Case 1:16-cv-01089 Document 1 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CIVIL DIVISION
___________________________________
)
Ellis Williams p/k/s Mr. Biggs
)
)
John B. Miller p/k/a G.L.O.B.E.
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
Rhino Entertainment Company
)
Civil Action No.:
3400 W. Olive Avenue
)
Burbank, CA 91505
)
)
And
)
)
Artists Rights Enforcement Corp.
)
1430 Broadway Suite 505
)
New York, New York 10018
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________ )
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, complaining of the Defendants,
allege as follows:

1. This action by Plaintiffs, as more fully set forth herein, is for declaratory relief and for
breach of contract against Defendants Rhino Entertainment Company and Artists Rights
Enforcement Corp.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
2. This Court has jurisdiction under 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal
question); and 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) (copyright).
3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants in that Defendants reside and/or do
business in this District.

Page 1 of 9

Case 1:16-cv-01089 Document 1 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 9

4. Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. 1400(a) because
Defendants reside in and/or do business in this District. In addition, a substantial part of
the acts of complained of herein occurred in this District.
PARTIES & RELEVANT ACTORS
5. Ellis Williams is a world renown recording artist and songwriter who is domiciled in the
State of New York professionally known as Mr. Biggs (herein Plaintiff Williams).
6. John B. Miller is a world renown recording artist and songwriter who is domiciled in the
State of New York and is professionally known as G.L.O.B.E. (herein Plaintiff
Miller).
7. Robert Durrell Allen is a world renown recording artist and songwriter who is domiciled
in the State of New York and is professionally known as Pow Wow (herein Allen).
8. Defendant Artists Rights Enforcement Corp. (herein Defendant AREC) is a New York
corporation with a principal place of business located at 1430 Broadway Suite 505, New
York, New York 10018.
9. Defendant Rhino Entertainment Company is a California corporation.
10. Defendant Rhino is a record company that sells and distributes records in the State of
New York and otherwise conducts business in the State of New York (herein Defendant
Rhino).
11. Defendant Rhino a subsidiary of Warner Music Group and based upon information and
belief is the successor in interest to Tommy Boy Records.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

12. Plaintiffs and Allen along with one Afrika Bambaataa (herein Bambaataa) are the

Page 2 of 9

Case 1:16-cv-01089 Document 1 Filed 02/11/16 Page 3 of 9

members of a recording and performing group professionally known as Afrika

Bambaataa and Soulsonic Force.
13. Plaintiffs Williams and Miller along with Allen are also separately professionally known
as Soulsonic Force.
14. Plaintiffs, Allen and Bambaataa entered into a recording agreement dated March 2, 1982
with Tommy Boy Records.
15. Plaintiffs, Allen and Bambaataa recorded the master recordings Planet Rock, Looking
For the Perfect Beat, and Renegades of Funk while under contract with Tommy
Records.
16. Tommy Boy Records failed to pay and account to Plaintiffs, Allen and Bambaataa for a
period of twenty-seven (27) years.
17. In 2002, Plaintiffs along with one Allen entered into separate and individual agreements
with Defendant AREC to collect unpaid royalties from Defendant Rhino, as successor to
Tommy Boy Records, and others, including one Arthur Baker and his company, Shakin
Baker Music, BMI and Warner Chappell Music Publishing (herein the AREC
Agreements).
18. When entering into the AREC Agreements Plaintiffs were under the impression that
Charles Rubin, Gabin Rubin and Jay Berger, Esq. were attorneys who would represent
their interests, and that they were securing legal services from Defendant AREC.
19. The AREC Agreements provided in relevant part that Defendant AREC would use its
best efforts to collect royalties due Plaintiffs.
20. The AREC Agreements likewise provided that AREC was authorized to receive all
funds collected by [AREC] hereunder . . . .

Page 3 of 9

Case 1:16-cv-01089 Document 1 Filed 02/11/16 Page 4 of 9

21. The AREC Agreements also provided that if litigation counsel needed to be retained for
Plaintiffs, that Plaintiffs would directly enter into a retainer agreement with such
counsel.
22. In or about October 2003, Oren Warshavsky, (herein Warshavsky) an attorney
retained by Defendant AREC, and not Plaintiffs, filed a civil action against Defendant
Rhino, affiliate Warner Special Products, on behalf of Plaintiffs and Allen, (herein the
Rhino Action).
23. Plaintiffs never executed a direct retainer agreement with Warshavsky.
24. Based upon information and belief, no formal discovery was conducted in the Rhino
Action.
25. Defendant AREC consulted with, directed and instructed Warshavsky during the Rhino
Action.
26. In 2009, seven years after executing the AREC Agreements Afrika Bambaataa and
Soulsonic Force entered into a Settlement Agreement with Defendant Rhino regarding
the payment of royalties for certain master recordings that feature the vocal performances
of Afrika Bambaataa and Soulsonic Force (herein the Rhino Settlement).
27. However, Defendant AREC and Warshavsky failed to secure royalties for an additional
25 songs, as set forth on Exhibit A hereto, that sampled the vocal performances of Afrika
Bambaataa and Soulsonic Force from the master recordings Planet Rock, Looking
For The Perfect, and Renegades of Funk in the Rhino Settlement.
28. Further, Defendant AREC never secured any royalties from Arthur Baker and Shakin
Baker Music, BMI and Warner Chappell for Plaintiffs or Allen for musical compositions
written by Plaintiffs and Allen.

Page 4 of 9

Case 1:16-cv-01089 Document 1 Filed 02/11/16 Page 5 of 9

29. On May 24, 2013, Plaintiffs and Allen, through counsel, served Defendant AREC with a
termination of the AREC Agreements due to Defendant ARECs failure to use its best
efforts to recover royalties due Plaintiffs from Defendant Rhino.
30. Thereafter, Plaintiffs along with Allen then submitted a request to Defendant Rhino to
pay royalties due Plaintiffs and Allen from Rhino to their artist management company
and not Defendant AREC.
31. Since at least 2013, Defendant Rhino has been holding royalties due Plaintiff.
32. As such, Defendant Rhino has failed to pay and account to Plaintiffs and Allen pursuant
to the Rhino Settlement and for royalties due them for the 25 songs that sampled the
master recordings that feature Plaintiffs vocal performances.
SECTION 203 NOTICE OF TERMINATION
33. On or about September 17, 2009, Plaintiffs along with Allen and Bambaataa served a
Notice of Termination under Section 203 of the Copyright Act of 1976 on Defendant
Rhino with regard to the transfer of copyright to Tommy Boy Records (Rhinos assignee)
in connection with the Tommy Boy Agreement dated March 2, 1982 in connection with
the Planet Rock, Looking For the Perfect Beat, and Renegades of Funk master
recordings with respective termination dates of January 23, 2019, January 23, 2019 and
May 18, 2019.
34. Plaintiffs duly and properly recorded the Notice of Termination with the Copyright
Office on February 25, 2013, at least two (2) year before the effective dates of the Notice
of Termination.
35. The Copyright office has duly recorded the Notice of Termination as V3615 D681, as
attached hereto as Exhibit B.

Page 5 of 9

Case 1:16-cv-01089 Document 1 Filed 02/11/16 Page 6 of 9

COUNT ONE
ACTION BY PLAINTIFFS WILLIAMS & MILLER
FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
AGAINST DEFENDANT ARTISTS RIGHTS ENFORCMENT CORP.
36. Plaintiffs herein adopt and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in paragraphs
1 through 35 as if originally pled herein.
37. Defendant AREC was required under the AREC Agreements to use its best efforts
beginning in 2002 to secure royalties for Plaintiffs.
38. By failing to use their best efforts Defendant AREC is liable to Plaintiffs for material
breach of contract.
39. As a proximate result of Defendant ARECs breach of contract and failure to use their
best efforts, Plaintiffs have been damaged as alleged herein in an amount in excess of
$100,000 or, an amount to be proved at trial.
COUNT TWO
ACTION BY PLAINTIFFS WILLIAMS & MILLER
FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST DEFENDANT RHINO
40. Plaintiffs herein adopt and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in paragraphs
1 through 39 as if originally pled herein.
41. Since at least 2013, Defendant Rhino has failed to pay and account to Plaintiffs for
royalties due them under the Rhino Settlement Agreement.
42. By failing to pay and account to Plaintiffs since 2013, Defendant Rhino has breached the
Rhino Settlement Agreement.
43. Plaintiffs have been damaged in a minimum amount of at least $22,000 due to such
failure.
44. In addition, since 2009 Defendant Rhino has failed to pay and account to Plaintiffs for all
25 additional master recordings that sampled the vocal performances of Plaintiffs.
Page 6 of 9

Case 1:16-cv-01089 Document 1 Filed 02/11/16 Page 7 of 9

45. As a proximate result of Defendant Rhinos material breaches of contract, Plaintiffs have
been damaged as alleged herein in an amount in excess of $100,000 or, in an amount to
be proved at trial.
COUNT THREE
ACTION BY PLAINTIFFS FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF THAT THE AREC
AGREEMENTS ARE TERMINATED
46. Plaintiffs herein adopt and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in paragraphs
1 through 45 as if originally pleaded herein.
47. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that the AREC Agreements are terminated.
48. In particular, Plaintiffs are in doubt as to their rights as more fully described in
paragraphs 1 through 47 above.
49. A bona fide dispute exists between the Plaintiffs and Defendant AREC arising out of the
events alleged in paragraphs 1 through 48 above, and a need for an actual, present
declaration from this Court exists.
50. Specifically, as more fully set forth above, Plaintiff has a justiciable question as to the
currently validity of the AREC Agreements and as well as their entitlement to relief for
past royalties intentionally withheld from Plaintiffs by Defendant Rhino.
51. Without this courts equity jurisdiction and a declaration as to said rights, Plaintiffs do
not have an adequate remedy at law.
COUNT III
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
AGAINST DEFENDANTS RHINO ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY
52. Paragraphs 1 through 51 are incorporated as if fully rewritten herein.
53. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief authorized by and brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1338(a) that their Notice of Termination under Section 203 of the Copyright Act
Page 7 of 9

Case 1:16-cv-01089 Document 1 Filed 02/11/16 Page 8 of 9

served on Defendant Rhino and recorded with the Copyright Office is valid and
enforceable.
54. In particular, Plaintiffs are in doubt as to their rights as more fully described in
paragraphs 1 through 53 above.
55. A bona fide dispute exists between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Rhino arising out of the
events alleged in paragraphs 1 through 54 above, and a need for an actual, present
declaration from this Court exists.
56. Specifically, as more fully set forth above, Plaintiff has a justiciable question as to the
proper and/or legal owner of the master recordings as of the effective date of the Notice
of Termination as further described above, as well as entitlement to relief for past
royalties intentionally withheld from Plaintiffs by Defendant Rhino.
57. Without this courts equity jurisdiction and a declaration as to said rights, Plaintiffs do
not have an adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court:
A.

Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages for breach of contract against Defendant

Artists Rights Enforcement Corporation in the amount of $100,000.

B.

Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages for breach of contract against Defendant

Rhino in the amount of $100,000 or such amount as shall be determined at trial

C.

Declare that the AREC Agreements are terminated due to material breach of

contract.
D.

Declare that Plaintiffs Notice of Termination under Section 203 of the Copyright

Act of 1976 are valid and enforceable and effective as of January 23, 2019, January 23,
2019, and May 18, 2019, and that as of such dates Plaintiffs along with Allen and

Page 8 of 9

Case 1:16-cv-01089 Document 1 Filed 02/11/16 Page 9 of 9

Bambaataa are the owners of the copyright in the master recordings Planet Rock,
Looking For the Perfect Beat, and Renegades of Funk.
E.

For attorneys fees and costs of this litigation; and

F.

And such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
JURY DEMAND

PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY AS TO ALL LEGAL ISSUES RAISED HEREIN

REGARDING LIABILITY OF THE DEFENDANTS.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: February 11, 2016

LITA ROSARIO, PLLC

Lita Rosario
Lita Rosario, Esq.
1100 H Street, N.W., Suite 315
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-628-4759
lita.rosario@wyzgirl.com

Page 9 of 9