(rage 2 of 55) MICHAEL R. SHAPIRO, ESQ. (SBN 37011) LAW OFFICES OF MICHABI R. SHAPIRO, APC 612 North Sepulveda Bivd., Suite 11 ‘Los Angeles, CA 90049 Tel: (10)472-8900 Fax: (10) 472-4600. Email: mickevime@aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff, Gerald E. Heller Ds COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DISTRICT GERALD E. HELLER, an individual, Plaintiff, v. NBCUNIVERSAL, INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF ‘COMCAST CORPORATION; F. GARY GRAY, an individual; O'SHEA: JACKSON SR, PKA ICE CUBE, an individual; ANDRE YOUNG, PKA DR DRE, an individual; THE ESTATE OF ERIC WRIGHT, PKA EAZY E, an individual; TOMICA WOODS-WRIGHT, individually and as the personal representative of the ESTATE OF ERIC WRIGHT; COMPTOWN RECORDS, INC, a corporation; MATT ALVAREZ, an individuals SCOTT BERNSTEIN, an individual; LEGENDARY PICTURES, « corporation; XENON PICTURES, INC/KENON ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, «corporation; JONATHAN HERMAN, an individual; 8. LEIGH SAVIDGE, an individual; ALAN WENKUS, an individual; and Does 1-100, nas Er Defendants, FAF2 yoo a Bey ag 3 int Gerald. Heles(ometines refered to "ery" or Paint) subg ¢ 8 1 S388 Je Elen aloetn setor SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA e ORIGINAL we rite «CaN ot Calloria nly of Las Angee OCT 30 2015 Sef Carer, pve OtcovCte ee Bea on BC599499 Case No: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. DEFAMATION (LIBEL & SLANDER) 2. TRADE LIBEL 3, RALSE LIGHT 4, MISAPPROPRIATION OF LIKENESS 5. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE. ‘WITH A PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, 6, NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH) A PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE 7. BREACH OF CONTRACT (SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT) 8, BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT) 9. BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT 10, BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT ‘OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (ORAL CO! LL, CONVERSION 12. COPYRIGHT INFRING?! ae ee I i sepa ‘COMPLAINT oye XW4 AG ‘Deoh 1 Faged 1 = Doo 1D = 1632671676 - Doo ype = OTEERage 2 of 55) ‘ ; ‘Complaint and alleges, upon information and belief as follows: | 3 URISDICTION AND VENUE, | 4 the FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS section of this 5 Complaint, this action azises out of act of defamation, conversion and other tortious 1 6 behavior and breach of a Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff Gerald E, Heller and 7 Defendant Tomica Woods-Wright and Comptown Records, Ine. and Does 1-20, and | 8 certain scenes, words, images, implications and innuendo within a theatrical Motion 9 Picture entitled, "Straight Outta Compton that all Defendants noted in the caption above 1 10 and Does 20-50 created, wrote, directed, produced and distributed globally to the detriment | 44 of Plaintiff Gerald E. Heller. 12 || 2. Allofthe above transactions and activities took place i the County of Los Angeles within 13 the jurisdiction ofthis Cour. All individual Defendants reside inthe County of Los 14 Angeles, within the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendants NBCUniversal, Ine, a subsidiary 415 of Comcast Corporation and Defendant Legendary Pictures have their principal places of y ‘business in the County of Los Angeles, within the jurisdiction ofthis Court. 47] 3: Vessels properin his Court under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 395 as ‘any of the wrongful conduct alleged herein occurred in this County, all ofthe individual ie Defendants reside in Los Angeles County and as noted above, both NBCUniversal, Inc, 2 { 19 subsidiary of Comcast Corporation and Defendant Legendary Pictures maintain businesses 20 in this County and all parties are either located in oF do business in this County of Los 24 Angeles, State of California. 22 PARTIES 23|| 4. Plaintiff GERALD B, HELLER, an individual, as to the events outlined inthis Complaint, 24 is and was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California | +25 |] 5. Defendant NBCUNIVERSAL, INC, a subsidiary of COMCAST CORPORATION, a | 226 corporation, does business and has its principal place of business in the County of Los Sor Angeles, Sate of California, Nigg || 6 Defendant LEGENDARY PICTURES, a corporation, does business and has its principal Le jouw 2 COMPLAINT oot 4 Page 2 — boc Tb = 1632671676 ~ Doo ype = emHERerage 3 of 55) : ‘place of business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 7, Defendant XENON PICTURES, INC /KENON ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, a corporation, does business and has its principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles, Site of California, 8. B. GARY GRAY, an individual, as tothe events outlined in this Complaint, is and wes @ resident ofthe County of Los Angeles, State of California. 9. Defendant O'SHEA JACKSON SR., PKA ICE CUBE, an individual, ast the events ‘outlined in this COMPLAINT, is and was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, | 10, Defendant ANDRE YOUNG, PKA DR. DRE, an individual, as tothe events outlined ia this Complain, is and was a resident ofthe County of Los Angeles, State of Califoonia. | 11|| 11. Defendent THE ESTATE OF ERIC WRIGHT PKA BAZY &, is resident in the County of ee ce 12 Los Angeles, State of California 13 |] 12. Defendant TOMICA WOODS-WRIGHT, an individual and asthe personal representative 14 ofthe Defendent ESTATE OF ERIC WRIGHT, as the events outlined inthis Complaint is ie and was 2 resent of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 4g || 13-Defendant COMPTOWN RECORDS, INC, a comporation, does business and has its principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, TTT 4 Defendant MATT ALVAREZ, ual, as to the events outlined in this Complain, Me is and was a resident ofthe County of Los Angeles, State of California. 19) 15. Defendant SCOTT BERNSTEIN, an individual, as tothe events outlined in this : 20 (Complaint, is and was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, | 21] 16. Defendant JONATHAN HERMAN, an individual, as to the events outlined in this 22 ‘Complains, i and was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, 23 |) 17. Defendant ANDREA BERLOFF, an individual, as tothe events outlined in this oq Complain, is and was a resident ofthe County of Los Angeles State of California © 25 || 18: Defendant S. LEIGH SAVAGE, an individual, a to the events outlined in this Complaint, is and was a resident ofthe County of Los Angeles, State of California, 19. Defendant ALAN WENKUS, au individual, a tothe events outlined in this Complaint, is and was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. S y 8 uw 3 COMPLAINT ‘ooh 4 Pages 3 - Goo ID = 1692671476 - Doo Type = OERage 4 of 55) | | 1 || 20, Plaintiff GERALD E. HELLER is not aware of the true names and capacities of the 2 ‘Defendants sued herein as Does 1-100 inclusive and therefore sue these Defendants by 3 their fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend the Complaint to reflect 4 ‘he true names and capacities of said Does 1-100, inclusive when these have been 5 ascertained. Plaintiffs informed and belioves that ssid fittiously named Defendant, and 7 cach of them, were responsible in some manner forthe harm sustained by Plaintiff as set : forth herein, | ‘ 21, Plaintiff GERALD E.HELLER alleges that each Defendant was the agent, principal and/or | : employee ofeach other the ats, conduct and omissions alleged berein and therefore | 10 incurred lability to Plaintiff GERALD E, HELLER for all such acts and/or omissions " Plaintiff further allege that all such Defendants were acting within the course and scope 12 oftheir employment and/or suid agency. 13 FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 14|| 22. Plaintiffs a highly successful and respected business professional in the music industry, 15 since the late 1960's and 1970's, functioning as both a creative and business executive. 16 |] 23. Through a set of circumstances, in 1986-87, Plaintiff met Defendants Exie Wright (pka 7 "Eazy E'), Ande Young (pka "Dr. De"), and O'Shea Jackson (pka “lee Cube") | 18 Subsequently, in early 1987, Defendant Eazy E formed an independent Record Company | 19 called RUTHLESS RECORDS ("Ruthless"). Under his Management Contract with | | 20 Ruthless, Plaintiff was entitled to a 20% interest in Ruthless, | 21 || 24. Ruthless entered into an exclusive Recording Contract with Defendants Fazy E, Dr. Dre, | | 22 Ice Cube, and others and formed a group called N.W.A. Additionally, Ruthless arranged | 23 for Pleintff to provide management services to the members of N.W.A., except Ice Cube, 1 i ned for a standard 20% commission rate. Under his Management Contract with Ruthless, | 325 Plaintiff suecessfully managed N.W.A., (apart fiom Ice Cube) for several years, | 26 25, Ruthless also entered into a series of exclusive music publishing contracts with | .27 Defendants Eazy E, Dr. Dre and Iee-Cube, entitling Ruthless to a percentage of gross | 28 ‘music publishing revenues generated by music compositions written in whole or in part by be ot 4 ‘COMPLAINT ‘oop 4 Pages ¢ = Goo 1D = I6I2672476 - Doe Type = ORER(age 5 of 55) i j ’ these three artists. Those publishing designees of Ruthless were and are "RUTHLESS : ATTACK MUZICK" and "DOLLARZ N SENSE MUSICK." 31 26 Under Plinth management, N.W.A. became hgely sucesf Pints iafomed and believes, and thereon alleges, that N.W.A. continues to generate many-millions of ! i 7 4ollars in revenue from multiple revenue streams on a global basis. i ; ‘The Screenplay and The Book | 27. Ymor around May 21, 2001, Plaintiff entre into an oral contract forthe services of i [ Defendants, S. Leigh Savidge and Alan Wenkus of Xenon Pictures, Inc/Xenon | if Entertainment Group ("Xenon") to collaborate with Plaintiff to write an original i screenplay relating the story of Ruthless andN.W.A. In furtherance ofthis agreement, a Defendants Savidge and Wenkus worked with and met with Plaintiff and prepared atleast | e four draft sereenplays, including November 14, 2002 and August 16, 2008 soreenplays . entitled, “Suaight Outta Compton.” 14H, atattimes underhis agreement wth Defendants Savidge/Wenkus/Renon, the 6 screenplays were Plaintiff's property, and in exchange for their services, Defendants . Savidge/ Wenkus/Xenon were to receive equal credit and equal compensation thet Plaintiff uf would receive asa writer and producer of any film based upon the screenplay that Plaintiff te ‘commissioned them to write, 181 29, tn oraround 205, Paint aso began to write a book relating the story of Ruthless and - N.W.A. that contained similar substantive content a the screenplays that Defendants | i Save and Wenkus wee dating, 30. In 2006, Simon and Schuster published the book writen by Plaintiff and his co-author, Gil ee fe Reavill,entiled "RUTHLESS. A MEMOIR."; "copyright © by Jerry Heller." (See | «4 Extibit A anached) | ‘he Lit "Straight Outta Compton i Gio 2: OnAvsuse 12,2015, n Los Angee, Califor, teaticl maton pce ested | feta "STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON” (the "Film"} premiered and, subsequently, on EEE I ‘oui 5 i ' COMPLAINT ‘Boot 1 age § ~ Doo ID = 622671476 ~ boo Type = OMIERrage 6 of 55) i e e i : ‘August 14, 2015, the Film was released throughout the United States; the Film was i ‘ released throughout Germany on August 27, 2015; the Film was released throughout the | : ‘United Kingdom on August 28, 2015, the Film was released throughout South Korea on : | ‘ ‘September 10, 2015; and the Film was released throughout Brazil on October 4, 2015. 81 30, riintisintrmed ard btves, and thereon alleges tht be Fl wil oon be leased | : in Japan on December 19, 2015, in Russia on November 12; and, subsequently, in most : 1 ‘ countries in the world, | i ey 35, plaints informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Film is based on the t 2 screenplay drafted by Defendants Savidge end Wenkus, and that Defendants ae Savidge/Wenkus/Xenon sold the screenplay, behind Plaintiff's back and without PlintfPs - authority or consent, to New Line Cinemas (who in tum sod the sereenplay to Defendant i ae ‘NBCUniversal, In.) ! 13) 34. inthe Fin he carci "Tey Hele, Pls played by actor Paul Giamatti, a Plainif did not authorize anyone to use his name and likeness or otherwise consent to this i portrayal in the Film. 181 35, atnotime was Plat compensated by any Defendant in any way fr hi igh, Bis | a. ‘ame and likeness that were utilized in the Film without his consent, nor has Plintf ! ad received any benefits ofthe Film. In fact, no individual associated with the Film, including ; a any of the Defendants, ever bored to contact Plaintiff before the Film was produced. | 20) 56, The Fimis tered wih ase tenes hat har the reputation of Pini nd sim to | i ridicule and lower him in the opinion ofthe community and to deter third persons from | os associating or dealing with him, | a 37. Anon-exclusive list of examples of some of the defaruatory statements in the Film fecal include, without limitation: Heller isthe "bad-guy” inthe movie who i solely responsible i : oe for the demise of N.W.A.; Heller isa sleazy manager wio took advantage of Defendants 1 Eazy E, Dr, Dre and Jee Cube; Heller steered Defendants Dr, Dre and Ice Cube away from i i: a hiring an attorney to review any contracts so they could never get paid; Heller intentionally oe bow 6 | COMPLAINT oot 1 Faget 6 = Dec ID = 1632671476 - Doc type = omtERGogo 7 of 55) | i withheld a $75,000 check from Defendant Ice Cube that rightfully belonged to Defendant i Tce Cube; Heller fraudulently induced Defendants Dr. Dre and Ice Cube to sign | unfavorable contracts; Heller made sure he was paid more than his fair share tothe + iment ofthe ater members of NIWA; elr dd not pay nuneous bills and expenses i 2 ofN.W.A., rather, he paid himself fist; Heller intentionally Kept the members of N.W.A. 1 ‘ {in the dark regarding finances; Heller was enjoying "lobster brunches" while the contracts fl of Defendants Dr. Dre and lee Cube wece "stl being finalized"; Plaintiff was fired by ! : Defendant Eazy B. | ©1535, inadion these defamatory statements isthe Fim ae teibuale o Defendant Tonka i 7 ‘Woods-Wright (Eazy B's widow) and also constitute clear breach of the non- ; al disparagement clause under the 1999 Settlement Agreement and Releases between Plaintiff | a and Defendant Woods-Wright. | "31 59. soreover, significant amount of he Fin's content tht sfctsly acute is Batanly | ‘4 lifted, converted and stolen from Plaintf?s copyright protected and published book and/or | te from the screenplays that Plaintiff owns. 18) 40. anomeciusive ist of examples of some ofthe scene nthe Fim ied from Pits ae ‘book and/or from his screenplays include, without limitation: The pivotal scene atthe | a ‘Torrance recording studio where the police are forcibly detaining the members of N.W.A.; i te ‘The pivotal scene where Marion "Suge" Knight uses physical force to compel Defendant - Eazy E to sign away the exclusive contractual rights concerning Defendant Dr. Dre owned | cs bby Ruthless. 41. The insidiousness of Defendants’ bebavior is underscored by the fact thatthe Film may well become the largest globally grossing music-story based film ever. The larger the ! success of the film, the greater the damages to Plaintiff, who has been and continues to be i ‘defamed, ridiculed, and robbed of his personal and financial rights tothe extent that the x intentional and egregious behavior of Defendants demands the imposing of punitive i damages, as alleged below. | | 7 ‘COMPLAINT ‘Dect 1 Fagot 7 = Gee TD = 1692672476 ~ Doe type ~ OTErage 8 of 55) i i ; i FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION i [Defamation (Libel CC 45 & Slander CC 46)] | i (Against All Defendants and Does 1 -25) : : recalleges herein by this reference each and every allegation contained in : : paragraphs | through 41, inclusive, as though fll set forth herein. i ‘i 43, Plaintiff frst became aware in or about August 2015 of Defendants’ malicious publishing of false, defsmatory, and disparaging statements about Plaintiff in the Film. These i ie statements, authored and published by Defendants, are easily accessible to the general i ° public, including Plaitif's potential and actual business partners, connections, | : acquaintances, ventures and contacts, with whom Plaintiff transacts business or plans to o transact business. i a 44, Through the Film, Defendants have actively, recklessly, maliciously, and aggressively distributed false and defamatory information about Plaintiff to millions of individuals, | a {including persons in the State of California, and around the world. The objec is to destroy | i Plaintiff's exemplary professional reputation, to make him the object of ridicule, hatred, ' and personal atack, and to negatively influence other persons and entities and dissuade = 1 aid them fom doing business with Plaintiff inthe future, based on the defamatory information | a in the Film. ! 19 j 4. Given the uncontroverted intemational distribution and success ofthe Film, it is clear that | . Defendants’ false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff are tremendously detrimental, |, ! a and can easily cause, and bave caused, serious damages to the excellent professional | ft reputation which Plaintiff has worked tirelessly to establish. Heer 46. At various times, in various combinations, Defendants, and each of them, conspired with ' | ce each other to engage in the acts, as alleged inthis Complaint i 41. Plaintif?’s ability 10 pursue his professional endeavors depends heavily on his reputation ; for competence, high integrity, credibility, and honesty : 48. All of the defamatory statements in the Film, including those listed in paragraph 37, above, ioe ee 8 COMPLAINT ‘Dock 4 Page# & = Goo £0 5 2622671476 - Doc aype = omERteage 9 08 55), 1 i | i axe false, in their entirety, as they pertain to Plaintiff, All of sald are slanderous because e the audiences who watched the film heard the statements described in paragraph 37 sbove 3 and understood that Defendants were portaying Plaintiff as a sleazy, greedy, selfish, ' personal manager that took advantage of the members of N.W.A. and caused the demise | 5 of NWA. ©] 49, atof ne atements leged in pragzaph 37, above, are also iteous because they expore | | : Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloguy in that they insinuate that Plaintiff is a \ : sleazy, greedy, selfish personal manager that took advantage of the members of N.W.A. | | and caused the demise of N.W.A. 1 Tso. the tg number of acta enors, core speculations, nmvendo, and outand-ut alse ; a Statements contained in the statements alleged in paragraph 37, above, indicate that ibs Defendants utterly failed to investigate the facts prior to publishing these statements inthe : Film, and shows a reckless disregard or lack of concern for the truth of said statements "41 54. te sbovesitoge Gehmatery semen in Fil were sen, or sould bo seen, a potentially, by millions of people who reside in Califomia, and elsewhere, Defendants - rade these defamatory statements intending to cause Plainti's business interests to suffer if financial harm and have, in fact, caused such harm. Defendants mede such statements i intentionally, knowing and/or having reason to know thet the public and potential and - actual clients and business partners, venturers, and associate of Plaintiff would ely on 7 these defamatory statements and cease doing further business with Plaintiff as a result. i 211 50. the sbovealeged defamation was commited wit express malice, hatred or ill-will, = done recklessly, and made to advance Defendants’ own selfish and pecuniary interests, ; thd Defendants, and cach of them, published the above-alleged defamatory statements either oe ‘With knowledge that they were false and defamatory of Plaintiff, or with reckless disregard i j oe for their truth or falsity and the defamatory nature ofthe statements and the attendant harm. e caused 1 i . 53. As a proximate result ofthe above-described publications, Plaintiff bas suffered loss of é B ui 8 ‘COMPLAINT seen eae cae a ‘boot 4 Faget 9 - Goo 1D = 1692671676 ~ Doo Typs = omER(age 10 of 55) | 1 and damage to his exemplary professional reputation, and creditworthiness, all to his | 2 ‘general damage in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial, but in an amount h : well in excess of this Cour’s general jusisdiction, | 4] 54. he stovedescited defor saements were pbished by Defendants, spd ech of | 7 ‘them, with malice, oppression and fraud, and because of their feelings of hatred and ill-will . toward Plaintiff, and with willfl and conscious disregard for Plaintif's right to conduct ; ‘ his business, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages against Defendants, and each | By orttem, i _ ‘SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION i 7 (Frade Libel) | i (Aguas ll Defendants and Does 1-35) | tg] Pisatitepeats aed reatlegeseach ofthe llgnons contained in paragraps 1 though | a 54, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. | ‘56. The above-olleged statements in paragraph 37 are false and, therefore, constitute trade libel | isd and trade disparagement of Plaintiff's business. 18 | 5p. unis igh suceasfl and respected busines profesional inthe use industry, | 7 since the late 1960's and 1970's, functioning as both 2 creative and business executive. 58, Defendants recklessly, willfully and maliciously made mumerous false statements as | - above-alleged, to countess third parties about the supposed impropriety and lawlessness | = ‘with which Plaintiff operates his business. | 211 55 nc, Defendants’ sbove-leged published sateen sted in pargraph 37 ae ile, ' | a 60. The above-alleged statements significantly disparaged Plaintiff's business, and Defendants i | nat made the above-alleged statements intending to cause Plaintiff and his business to suffer I oft substantial financial harm and have, infact, caused such harm. | c (61. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew that the i ef above-alleged statements were false, deceptive, and misleading when they were made. | - . ‘Such false statements were intended by Defendants, and each of them, to mislead, and, in ae iow +0 i ‘COMPLAINT ‘ech 2 Pagel 10 - boo 1D ~ 1ES2671076 ~ boo Fype ~ OmMER(rage 12 of 55) jae! i | : fact, did mislead, the public, as well as Defendants made suc statements intentionally, knowing and/or having reason to know thatthe public and potential and actual clients, . business partners, venturers, and associates would rely on these defamatory statements and . cease doing further business with Plaintiff as a result, 51 oa asa diet nd poxinas result ofthe stovealged semen, Pani has sured and c will continue to suffer substantial monetary and other damages, including but not limited i if to, the expense of measures reasonably necessary fo counteract the false statements, in an . amount according to proof at ial © 6s, pinir is icormed and believes and thecon allege hat the sbovealloged defamation ! - vas commited with express malice, hatred or il-will and made to advance Defendants? . own selfish and pecuniary interests. Defendants, and each of them, knew their statements % were flse when they were made and/or made such statements in reckless disregard oftheir | i: truth or falsity, Defendants knew that the above-alleged statements could and would cause ! ie Plaintiff severe harm and intended that they cause Plaintiff such harm. "5 1s, pin is informed and beioves ond hereon alleges, tt incomming the despieabe — acts set forth above, Defendants, and each of them, acted with malice ill-will and with the a. intent and design of damaging, oppressing and destroying Pleintff's busincss enterprises ae with reckless disregard of his rights, all on account of which Plaintiff is entitled to an i avard of punitive damages against Defendants and each of them. o ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION . (False Light) (Against All Defendants and Does 1 - 45) 65. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragrephs | through 64, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein | 66, Defendants published the above-alleged reckless, false and defamatory statements ' regading Plaintiff in the Film. t 67. By attributing the statements alleged above to Plaintiff, Defendants placed Plaintiff in a H ut 4a. ‘COMPLAINT Boot 1 Fageh 41 - boo 10 = 1630672476 — boo type = OTHER(raga 22 of 55) | : false light before the publi. : i 2H os. Detendans, by their false representations, have placed Plaintiff in a false light, which | : ‘would be highly offensive to eny reasonable person. ! 41 65, prints iatred and betes and thereon allege, that Defendants Brew of he ast ! a of the statements or acted in reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statements. | 1 : and the false light in which Plaintiff would be placed by publication of the statements, TT 10. tenants gave public to the statements by pulsing th statements inthe Fm, : ‘hich makes those statements accessible worldwide to potentially millions of individuals. © | 71, minis infomned and betioves and thereon alleges, that Defeodan's intended to depict - Plaintiffs ine flie, fictionalized and sensatinalized light in onder to benefit themselves a ‘hrough promoting the idea that Plaintiff was a sleazy, greedy, selfish personal manager " that took advantage of the members of N,W.A. and caused the demise of N.W.A, The . statements, x set out above, falsely portray Plaintif as comupt, deceitful, crooked, and . fraudulent, 19 1 ra. asareultof te pblenion ofthe above aleged statment, Pini as sted injury . to his exemplary profesional reputation and has been threatened with disruption of his nd business activities and opportunites, resulting in a substantial loss of income and loss of ‘ the value of his business. Although the fill nature, extent, and amount ofthese damages : ied se curently unknown, this Complaint will be amended ator before trial o insert such i . {information if such an amendment is deemed necessary by the Court. 2173. tn ation, Defendants’ above alleged conduct was done with conscious disregard ofthe aa ft rights of Plaintiff, and was done with th intent to injure Paintif’s exemplary professional ao repatation. Defendants’ acts constitute oppression, fraud, and/or malice, entitling Plaintiff ie to an award of punitive dameges in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of eee, the Defendants, to be determined at tal, i FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION ; (Misappropriation of Likeness) ! (Against All Defendants and Does 1 - 85) Poi 12 COMPLAINT ‘Dock 4 Pagel 12 - Boo 1D = 1432071476 - boo Fype ~ OMERrage 13 cf 55) i | | ") ra Pint opens and reallegs each of the alegations contained in pargap 1 trough Se ee ! 31] 15. witout Plainifs consent, Defeadans ued Psnif’s exact Sdeotity inthe Film, In the i ; Film, "Jerry Heller" is played by actor Paul Giamatti, Plaintiff never approved to this | portrayal. Defendants did not even bother to give the character a fictional name, like | i "Gary Beller, for example. : 7) 76, instead, Deteaants Btanty sed Pasi? likeness inthe Film for their advange, \ 8 commercial or otherwise. ' 8) an, Detendans misappropriated Plaintif’s likeness with actual malice. 10 7s. Detendans conducts substantial ficor in bringing abot the invasion of Panis I : rights, including without imitation, his privacy rights. | 12 T1o praia sufered the invasion of sights, acing without tation, hs privacy hts, | - enttling him to legal damages, according to proof at tal i ie FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION i 7 Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage) | ae ‘80. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each of the allegations contained in paragrephs 1 through ! a 79, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein, | i od 81, Plaintiff has an economic relationship with his clients, which has the probability for future | ‘economic benefit to Plaintiff, | i gp] Paint isintrmed and tefewes, and teeon alps tat Defendants knew of these | economic relationships, and intentionally engaged in wrongful and deceptive acts with the i ae design to interfere with or disrupt the prospective economic advantage that would inure to { 4 Plaintiff's benefit as a result of these economic relationships. la 25] 5, maintsis ini and tlicves, and thcon alleges, that Defends aetions| have [aateeee actually disrupted or interfered with these relationships and made the performance of those ' na relationships more burdensome and expensive for PlaintifE ™ Sout 8 ‘COMPLAINT ‘book 4 Pagoh 13 ~ Doo TD = 1612671476 - boo Type = OnER(rage 14 of 55) ew], 44k won "1 12 13. 14 18 16 17 18 49 20 24 22 23 24 as 25 vi 84, Plaintiffs informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that as a direct and proximate result ‘of Defendants’ conduct and the disruption of the economic relationship between Plaintiff ‘and its customers, Plaintiff bas suffered significant legal damages, in amount that is presently unknown, but which will be proven at tial. 85, Plaintiffs informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants? wrongful actions ‘were willful, malicious, oppressive and in conscious disregard of Plaintifs rights, and that Plaintiff therefore entitled to an award of exemplary damages to punish Defendants for their wrongful conduct. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage) (Against All Defendants and Does 1 - 75) 86. Plaintiff repeats and.re-alleges each ofthe allegations contained in paragraphs | through 85, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 87, Plaintiffs informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that PlintifPhas an economic relationship with its clients, which has the probability for future economic benefit to Plaintiff 88, Plaintiffs informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew, or should have known, of these economic relationships, and they did not act with reasonable care with regard to Defendants’ wrongful and deceptive acts designed to interfere with or disrupt the prospective economic advantage that would inure to Plaintif’s benefit as a result of thase economic relationships. ‘89, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants’ actions have actually disrupted or interfered with these relationships and made the performance of those relationships more burdensome end expensive for Plaintiff. 90. Plaintiffs informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants’ wrongful conduct ‘was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff, Defendants’ conduct resulted in the disruption of the economic relationship between Plaintiff and his clients, Plaintiff has i ‘COMPLAINT ‘boot 2 fagod 44 — Dec HD = AGI2E7IA7E ~ Boa Zype ~ O7mA(eage 15 of 55) i { ] 1 i suffered damage to its business, ad its good wil, ia amount that is presently unknown, but i ‘ ‘which will be proven at tra. | 3 ‘SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION i 4 (Breach of Contract-Settlement Agreement) i e (Against Defendant Tomika Woods-Wright, Comptown Records, Inc, and Does 1-85) \ 7 91. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through j 90, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 81 92, onoraround December 17, 1998, Pini onthe one hand, and Defendant Tonia ® Woods-Wright and Comptown Records, Inc. onthe other hand, executed a written . Settlement Agreement and General Releases, resolving the ations between them that were a: consolidated as Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BCI72414, A true and corect copy . ofthe executed Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B. '311 93, Under Paragraph 2} ofthe Stdement Agreement (Non Disparagement and Non- . Interference), Plaintiff and Defendant Woods-Wright and Comptoum Records, Ine. agreed . that they "shall not make any statements, diectly or indirectly in writing orally, or in any . other form, which disparage in aay way the other.” 17H 5 pst pefonned al or substensly lof the signian tings atte contact 6 requited him to perform, 191 65. Asalege above the toons sues stibuabs to Defendant Woode-Wight and i fe Comptown Records, Inc, inthe Film constitute a clear breach of the Setlement fe ‘Agreement, 72 1 56, ue treach of ona! by Defendant Woods Wight and Cmplown Recor Ine cased a Helier to suffer significant legal damages, in an amount to be proven atthe time of til. e EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Fath and Fair Dealing) ® (Against Defendant Tomika Woods-Wright, Comptown Records, Inc. and Does 1-85) : ; a 97. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through e be i ou 15 i COMPLAINT ‘Doct 2 Paget 18 - Doo TD = 3632671476 — Boo Type = onmRago 16 96 55) | 1 1 \ 96, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein, : | 21 os inevery contactor agreement here an mpl promis of good faith and fair dealing. : ‘This means that each party will not do anything to unfairly interfere with the right of any fi ‘other party to receive the benefits ofthe contract. | 99. On or around December 17, 1999, Plaintiff, on the one hand, and Defendant Tomika ‘Woods- Wright and Comptown Records, In. on the other hand, executed a written | ; Setlement Agreement and General Releases, resolving the actions between them that were | 5 consolidated as Los Angeles Superior Court Case No, BC172414, A true and correct copy i of the executed Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B. | 1OT soo, Pent pertomed at, ‘or substantially al, of the significant things that the contract o required him to perform; 72 1 01. Defendant Wood. Wight and Complown Rect, ne. unfairly interfered with i i Plaintiff's right to receive the benefits ofthe contract. | "41 oa. plsinif was harmed by her cont. This each by Defendant Woods-Wright and | _ ‘Comptown Records, nc. caused Plaintiff to sufer significant legal Jamages, i an amount | to be proven at the time of trial. a ‘NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION ! 7 ‘Breach of Oral Contract) i io (Aguinst Defendants Savidge, Wenkus, and Xenon and Does 1 - 90) j i 103. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs | through a 102, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein, ; 221 og tnor around May 21, 2002, Plaintiff entered into an oral contract for the services of 1 Defendants. Leigh Savidge and Alan Wenkus of Defendant Xenon Pictures, Ine/Kenon | Entertainment Group ("Xenon") to collaborate with Plaintiff to write an original | screenplay relating the story of Ruthless and N.W.A. In furtherance of this agreement, b Defendants Savidge and Wenkus worked with and met with Plaintiff and prepared at least I ‘our draft screenplays, including November 14, 2002 and August 16, 2008 screenplays : . 16 ; ‘COMPLAINT ‘Doct 1 Fogo 16 - boc TD = A63R674476 ~ Do Type ~ OMEN(rage 27 of 55) entitled, "Straight Outta Compton." 105, Atal times, under his agreement with Defendants Savidge/Wenkus/Xenon, the screenplays were Plaintiff's property, and in exchange for thet services, Defendants Savidge/Wenkus/Xenon were to receive equal credit and equal compensation that Plaintiff would receive as a writer and producer of any film based upon the sereenplay that Plaintiff commissioned them to write 106, Plaintiff performed all, or substantially all, ofthe significant things that the contract, required him to perform. 1 107. PlaintfFis informed and believes, and thereon alleges, thatthe Film is based on the | soreenplay drafted by Defendants Savidge and Wenkus, and that Defendants ‘Savidge/Wenkus/Xenon sold the sereenplay, behind Plaintif’s back and without Plaintif's : authority or consent, to New Line Cinemas (who in turn sold the sereenplay to Defendant NBC Universal. 108. The breach of contract by Defendants Savidge, Wenkus, and Xenon have caused Plaintiff to suffer significant legal damages, in an amount to be proven atthe time of tia. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) (Against Defendants Savidge, Wenkus, and Xenon and Doss I - 90) 109. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 108, inclusive, es though fully set forth herein. 110. Tn every contract or agreement there is an implied promise of good faith and fair dealing. ‘This means that each party will not do anything to unfaily interfere with the right of any other party to receive the benefits of the contract, ILL. In or around May 21, 2001, Plaintiff entered into an oral contract for the services of Defendants S. Leigh Savidge and Alan Wenkus of Xenon Pictures, Ine/Xenon Entertainment Group ("Xenon") to collaborate with Plaintiff to write an original screenplay relating the story of Ruthless and N.W.A. In furtherance of this 7 ‘COMPLAINT ‘boot 1 Fageh 17 ~ Doc TD = 4632671476 - noo Aypa = One©eNone won = 96 N98 be ut agreement, Defendants Savidge and Wenkus worked with and met with Plaintiff and prepared at least four draft screenplays, including Noveraber 14, 2002 and August 16, 2008 screenplays entitled, “Straight Outta Compton’, 112. Plaintif performed al, or substantially all, of the significant things tht the contract requited him to perform. 113, Defendants Savidge, Wenkus, and Xenon bave unfairly interfered with Plaintiffs right to receive the benefits of the contact. 114. The breach of contract by Defendants Savidge, Wenkus, and Xenon have caused Plaintiff to suffer significant legal damages, in an amount tobe proven atthe time of trial. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Conversion) (Against All Defondants and Does 1 - 90) 115. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each of the allegations contained in paregraphs 1 through 114, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein, 116. Plaintiff owned and had tight to possess the Book and the Screenplays. 117. Defendants intentionally and substantially interfered with Plaintiff's property rights to the Book and the Screenplays by adopting them as their ovm and misappropri sake the Film, ing them to 118. Defendants took possession ofthe Book and the Screenplays. 119. Defendants prevented Plaintiff from having access to the Book and the Screenplays. 120. Plaintiff did not consent to Defendants’ actions. IAL. Plaintiffs informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants’ wrongful ‘conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff, in amoust that is presently ‘unkmowa, but which will be proven at trial. ‘TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION, (Copyright Infringement) (Against All Defendants and Does 1 - 90) 18 ‘COMPLAINT ‘ooh i Fagad 1f Geo 1D = 2692671476 ~ Doo Type ~ omERage 18 06 55) : "Tso. lainit repeats end revalleges each ofthe allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through i : 121, inclusive, as though flly set fort herein. : 3112s paints formed and believes and thin alleges thot Defendants have violated one : 4 ‘or mote ofthe exclusive rights granted to Plaintiff as a copyright owner. 5 toe. pinttis the owner of valid ‘copyright. Specifically, Plaintiffs the original author of i f he Book; Plainif’s Book is copyrightable; and Plaintiff complied withthe applicable : statutory formalities to secure his copyright. ; 8) 125; prin secured a valid enpniht egitim cee fom the Copyright Office, : 81 126, lant nome and beleves and hereon alleges that Defendants unlawfully copied : a the constituent elements ofthe Book that are original, specificelly, numerous seenes that : a ‘are factual in the Film are blatantly lifted directly fram the Book. ! eee er camer een pn ceneea es citeauattaa ! a. infingement by Defendants and any profits of the Defendant infsingers that are atibutable i “4 to the infringement and are not taken into aecount in computing the actual damages, “ according to proof at trial TOT ang: Alternatively, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages, In a case where the copyright | a. ‘owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed te ‘willfully, the cour in its diseretion may inerease the award of statutory damages toa sum i ios of not more than $150,000 ! 20 | 21]| PLanvrinr DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY i 22 23 PRAYER FOR RELIEF |b, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as 1 84g | follows: {0196 |]. 1+ Formonetary damages, in an amount to be proven at til, believed to be not les than jenieae '$35,000,000.00; 1 Aig |] 2 Forpreiudgment interest atthe maximum legal rat; ioe ui 19 ‘COMPLAINT oct X Faget 19 - Doo ID = 2632671476 ~ Doo Fype = ORMER(age 20 of 55) ' 1 o || > Perpustveand exemplary damages ian amount to be proven at ial belied to be not z Jess than $75,000,000.00; 3 4 || Forssttwon fal gis profits and avantagesobtsned by Defendans, and cach of ! : ‘them, as a result of their wrongful and unlawfol conduct, in an amount tobe proven at trial; gg) _% Fotsvtsand expenses isting atomeys fees and i || & Forseboberana ster tea this Court deems popes ene i g | Dutt: Ontber30, 2015 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL R. SHAPIRO, APC 10 Ai | "4 fi 12 Michael R- Shapiro a : ‘Attomey for Plaintiff GERALD E.HELLER, 14 15 16 17 | 18 19 20 2 1 I i i 20 : ‘COMPLAINT } : ‘Dood 1 Page 20 - Doo 1D = 1652671476 - boo Type = OTRage 21 of 55) . SORT BR EXHIBIT A ‘och 1 Faged 21 - Boo 1D = 1632672476 ~ Doc Type = OnEREXHIBIT A(@age 28 of 55) ‘Doct 1 Pagoh #3 ~ Doo ID» ERBSTAATE ~ Boo Bype ~ OER(Gage 24 of 55) For Gayle j ‘And for Eazy I : ‘Tis sa wark of noaeuen, Ihave dose my bs tol thts story the way it happened and in many ‘ses, clear up studing misconceptions and misunderstanding, Events and actors have been ‘told aT have remecibered them. Convetavons presented in dialogue form have been r-rested ‘bused on my memory of them, but they ae not intended to represent wordfranord Gocumenty on of whet was said rater, they ate meant to evako the substance of what was aetualy ad Phoograps on pgs 3 5, 60,35, 165,151,189, 17, 20 217,318, 250d 23a rome utara ograph on ag copyright © 206k Lyn Clots i Photgagho pag 8 cay of Alene Waiane Pustoyoph on page 15 by Blew Caton Fhtogphy, wr biscaton com j Phctogaph on page 89 spght © 206 in Bit, eu of Mia Ode Acive ‘Photograph pge 24 coh © 2006 by Mic! Osh Arche SSE SIMON SPOTLIGHT ENTERZAINMENT ‘nimpit of Sion &Sehuter i 1210 aveae of th Asai, New Fork New Yok 10000 Copyright © 2006 by Jeny Heller 4 | ‘Al eis revere plight of repraetn i who npr ey Cr ‘i ribs Sinon Spal Ftenatnent dco es SIMON SPOTLIGHT SNTERTALNMENT eed eld ogo sre tradona of SinoneSchater Ise Designed y Stee Kennedy Manwftred nthe Ue Site ef Amen Pret Eton 10.987 6543-2 1 : “ary of Congres ilgingn-Pubetion Data : ele Jr 1940- atl by Jey Hele wih Ron em Incas doggy (p. 318) ISBN-19- 76.6816017002 he) ISDN-0: 1160.17 5 ie) 2 Ialeles Jry. 1040-2. Sand recreates nd pedncesUied Stee Beppe ‘Buhle Records Bm). 1 Rel, i 059-1 The . 409398949 9006 ao Te 6109239 Bi) Ge 006012657 . ISBN-19.676-1-4160-1704-5 (pbk) 1ISBN-10, 14160-17942 (pb) ‘Dest 1 Paget 24 — Doo TD = 1632671876 - Doo Tips