Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1 place of work; $150,000.00 due to DEFENDANTS’ negligence and failure to deliver the
2 Picture in DVD format in a timely matter that resulted in lost in sales $1,500.00 in
3 statutory damages due to violation of Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1719; $1,500.00 in costs and
4 expenses related to the subject action set forth in the declarations of Michael Davis and
5 Marc Y. Lazo.
6 The Application is based on this Notice, the declarations and exhibits filed
7 herewith, and the pleadings, files, and other matters that may be presented at the
8 hearing.
9
10 Dated: October 10, 2018 WILSON KEADJIAN BROWNDORF, LLP
11
12 ______________________________
Marc Y. Lazo
13 Attorney for Plaintiff
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
1 knowingly executed by the Parties on advice and with approval of their respective legal
2 counsel. (Decl. Davis ¶10, Ex. A, pg. 11; ¶13).
3 18. Unaware of the extent of DEFENDANTS’ business dealings, excepting
4 H&S, PLAINTIFFS filed their Request for Dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil
5 Procedure 41 (a) or (c) on October 2, 2017. Since that time, all actions taken by
6 Defendants HANNOVER, MEDALLION, TRUMAN, and PARKINSON have been in
7 contravention of the SA and in a manner exactly similar to conduct regarding the previous
8 Sales Agreement. (Decl. Davis ¶14).
9 19. Under Paragraph 2 of the SA et seq., “Settlement Terms,” Defendant
10 PARKINSON is required to issue a signed statement under penalty of perjury attesting to
11 DEFENDANTS’ compliance under the SA. On or about December 21, 2017, Defendant
12 PARKINSON issued a sworn affidavit and declaration detailing his version of the events
13 and his belief of DEFENDANTS’ completed obligations under the SA. In effect,
14 however, PARKINSON’S sworn affidavit and declaration directly points out to this Court
15 DEFENDANTS’ breaches, excepting H&S, given the explicit contradictions between the
16 terms of the SA and Defendant PARKINSON’S recitation of the “terms.”
17 20. DEFENDANTS, excepting H&S, materially breached the terms of the SA
18 by intentionally misquoting the division of the Picture’s home video revenues to recoup
19 overall costs. The SA states DEFENDANTS, excepting H&S, and PLAINTIFFS will
20 divide video revenue proceeds according to 60% to PLAINTIFFS and 40% to
21 DEFENDANTS’ split, excepting H&S. (Decl. Davis ¶10, Ex. A, pg. 3, ¶2.) As a result,
22 PLAINTIFFS only received $2,539 as their portion in revenue from a total $5,078 of
23 proceeds. In actuality, PLAINTIFFS should have received $3,046.80, pursuant to the SA.
24 This is the first blatant instance of DEFENDANTS, excepting H&S, manifestly breaching
25 the SA and trying to insert their own terms. (Decl. Davis ¶15).
26 21. DEFENDANTS, excepting H&S, further materially breached the terms of
27 the SA by intentionally ignoring the required accounting to accompany the Sales
28 Proceeds: “A full accounting of said sales proceeds [of the Picture] shall be completed by
-8-
1 ¶4.) The division of sales proceeds was previously bargained for and agreed to between
2 PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS, excepting H&S, to be set at 60% for PLAINTIFFS
3 and 40% for DEFENDANTS, excepting H&S. The attempts of DEFENDANTS,
4 excepting H&S, to re-state the terms to their benefit in such a manner is a material breach
5 of the SA.
6 25. DEFENDANTS, excepting H&S, materially breached the terms of the SA
7 by providing a check with insufficient funds to PLAINTIFFS. On or about November 20,
8 2017, DEFENDANTS, excepting H&S, remitted a check for “$2,539” to PLAINTIFFS
9 for the 50% share of the Picture sale proceeds. Despite the fact that this check amount of
10 “$2,539 was only 50%” of the current total sales proceeds when it should have been
11 “3,046.80, [60%]” the partial payment did not even clear when cashed. DEFENDANTS,
12 excepting H&S, knowingly submitted a bad check to PLAINTIFFS, and this conduct
13 amounts to one more action in a history of deceptive conduct.
14 26. DEFENDANTS, excepting H&S, have materially violated the terms of the
15 SA by their blatant attempt to unload costs from third-party Cinedigm, INC. onto
16 PLAINTIFFS. Pursuant to the SA, any money due to third-party Cinedigm is to be
17 entirely borne from DEFENDANTS, excepting H&S. (Decl. Davis, Ex. A, pg. 6, ¶5.)
18 27. On or about January 10, 2018, Plaintiff DAVIS attempted to cash a check
19 remitted to him by the DEFENDANTS, excepting H&S. Plaintiff DAVIS was informed
20 that the check could not be cashed due to insufficient funds. Through counsel,
21 PLAINTIFFS provided written demand to DEFENDANTS, excepting H&S, more than
22 30 days prior to brining the suit, and satisfying the requirements of California Civil Code
23 section 1719. (Declaration of Mark Y. Lazo (“Decl. Lazo”) ¶4.)
24 28. On March 28, 2018, through counsel, PLAINTIFFS filed their Complaint
25 (“Complaint”) for Breach of Contract, Tortious Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and
26 Fair Dealing, Fraud by False Promise, Fraud by Concealment, Unfair Competition in
27 Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq., Unjust Enrichment, Accounting, and
28 Violation of Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1719 (Decl. Lazo ¶5.)
-10-
1 35. As such, as of date of signing this Declaration, Plaintiff’s Request for Court
2 Judgment comprises of the following:
3 a. $10,000.00 in liquidation damages due to PLAINTIFFS fraudulent
4 accountings;
5 b. $800,000.00 due to DEFENDANTS’ business disparagement of
6 PLAINTIFFS in their place of work;
7 c. $150,000.00 due to DEFENDANTS’ negligence and failure to deliver the
8 Picture in DVD format in a timely matter that resulted in lost in sales;
9 d. $1,500.00 in statutory damages due to violation of Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1719;
10 e. $1,500.00 in costs related to the subject action.
11 (Decl. Davis ¶21,22; Decl. Lazo ¶ 9.)
12 36. Accordingly, judgment should be entered in the amount of $963,000.00
13 against Defendants PARKINSON, CRIMSON, TRUMAN, MEDALLION, and
14 HANNOVER. (Decl. Lazo ¶10.)
15
16
17 Dated: October 10, 2018 WILSON KEADJIAN BROWNDORF, LLP
18
19 ______________________________
Marc Y. Lazo
20 Attorney for Plaintiff
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-12-
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
I certify that on October 10, 2018, I caused a copy of the foregoing to be filed
3
electronically and that the document is available for viewing and downloading from the
4
ECF system. Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served
5
by the CM/ECF system.
6
Executed on October 10, 2018, at Irvine, California.
7
8
9 By: ______________________________
10 Marc Y. Lazo
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-13-
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2 I am employed in the City and County of Orange, California. I am over the age of 18 and
not a party to the within action. My business address is 1900 Main Street, Ste. 600, Irvine, CA 92614.
3
On October 10, 2018, I served the following document(s) described as:
4
NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY COURT
5 AGAINST ERIC PARKINSON, CRIMSON ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., TRUMAN
6 PRESS, INC., MEDALLION RELEASING, INC., AND HANNOVER HOUSE, INC.
15 [X] BY UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: On the above mentioned date, I placed a true copy of the
above mentioned document(s) in a sealed envelope or package designated by United Parcel
16 Service with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) as indicated above
17 and deposited same in a box or other facility regularly maintained by United Parcel Service to
received documents.
18
[X] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this Court at
19 whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
United States of America that the above is true and correct.
20
21 I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of
this Court at whose direction this service was made and that the foregoing is true and correct.
22
23 Executed on October 10, 2018, at Irvine, California.
24
_________________________________
25 CARRIE RUIZ
26
27
28
-14-