eventually to become the Deck, and then the Deck itself with Big Breakfast, Ross, Dobbins (on
4 his behalf and on behalf of Artists First) and Barris, it was agreed, understood, conveyed by
5 Norman, or otherwise implied, that if any of the above-mentioned parties intended to utilize any
6 element of Norman’s Series including but not limited to, the idea for the Norman Series,
7 Norman’s development materials and the Deck in any manner in writing, developing, producing,
8 distributing, broadcasting another television program, that they, or each of them, would obtain
9 Norman’s consent and in the event that they, or each of them, did so, she would be duly
10 compensated, would be a producer on the series, and would be given both an acting role and
PLONSKER LAW LLP
11 proper screen credit.

A TTORNEYS A T L AW
12 50. This was not only the understanding, but it is the standard custom and practice of
L OS A NGELES
13 the television industry.

14 51. At all times herein, defendants were aware of the implied terms and conditions of
15 Norman’s submission, and following industry custom and practice, agreed to abide by them.
16 52. Norman has complied with all the terms and conditions of the implied contract
17 between herself and all defendants to the extent that such terms and conditions have not been
18 waived or excused by Defendants’ conduct.
19 53. Defendants, and each of them, breach the implied contract by accepting the idea
20 for the Norman Series and Norman’s materials, including, but not limited to, the Deck, and then
21 proceeding to write, develop, produce, distribute and exploit Norman’s submission with obtaining
22 her consent, without compensating her for her submission of these materials, including, but not
23 limited to, the Deck, and without giving her an acting role and screen credit.
24 54. At the time Defendants breach the implied contract, they, and each of them, were
25 aware that such breach would effectively destroy Norman’s efforts to market her project to others,
26 that she would suffer consequential damages and she would not receive proper screen credit as a
27 result of said breach. As a proximate result of Defendants’, and each of their, wrongful conduct,
28 Norman has been damaged in an amount equal to at least $5,000,000 the specific amount of
7077 - 11 -
1 which will be determined at trial, plus interest thereon at the maximum legal rate.
2 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
3 (Breach of Confidence Against Big Breakfast, Tracee Ellis Ross,
4 Kenya Barris, and Artists First)
7 56. When Norman disclosed her ideas and work product, including, but not limited to
8 the Deck, to Defendants, and each of them, she did so based upon the trust she placed in said
9 Defendants, and each of them, to treat her ideas and work product as proprietary and confidential
10 and to be utilized by Defendants, and each of them, to evaluate her ideas or to otherwise develop
PLONSKER LAW LLP
11 her proposed project with her. Norman reasonably and justifiably expected that Defendants, and
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
12 each of them, would not disclose or otherwise utilize her ideas and work product, including, but
L OS A NGELES
13 not limited to, the Deck unless such disclosure and utilization was on her behalf with
14 compensation, an acting role, a producer role, and screen credit.
15 57. Defendants, and each of them, were well aware of their obligation to limit the use
16 of Norman’s ideas and work product, including, but not limited to, the Deck, to developing a
17 television program only if Norman was properly compensated, received screen credits and
18 Norman was engaged to render services as an actor, writer and producer. The fact that
19 Defendants, and each of them, intentionally used Norman’s ideas and work product, including,
20 but not limited to, the Deck, to their own advantage in developing “Mixed-ish” constitutes a
21 breach of the confidential relationship between Norman and Defendants, and each of them.
22 58. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’, and each of their, wrongful
23 conduct in breaching their confidential relationship with Norman, she has been damaged in an
24 amount equal to at least $5,000,000 the specific amount of which will be determined at trial, plus
25 interest thereon at the maximum legal rate.
26 59. The above-described conduct of Defendants, and each of them, was willful and
27 intentional and done with oppression and/or malice, and was done with a conscious disregard of
28 Norman’s rights and interests, such that the conduct warrants the imposition of punitive damages
7077 - 12 -
1 against Defendants, and each of them, in a sum appropriate to punish Defendants, and each of
2 them, and to deter them from engaging in future similar misconduct, the actual sum subject to
3 proof at the time of trial. Norman is entitled to punitive damages in an amount to punish and
4 make an example of Defendants for the following reasons, among others: First, Defendants’, and
5 each of them, intentionally took Norman’s ideas and work product, including, but not limited to,
6 the Deck, for themselves and completely excluded Norman. Defendant’s scheming, and
7 maneuvering Norman into giving Defendants, and each of them, access to her ideas and work
8 product, including, but not limited to, the Deck, all served their goal and evidence a malicious,
9 oppressive and fraudulent mindset from the start in that Defendants, and each of them,
10 consciously, knowingly, and wrongfully took Norman’s ideas and work product, including, but
PLONSKER LAW LLP
11 not limited to the Deck, away from her with the malicious and fraudulent intent of depriving
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
12 Norman of it, and lining their own pockets. Defendants, and each of them, knew at the time that
L OS A NGELES
13 their carrying out of their scheme was not in Norman’s best interests and would be a cruel and
14 unjust financial hardship for her. Thus, Defendants, and each of them, consciously and
15 knowingly entered into a scheme designed, from the beginning, to fraudulently and maliciously
16 deny Norman her compensation, screen credits, and prevent her from rendering services as an
17 actor, producer and writer. In undertaking the actions described herein, among others,
18 defendants, and each of them, evidenced that they harbored a malicious, oppressive, and
19 fraudulent mindset.
20 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
21 (Intentional Misrepresentation Against Big Breakfast, Tracee Ellis Ross, Brian Dobbins,
22 and Artists First)
25 61. Throughout the parties’ negotiation of the written Agreement in or about October
26 9, 2017 and continuing during the term of the Agreement, Big Breakfast represented to Norman
27 that should Big Breakfast be able to set up Norman’s Series with any entity for the purpose of
28 exploiting such series, Norman would be attached to the project as executive producer, writer, and
7077 - 13 -
1 actress. Big Breakfast further represented to Norman during these negotiations and continuing
2 during the term of the Agreement that it would use its best efforts to ensure that Norman’s
3 position would be protected and that she would benefit from any sale of her series.
4 62. In or about January 2018 and continuing during her relationship with Norman and
5 involved in the Norman Series, Ross told Norman that she (Ross) would help guide Norman and
6 ensure that Norman’s Series would be developed with Ross’s experience and knowhow in the
7 entertainment industry and that Norman would be involved in all aspects of the show should it get
8 picked up by a broadcaster.
9 63. In or about January 2018 and continuing during his relationship with Norman and
10 while he was involved in the Norman Series, Dobbins (acting individually and on behalf of both
PLONSKER LAW LLP
11 Ross and Artists First) confirmed that he and Ross would “take care” of Norman and ensure that
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
12 Norman’s Series would be developed with Ross’s and Dobbins’s experienced knowhow in the
L OS A NGELES
13 entertainment industry and that Norman would be involved in all aspects of the show should it get
14 picked up by a broadcaster.
15 64. These representations and omissions were false and defendants, and each of them,
16 knew them to be false and fraudulent because defendants, and each of them, knew at the time of
17 some or all of these representations and omissions that they intended to appropriate Norman’s
18 Series for themselves without having any intention of attaching Norman in any manner to the
19 series “Mixed-ish.”
20 65. If Norman had known of the secret intentions of Defendants, and each of them, as
21 stated above, among other things, she would have never allowed them, or each of them, access to
22 the Norman Series and/or any of the ideas and work product comprising it, including, but not
23 limited to, the Treatment and the Deck, and she would have never accepted to work with them
24 under any circumstances.
25 66. Norman reasonably and justifiably relied on Defendants’, and each of their, false
26 and fraudulent representations and omissions due to the position of trust and confidence that
27 Norman had placed in them, and each of them, because they represented their friendship and
28 mentorship to Norman and she had no reason to disbelieve anything that they, and each of them,
7077 - 14 -
1 was saying.
2 67. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’, and each of their, fraudulent
3 actions, Norman has been damaged in an amount equal to at least $5,000,000 the specific amount
4 of which will be determined at trial, plus interest thereon at the maximum legal rate.
PLONSKER LAW LLP
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
L OS A NGELES
13 the Deck, for themselves and completely excluded Norman. Defendant’s scheming, and
14 maneuvering Norman into giving Defendants, and each of them, access to her ideas and work
15 product, including, but not limited to, the Deck, all served their goal and evidence a malicious,
16 oppressive and fraudulent mindset from the start in that Defendants, and each of them,
17 consciously, knowingly, and wrongfully took Norman’s ideas and work product, including, but
18 not limited to the Treatment and the Deck, away from her with the malicious and fraudulent intent
19 of depriving Norman of it, and lining their own pockets. Defendants, and each of them, knew at
20 the time that their carrying out of their scheme was not in Norman’s best interests and would be a
21 cruel and unjust financial hardship for her. Thus, Defendants, and each of them, consciously and
23 deny Norman her compensation, acting role, producer role, writing role, and screen credit. In
24 undertaking the actions described herein, among others, defendants, and each of them, evidenced
25 that they harbored a malicious, oppressive, and fraudulent mindset.
26 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
27 (Intentional Interference with Contract Against Tracee Ellis Ross, Kenya Burris, Artists
28 First and ABC Studios)
7077 - 15 -
3 70. Norman and Big Breakfast had and have a contractual relationship which is
4 evidenced in writing in the Agreement dated October 9, 2017, and the amendment dated October
5 18, 2018.
6 71. At all times since at the latest January 2018, Ross and Dobbins, and consequently
7 Artists First, had knowledge of the existence of the Agreement. Ross, Dobbins, and Artists First
8 are not parties to the Agreement.
9 72. At all times since at the latest September 2018, Barris had knowledge of the
10 existence of the Agreement. Barris is not a party to the Agreement.
PLONSKER LAW LLP
11 73. At all times since at the latest June 2019, before the first episode of “Mixed-ish”
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
12 aired, ABC had knowledge of the existence of the Agreement. ABC is not a party to the
L OS A NGELES
13 Agreement.
14 74. Ross, Dobbins, Artists First, Barris, and ABC intended to disrupt and interfere
15 with the performance of the Agreement, and did in fact disrupt and interfere with such
16 performance, by, among other things, engaging in a scheme to rip off Norman’s Series which is
17 the subject matter of the Agreement. Ross, Dobbins, Artists First, Barris, and ABC, who are all
18 involved in the production and exploitation of “Mixed-ish” knew that they, and each of them,
19 would benefit from their misconduct described herein.
20 75. Through their conduct, Defendants, and each of them intended to, and in fact did,
21 cause damage to Norman. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’, and each of their,
22 actions, Norman has been damaged in an amount equal to at least $5,000,000, the specific amount
23 of which will be determined at trial, plus interest thereon at the maximum legal rate.
7077 - 16 -
4 the Treatment and the Deck, for themselves and completely excluded Norman. Defendants’
5 scheming, and maneuvering Norman into giving Defendants, and each of them, access to her
6 ideas and work product, including, but not limited to, the Deck, all served their goal and evidence
7 a malicious, oppressive and fraudulent mindset from the start in that Defendants, and each of
8 them, consciously, knowingly, and wrongfully took Norman’s ideas and work product, including,
9 but not limited to the Deck, away from her with the malicious and fraudulent intent of depriving
PLONSKER LAW LLP
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
L OS A NGELES
14 deny Norman her compensation, acting role, producer role, and screen credit. In undertaking the
15 actions described herein, among others, defendants, and each of them, evidenced that they
16 harbored a malicious, oppressive, and fraudulent mindset.
17 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18 (Inducing Breach of Contract Against Tracee Ellis Ross, Kenya Burris, Artists First, and
19 ABC Studios)
22 78. Norman and Big Breakfast had and have a contractual relationship which is
23 evidenced in writing in the Agreement dated October 9, 2017.
24 79. At all times since at the latest January 2018, Ross and Dobbins, and consequently
25 Artists First, had knowledge of the existence of the Agreement. Ross, Dobbins, and Artists First
26 are not parties to the Agreement.
27 80. At all times since at the latest September 2018, Barris had knowledge of the
28 existence of the Agreement. Barris is not a party to the Agreement.

7077 - 17 -
1 81. At all times since at the latest June 2019, and on information and belief prior to
2 that time, before the first episode of “Mixed-ish” aired, ABC had knowledge of the existence of
3 the Agreement. ABC is not a party to the Agreement.
4 82. As set forth above, defendants, and each of them, induced Big Breakfast, and its
5 representatives, not to perform under the terms of the Agreement and to deny Norman all of her
6 benefits outlined by said Agreement.
7 83. Defendants, and each of them, intended to influence, direct, or cause Big Breakfast
8 to commit the above-described breaches because they knew that each of them would benefit from
9 such breaches. Among other benefits, Ross and Barris are credited as creators of “Mixed-ish,”
10 Ross is the on-screen narrator of “Mixed-ish,” Artists First is credited as a producer of “Mixed-
PLONSKER LAW LLP
11 ish,” and ABC is the network on which “Mixed-ish” airs. Defendants, and each of them, receive
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
12 revenue from the production and distribution of “Mixed-ish,” thereby enriching themselves at the
L OS A NGELES
13 expense of Norman.
14 84. Through the conduct described above, Defendants, and each of them, caused Big
15 Breakfast to breach the Agreement.
16 85. Through their conduct, Defendants, and each of them intended to, and in fact did,
17 cause damage to Mrs. Norman. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’, and each of
18 their, actions, Norman has been damaged in an amount equal to at least $5,000,000, the specific
19 amount of which will be determined at trial, plus interest thereon at the maximum legal rate.
28 the Treatment and the Deck, for themselves and completely excluded Norman. Defendant’s
7077 - 18 -
1 scheming, and maneuvering Norman into giving Defendants, and each of them, access to her
2 ideas and work product, including, but not limited to, the Deck, all served their goal and evidence
3 a malicious, oppressive and fraudulent mindset from the start in that Defendants, and each of
4 them, consciously, knowingly, and wrongfully took Norman’s ideas and work product, including,
5 but not limited to the Deck, away from her with the malicious and fraudulent intent of depriving
10 deny Norman her compensation, acting role, producer role, and screen credit. In undertaking the
PLONSKER LAW LLP
11 actions described herein, among others, defendants, and each of them, evidenced that they
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
12 harbored a malicious, oppressive, and fraudulent mindset.

L OS A NGELES
13
14 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as
16 follows:
17 On the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract:
18 1. For compensatory damages of at least $5,000,000, the specific amount of which
19 will be determined at trial, plus interest thereon at the maximum legal rate;
20 2. For restitution to Norman of all monies made pursuant to Defendant’s unjust
21 enrichment of at least $5,000,000, the specific amount of which will be determined at trial, plus
22 interest thereon at the maximum legal rate;
23 On the Second Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
24 Dealing:
27 4. For restitution to Norman of all monies made pursuant to defendant’s unjust
7077 - 19 -
2 On the Third Cause of Action for Promissory Estoppel:
5 6. For restitution to Norman of all monies made pursuant to defendants’ unjust
8 On the Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of Implied in Fact Contract:
PLONSKER LAW LLP

A TTORNEYS A T L AW
L OS A NGELES

14 On the Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of Confidence:
20 11. For appropriate punitive or exemplary damages, the specific amount of which to
21 be determined at trial;
22 On the Sixth Cause of Action for Intentional Misrepresentation:

28 14. For appropriate punitive or exemplary damages, the specific amount of to be
7077 - 20 -
1 determined at trial;
2 On the Seventh Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contract:
10 On the Eighth Cause of Action for Inducing Breach of Contract:
PLONSKER LAW LLP
A TTORNEYS A T L AW
L OS A NGELES
18 On All Causes of Action:
19 21. For pre and post judgment interest at the maximum allowable legal rate;
20 22. For costs of suit and attorneys’ fees to the extent recoverable by law and herein
21 incurred;
22 23. For special and/or consequential damages according to proof;
23 24. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
24 25. Norman requests a jury trial.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
7077 - 21 -
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT TO TERM SHEET
Reference is hereby made to that certain attachment term sheet dated October 9, 2017 (the
“Agreement”) entered into by Big Breakfast, LLC (“BB”) and Hayley Marie Norman (“Artist”), on the other
hand, in connection with the development and possible production with respect to the proposed project
presently referred to as “Girl with the Hair (f/k/a Tragic) (wt)” (the “Series”). For good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledges, the parties hereto hereby
agree to amend the Agreement as follows:
The Term shall be extended for an additional period of ten (10) months until March 15, 2019, during
which time BB shall continue to develop and pitch the Series to Financers.
EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY AMENDMENT HEREIN, THE AGREEMENT IS NOT MODIFIED OR AMENDMENT IN

ANY OTHE RESPECT AND, AS MODIFIED HEREIN, THE AGREEMENT IS HEREBY RATIFIED AND CONFIRMED
IN ITS ENTIRETY AND REMAINS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFEC TIN ALL RESPECTS. ALL CAPITALIZED TERMS
USED HEREIN AND NOT OTHERWISE DEFINED SHALL HAVE THE MEANING ASCRIBED TO THEM IN THE
AGREEMENT.
ACCEPTED AND AGREED BY:
Big Breakfast, LLC
By: ________________________________ Date: _______________________
Its: ________________________________
_______________________________
Hayley Marie Norman
October 19, 2018
Date: ________________________________

Norman v. Ross

Cargado por

Información del documento

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

Norman v. Ross

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/18/2020 10:11 AM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by D. Williams,Deputy Clerk

1 PLONSKER LAW LLP

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

11 HAYLEY MARIE NORMAN, an Case No.:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

3 residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

13 principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

14 17. Defendant Touchstone Pictures Productions, LLC, is a California limited liability

16 Touchstone Pictures Productions, LLC, does business as ABC Studios.

22 sometimes collectively referred to herein as “Defendants.”

21 Paragraphs 1 through 32, above, as though fully set forth herein.

24 amendment of the Agreement.

13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

12 involved in all aspects of the show should it get picked up by a broadcaster.

11 proper screen credit.

13 the television industry.

21 Paragraphs 1 through 76, above, as though fully set forth herein.

23 evidenced in writing in the Agreement dated October 9, 2017.

26 are not parties to the Agreement.

28 existence of the Agreement. Barris is not a party to the Agreement.

12 harbored a malicious, oppressive, and fraudulent mindset.

14 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

22 interest thereon at the maximum legal rate;

11 8. For restitution to Norman of all monies made pursuant to defendants’ unjust

13 interest thereon at the maximum legal rate;

22 On the Sixth Cause of Action for Intentional Misrepresentation:

22 23. For special and/or consequential damages according to proof;

24 25. Norman requests a jury trial.

EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY AMENDMENT HEREIN, THE AGREEMENT IS NOT MODIFIED OR AMENDMENT IN

ACCEPTED AND AGREED BY:

Big Breakfast, LLC

By: ________________________________ Date: _______________________

También podría gustarte

By: __________ Date: _