CONI-ur+MtU COPY

MAN ISER KUMP & ALDISE RT LLP ORIGINAL FILED

1 KINSEL LA WEITZ 9uperlor Court of Calilornia
HOWARD WEITZMAN(SBN 38723) Countv n+ I .n!~ Anoe}ate
2 hweitz man@kw ikalaw.com
CHAD R. FITZGERALD(SBN 217551) ocr ~~~ ~o~e
0 3 cfitzgerald@kwikalaw.com
AMBER H. MELIUS(SBN 227853) Sho~~f R, Cerler, Ezecuure OtiicerlClerk o1 Gourt
~L amel ius@kwika law.com
4 By: Judl Lara, Dapuiy
808 Wilshire Boulevard, 3rd Floor
5 Santa Monica, California 90401
Telephone: 310.566.9800
6 Facsimile: 310.566.9850

7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ADAPTIVE STUDIOS,

INC., TJ BARRACK,and MARC JOUBERT
8

a 9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
w 10 '~
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELE
Ao
~ o
11 BST ~
~ oo~?
~o~
~ ~~~ 12 ~~~~3
~DAPTNE STiJ1Ji05, iNC., ~i California ~ CASE NO.
,
(•l Q O
13 corporation; T3 BARRA CK,an individu al; COMPLAINT FOR:
F~.~~ M
~,a~~ and MARE JOUI3ERT, an individual,
14 (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT
W ~U Plaintiffs,
ipima
- o
° (2) BREACH OF CONFIDENCE
U 15
~Z W
O vs. (3) DECLARATORY RELIEF
~ ~~ 16
H ~ao JEFF ZIMBALI5T, an individual; MICHAEL
17 ZIMBALIST, an individual; ALL RISE DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
~ J
QO ~ M
W FILMS,a California corporation; and DOES 1
18 through 10, inclusive,
w
19. Defendants.

20

21' ///

22 ///

23 ///

24 /1/

25 ///

26 / //

27 / //

28 ///

COMPLAINT
 1 Plaintiffs Adaptive Studios, TJ Barrack, and Marc Joubert (collectively,

2 ~ "Plaintiffs") allege as follows:

3 INTRODUCTION

4 1. This action arises from Defendants Jeff and Michael Zimbalists'(the "Zimbalists")

5 blatant misappropriation, unauthorized use, and exploitation of Plaintiffs' ideas and concepts for

6 ~ an innovative music documentary series entitled Remastered.

7 2. Plaintiffs envisioned Remastered as similar to ESPN's 30for 30 but in the world of

music rather than sports, with a series of hour-long episodes produced and directed by different A-

list talent. In 2012, Plaintiff presented the Remastered concept to the Zimbalists, an award-
a 9
a
~ 10 winning director team, to solicit their involvement as directors of an episode. The episode, entitled
w.
0 11 "I Shot the Sheriff," was described by Plaintiffs as exploring "the controversies and conspiracy

~ °O~ 12 theories behind the separate and unrelated shootings in Jamaica of two of the world's most famous
~ ~oc~
o rn ~
a MQo 13 reggae stars, Bob Marley and Peter Tosh." The Zimbalists;who had never before heard the theory
~ ~~~'
x ~°~ 14 that Bob Marley's shooting may have been an attempted political assassination orchestrated by the
W J a

i-aim°Qo 15 CIA, were intrigued by the novel subject matter and eager to direct the episode.
U
w ~
Z =o~ 16 3. As confirmed in Plaintiffs' written pitch materials, Plaintiffs disclosed the
~
J
~~
~

H ~ z ~ ~/ Remastered concept and ideas to the Zimbalists with the understanding that Plaintiffs were
~~ M
0° ~ 18 seeking to sell the series to a network. The Zimbalists further understood that they were merely

W 19 being pitched as potential directors, not owners, of the series, and were not authorized to use the
Remastered concept and ideas without Plaintiffs' permission and without compensation to
xz 20
21 Plaintiffs.

22 4. Notwithstanding the above, the Zimbalists unapologetically stole the Remastered

23 concept, fraudulently misrepresented it as owned and created by them, and are now profiting

24 therefrom. Specifically, the Zimbalists purport to be the creators of a new series debuting on

25 Netflix entitled ReMastered, an eight-part docuseries that will investigate some of music's biggest

26 unsolved mysteries. ReMastered is set to air on Netflix beginning October 12, 2018, with a pilot

27 episode entitled "Who Shot the Sheriffl' that looks at the role Jamaican politicians and the CIA

28 played in the attempted assassination of Bob Marley.

COMPLAINT
 1 5. Plaintiffs accordingly bring this action to recover the monetary damages incurred as

2 a result of the Zimbalists' wrongdoing.

3 THE PARTIES

4 6. Plaintiff Adaptive Studios ("Adaptive Studios") is an entertainment studio that

5 develops and produces original stories for traditional and digital distribution. Adaptive Studios is a

6 corporation organized and existing under the laws of California, with its principal place of

7 business in Los Angeles, California.

8 7. Plaintiff TJ Barrack ("Barrack") is an individual residing in and working in Los

a~ 9 Angeles County, California. Barrack is a co-founder of Adaptive Studios.

a
~ 10 8. Plaintiff Marc Joubert("Joubert") is an individual residing in and working in Los
w
~. 0 11 Angeles County, California. Joubert is a co-founder of Adaptive Studios.

~ °~~ 12 9. Defendant Jeff Zimbalist is an individual residing in and working in Los Angeles
~ ~-o orn co~n
a~Qo 13 County, California.
° ~`"
x ;°~ 14 10. Defendant Michael Zimbalist is an individual residing in and working in Los
^ J Q

~ mUo 15 Angeles County, California.

~
z Qw z~
~ ~~~ 16 1 1. Defendant All Rise Films ("All Rise Films") is a corporation organized and
N -~ Q ~
~ ~z~ 17 existing under the laws of California, with its principal place of business in Los Angeles,

~~ M
0° ~ ~ 18 California.
a
w 19 12. The true names and capacities of defendants named as Does 1 through 10,
z
~ 20 inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names.

21 Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same have

22 been ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Does 1

23 through 10, inclusive, were responsible in some manner for the acts and transactions hereinafter

24 alleged and are liable to Plaintiffs therefor.

25 13. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that at all times

26 ~ herein mentioned each of defendants was the agent or employee of one or more ofthe other

27 defendants and was at all times herein mentioned acting within the scope of such agency or

28 employment.

COMPLAINT
 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2 14. Jurisdiction is proper in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County

3 ~ of Los Angeles pursuant to section 410.10 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure.

4 15. Venue is proper in Los Angeles County, California pursuant to section 395(b) of

5 ~ the Code of Civil Procedure.

6 16. Venue is proper in the Central District of Los .Angeles County under L.A. County

7 Superior Court Rule 2.3(a)(1)(B).

8 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

9 A. Plaintiffs Develop a Documentary Series Called Remastered

a
10 17. In June 2011, entertainment studio executives Marc Joubert and TJ Barrack
w
H o 11 developed the concept for documentary series that would tell great stories from the music world.
~°oo°~' 12 Plaintiffs conceptualized the format as similar to ESPN's 30for 30, with a series of hour-long
~ o~
~ orn~
~ mQo 13 episodes, produced and directed by different A-list talent. Plaintiffs titled their docuseries
~ °~"~
',,~ Q ° '~
~ J V-
14 ~ Remastered.
W

W ~U' On December 12, 2011, Plaintiffs were introduced via email to award-winning film
15 18.
H m V O

16 ~ directors Jeff and Michael Zimbalist. Plaintiffs were fans of the Zimbalists' work directing the 30
Z+ ~ Z ~
0
~ ~~
N ~ Q ~c?
17 ~ for 30 episode "The Two Escobars" and hoped to have the Zimbalists direct a Remastered episode.
W O (Q c'~
,3 ~cn~
W 18 19. To that end, on December 13, 2011, Plaintiffs sent an email to the Zimbalists to
a 19 arrange a pitch meeting regarding what Plaintiffs described as a music documentary series which
w
z
20 is "very similar to 30 for 30 but in the music world." Plaintiffs made clear to the Zimbalists that
x
21 they were proposing the Zimbalists' involvement as directors on an episode of the series. The

22 Zimbalists consented to the pitch meeting, responding that they "look[ed] forward to speaking"

23 with Plaintiffs.

24 20. On December 14, 2011, Plaintiffs had a call with the Zimbalists in which they

25 pitched the Remastered concept, with the intent that the Zimbalists direct an episode about reggae

26 artist and icon Bob Marley. During the call, Plaintiffs shared their vision for the episode. In

27 particular, Plaintiffs disclosed the notion that Bob Marley's shooting may have been a political

28 I assassination orchestrated by the CIA, and that Plaintiffs hoped to portray that political intrigue in

COMPLAINT
 1 the episode. The Zimbalists expressed enthusiasm, and even marketed themselves as ideal

2 directors for the episode due to a contact at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency.

3 21. Prior to Plaintiffs' disclosure of the Remastered concept to them, the Zimbalists

4 knew and understood that Plaintiffs were the sole creators and owners of the series (including,

5 without limitation, the Bob Marley episode), and that Plaintiffs were ultimately seeking to sell the

6 series to a network or distributor. The Zimbalists further understood that any use of the

7 Remastered concept or its episodes required Plaintiffs' consent and compensation to Plaintiffs

8 therefor. Notwithstanding this, at no point during the December 14 call, or at any other time, did
the Zimbalists reject the pitch or express any desire to do so. To the contrary, the Zimbalists
a 9
a
~ 10 confirmed their interest in Remastered and directing the Bob Marley episode.
w
0 11 B. The Zimbalists Agree to Direct the "I Shot the Sheriffl' Episode of Remastered
A ~ '~
a o~~
~ °O~ 12 Proposed By Plaintiffs
~ Coco
o rn ~
~ mQ~ 13 22. Following the December 14 call, Plaintiffs emailed the Zimbalists a PowerPoint
Z M
'~ D ~

~ ;°~ 14 deck for Remastered which provided an overview of the concept, as well as a synopsis of each of

m ao
~° 15 the proposed episodes. Plaintiffs' deck included an episode titled "I Shot the Sheriff," which
U p~

°
~ ~o ' 16 would "[e]xplore[] the controversies and conspiracy theories behind the separate and unrelated
N ~~~
H ~Zo l~ l shootings in Jamaica oftwo ofthe world's most famous reggae stars, Bob Marley and Peter
~ ~~ m
0° ~ 18 Tosh." Plaintiffs' deck also reconfirmed that Plaintiffs were seeking "[p]otential networks to sell"
I
.
w 19 their docuseries, including HBO,Showtime, AMC,VH1, Starz, and FX.
m
z 20 23. In response, on December 23, 2011,the Zimbalists sent Plaintiffs a description of
x
21~ ~ the "I Shot the Sheriff'episode, which they were now petitioning to direct. It called for an

22 investigation of"the ,CIA's involvement in the shootings of Bob Marley and Peter Tosh." The

23 Zimbalists' outline stemmed entirely from information and ideas disclosed in Plaintiffs' telephone

24 pitch and written materials. Indeed, prior to the phone call with Plaintiffs on December 14, the

25 Zimbalists had never heard that the CIA had any involvement in Bob Marley's shooting.

26 24. By January 13, 2012, it was agreed that the Zimbalists would direct the Remastered

27 episode "I Shot the Sherriff." On January 19, 2012,Plaintiffs sent over new Remastered

28 presentation materials that included a description ofthe "I Shot the Sheriff' episode, specifying

COMPLAINT
 1 that it would be directed by the Zimbalists. The Zimbalists were also made aware of two separate

2 pitches ofthe series, to Showtime and HBO,that each identified them as the directors of that

3 episode.

4 25. On January 27, 2012, the Zimbalists reached out to Plaintiffs to determine "how

5 things are coming on [their] end," and Plaintiffs responded that they were hoping to have a call

6 ~ with the Zimbalists and give them an update. On February 13, 2012, the Zimbalists reached out to

7 Plaintiffs to arrange an in-person meeting to discuss Remastered and, specifically, the Zimbalists'

role as the directors of the episode "I Shot the Sherriff."

26. On February 21, 2012, HBO passed on producing Remastered. On February 29,
a 9
a
~ 10 2012,the parties got together to discuss next steps regarding the series.
w
27. In March 2012, Plaintiffs and the Zimbalists pitched Renzastered to Showtime.
A ~ ~ o 11 1
~ °~~ 12~ Showtime, too, passed on the series.
C oco
~ orn~
~,ao 13' 28. Thereafter, Plaintiffs began to focus their efforts on other creative projects;
~ ~ M
property by
x ;°~ 14 1 however, at no time did Plaintiffs abandon Remastered or consent to the use of their
w
15 the Zimbalists or third parties.
~ m°Qo
U pp

°
~ °`o ' 16 C. The Zimbalists Take Remastered to Netflix Without Plaintiffs' Permission or
N J ~ ~ /J

H ~ Z ~ ~ / Involvement
o u~i "'
~ 00 ~ 18 29. In or about September 2017, Plaintiffs discovered that Netflix, Inc.("Netflix") was
a
high-profile
w 19 producing a music documentary series titled ReMastered which will "investigate
z Johnny Cash
x 20 events affecting some of the most legendary names in music" such as Bob Marley,
ers Jeff
21i and Sam Cooke. ReMastered is described as "created by Emmy- and Peabody Award-winn
Rise Films, the
22 Zimbalist and Michael Zimbalist" and produced by Triage Entertainment and All

23 production company owned by the Zimbalists.

24 30. According to the trades, a new ReMastered installment will be released each
assassination
25 month, and the first episode, entitled "Who Shot the Sheriff?", will investigate the

26 attempt on Bob Marley in Kingston, Jamaica in 1976.

27 31. Plaintiffs have no involvement iri, nor were they asked to be involved in,
well as
28 ReMastered. To the contrary, the Zimbalists took Plaintiffs' concept Remastered, as

COMPLAINT
 1 Plaintiffs' specific vision and creative content for the episode "I Shot the Sherriff," to Netflix

~a without Plaintiffs' knowledge or consent, and wrongfully credited themselves with its creation.

3 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

4 (Breach of Contract —Against All Defendants)

5 32. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

6 Paragraphs 1 through 31 as though fully set forth herein.

7 33. As a result of the foregoing, an implied contract arose between Plaintiffs and

8 Defendants (hereinafter, the "Agreement") by both words and conduct. Pursuant to the

a 9 Agreement, Defendants each understood and agreed that if they utilized Plaintiffs'.ideas, concepts,
a
a 10 storylines andJor themes in any way,they would ensure that Plaintiffs received appropriate credit

0 11 and compensation.
A o~~
~ °~~ 12 34. Plaintiffs have performed all conditions, covenants, and promises- under the
~ ~oc~
o rn ~
MQ~ 13 Agreement except as waived, excused, or prevented by Defendants.
~ ~~ M

x ;°~ 14 35. Defendants materially breached the Agreement in the manner alleged above,
w
for
15 including, without limitation, by disclosing, using and exploiting the Remastered concept
~ m°Q°o
U
z ~Z~ compensated.
~ ~~~ 16 Defendants' own benefit with no intent that Plaintiffs be involved, credited, or
J ~

~ ~Zo 17 36. Defendants breaches of the Agreement are ongoing, and unless Defendants are
~ ota
n"~ ideas,
~ 0° ~ 18 enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue to disclose, use and exploit Plaintiffs'
a
compensating
w 19 concepts, storylines andJor themes without Plaintiffs' permission andJor without
z
~ 20 Plaintiffs.

21' 37. As a direct and pro~mate result of Defendants' material breaches of the
trial.
22 Agreement, Plaintiffs have suffered substantial damages in an amount to be determined at

23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

24 (Breach of Confidence —Against All Defendants)

25 38. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

26 Paragraphs 1 through 37 as though fully set forth herein.

27. 39. Plaintiffs' pitch for Remastered revealed a novel and confidential music docuseries

28 concept created by Plaintiffs.

COMPLAINT
 1 40. Defendants understood and agreed that they were accepting the concept under a

2 duty of confidentiality when Plaintiffs disclosed the concept. Defendants each understood and

3 agreed that Plaintiffs' disclosure of the concept for Remastered was impliedly conditioned on the

4 ~ maintenance"of its confidentiality.

5 41. Defendants listened to and "accepted" the concept with the knowledge and

6 understanding that they were required to maintain its confidentiality except as necessary to

7 ~ facilitate the eventual development and production of a series.

8 42. As a result of the foregoing, Defendants undertook separate duties to maintain the

9 confidentiality of Plaintiffs' concept and the ideas contained therein.

10 43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendants
a
w
H o 111 disclosed Plaintiffs' concept to others without Plaintiffs' knowledge or consent, including, without
~ oo~ 12 limitation, to persons involved in the development and production of ReMastered. Defendants
~ oc~o
~ omen
13 breached their respective duties of confidentiality because they knowingly disclosed the concept
~ M
M a O
o~
14 not on Plaintiffs' behalf—i.e., with the intent of developing a series in which Plaintiffs would be
~
~ ~U
W a~
15 credited and reasonably compensated.
i-~imQo
U
~+ ~Z~
0 16 44. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendants stand
J ~ ~
N Q~
~ oNo 17 to profit handsomely by virtue of their breaches of confidence.
(p J
18 45. As a direct and proximate result of these breaches, Plaintiffs have suffered and will
~ ~
w 19 continue to suffer substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
z THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
x 20

21 (Declaratory Relief —Against All Defendants)

22 46. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

23 Paragraphs 1 through 45 as though fully set forth herein.

24 47. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants

25 concerning Plaintiffs right to be paid by Defendants for providing certain ideas, concepts,

26 storylines, and/or themes for Plaintiffs' work Remastered.

27 48. Plaintiffs desire a judicial determination oftheir rights and obligations under the

28 terms of the implied contract and declaration as to all rights and obligations, including

coNrrLAnvT
 1 Defendants' obligation to pay Plaintiffs.

2 49. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that Plaintiffs

3 may ascertain their rights and obligations as set forth above.

4 WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

5 1. For compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

6 2. For declaratory relief declaring that Defendants are obligated to forthwith pay

7 Plaintiffs for the use of Plaintiffs' ideas, concepts, storylines, and/or themes.
g l, 3. For attorneys' fees and the costs of suit incurred herein; and

9 4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
a
10
w
o 11 'I DATED: October 11, 2018 KINSELLA WEITZMAI~ISER KUMP &
ALDISERT LLP `;
~ o o'°~ w
121,
~ oc~o ~,_..M.
~ orn~
M ao 13
~ ° ~ "'
x Qo~ 14 Howard Wei zman
~
~4 ~ Q Attorneys for Plaintiffs ~~~
(~1 ~ U
° ao
~~+m
15
j
~ U
~y¢ Z~
Q = o~ 16
N Q~
~~
17
~~
00 No
w 18
~ ~
a 19
w
z
20
21.

221

23

24

25~

26

27

28

COMPLAINT
 1 DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JiJRY

2 Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury on all issues and causes of action triable by jury.

4. DATED: October 11, 2018 KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP &

ALD]
5

6
7

9
a
10
aw
M O 111

O 12~i
O C~
0
~ a~~
13
~ M
M a O
O
~ ~ ~ 14
W ~ U
F~-1 m U O
15
z ~ Z~
16
N ~ ~.~
Q
H ~~o 17
J
~~ Mw 18
~ ~
a 19
w
z
20
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT