Broker

Case 2:16-cv-09432-JFW-MRW Document 19 Filed 02/27/17 Page 1 of 63 Page ID #:383
1 WEX LAW, PROFESSIONAL LEGAL CORPORATION

2
MICHAEL K. CERNYAR, SBN 225240
1000 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2150
3 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
TELEPHONE: (213) 986-9844
4 FACSIMILE: (562) 800-0474
5
Attorneys for PLAINTIFF
6 HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC;
CONCIERGE, INC; and CRAIG BANASZEWSKI
7
8 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. et al, CASE NO.: CV 16-9432-JFW

(MRWx)
11 PLAINTIFFS,
12 v. [Assigned for all purposes to
District Judge Hon. John F.
WEX LAW
13 HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT GROUP Walter and Magistrate Judge

14 LLC, et al, Hon. Michael R. Wilner]
15 DEFENDANTS. DEFENDANTS
16 HOLLYWOOD
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP,
17
HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LLCS AND CRAIG
18 LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, BANASZWESKIS ANSWER
d/b/a VIP CONCIERGE, INC.; and CRAIG TO COMPLAINT AND
19 COUNTER-CLAIMS
BANASZEWSKI, an individual,
20
COUNTER-CLAIMANTS, DEMAND FOR JURY
21 TRIAL
22 v.
Hon. John F. Walter
23
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. a Delaware
24 corporation; LUCASFILM LTD, LLC, a Filed: 12/21/2016
California limited liability company;
25
LUCASFILM ENTERTAINMENT
26 COMPANY LLC, a California limited liability
company; MARVEL CHARACTERS, , INC.,
27
a Delaware corporation; MVL FILM
28 FINANCE LLC, a Delaware limited liability
Case No.: 2:16-CV-09432-JFW (MRWx) 1 ANSWER; DEMAND FOR JURY

1 company; NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company;
2
UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC, a
3 Delaware limited liability company; WARNER
4
BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and SONY PICTURES
5 ENTERTAINMENT INC., a Delaware
6
Corporation, ROES 1 through 25, inclusive,
7 COUNTER-DEFENDANTS.
8
9
Pursuant to Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants
10
Hollywood Entertainment Group LLC (HEG) and Craig Banaszewski (Mr.
11 Banaszewski) (collectively Defendants) hereby answer the Complaint by
12 Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc, Lucasfilm Ltd, Llc, Lucasfilm Entertainment
WEX LAW
13 Company LLC, Marvel Characters, Inc., MVL Film Finance LLC,

14 NBCUniversal Media, LLC, Universal City Studios LLC, Warner Bros.
15 Entertainment Inc., And Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc (collectively,
16 Plaintiffs). If an averment is not specifically admitted, it is hereby denied.
17
18 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
19
I.
20
INTRODUCTION
21
22 1. Answering Paragraph 1, the Defendants admit that the Plaintiffs have

23
filed this action to stop the Defendants from selling tickets. Except as expressly
24
admitted herein, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit or
25
26 deny the allegations contained in this paragraph and on that basis denies each and
27
every such allegation.
28
2
1 2. Answering Paragraph 2, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

2
information to admit or deny the allegations contained in this paragraph and on that
3
4
basis denies each and every such allegation.
5
3. Answering Paragraph 3, Defendants admit to the two previous
6
7 lawsuits and that the lawsuits were settled. Except as expressly admitted herein,
8 Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
9
allegations contained in this paragraph and on that basis denies each and every
10
11 such allegation.
12
WEX LAW
13 II.
14 THE PARTIES
15
A. Plaintiffs
16
17
The Disney Plaintiffs
18
20 information to admit or deny the allegations contained in this paragraph and on that
21
22
23
5. Answering Paragraph 5, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or
24
25
26 basis denies each and every such allegation.

27
28
3

2
3
4
5
The NBCUniversal Plaintiffs
6

8
9
10
11
12
WEX LAW
15
16 Warner Bros Entertainment Inc.

17

19
20
21
22
Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.
23
24
25
26
28
4
1 B. Defendants
2
3 11. Answering Paragraph 11, HEG admits that it is a Nevada limited

4 liability company with its mailing address located at 9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite
5
450, Beverly Hills, California 90210. HEG admits that it does business under the
6
7 trade name VIP Concierge Inc. and that it sometimes acts as a ticket broker for
8 entertainment events. HEG admits that it has offered to sell and/or sold tickets via
9
its website, www.thevipconcierge.com. Except as expressly admitted hereinabove,
10
11 Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every remaining allegation in
12
paragraph 11.
WEX LAW
13
12. Answering Paragraph 12, Mr. Banaszewski admits that he resides in or
14
15 around Los Angeles County, California, and that he is an owner and managing
16
member of HEG. Except as expressly admitted hereinabove, Defendants deny
17
generally and specifically each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 12.
18
19 III.
20
PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE
21
13. Answering Paragraph 13, the paragraph characterizes the Plaintiffs
22
23 Complaint which speaks for itself, thus no response is required. To the extent that
24
a response is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in
25
paragraph 13.
26
27
28
5
1 14. Answering Paragraph 14, Defendants deny generally and specifically

2
the allegations in paragraph 14.
3
4
6
7
8
10
11
12 17. Answering Paragraph 17, Defendants admit that (i) HEG has its
WEX LAW
13 principal place of business in the State of California and this judicial district; (ii)
14
Mr. Banaszewski is a resident in the State of California and this judicial district;
15
16 and (iii) Defendants conduct business within the State of California and this judicial
17 district. Except as expressly admitted hereinabove, Defendants deny generally and

18
specifically each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 17.
19
20 18. Answering Paragraph 18, Defendants admit that (i) HEG has its
21 principal place of business in the State of California and this judicial district; (ii)
22
Mr. Banaszewski is a resident in the State of California and this judicial district;
23
24 and (iii) Defendants conduct business within the State of California and this judicial
25 district. Except as expressly admitted hereinabove, Defendants deny generally and
26
specifically each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 18.
27
28
6
1 IV.
2
ADDITIONAL FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
3
4
Disney Plaintiffs Private Events
5
6
9
10 Disney Plaintiffs Private Events

11

WEX LAW
13
14
15
16 21. Answering Paragraph 21, HEG admits that it offers for sale and sells
17
tickets to Hollywood events including some Disney events. Except as expressly
18
admitted hereinabove, Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every
19
20 remaining allegation in paragraph 21.
21
22 22. Answering Paragraph 22, Defendants admit selling tickets to this
23 event. Except as expressly admitted hereinabove, Defendants lack sufficient

24
knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in this
25
26 paragraph and on that basis denies each and every such allegation.
27
28
7

2
3
4
5 24. Defendants deny, generally and specifically, the allegations in

6
paragraph 24.
7
8
NBCUniversal Plaintiffs Private Events
9

11
12
WEX LAW

15
16

19
20

23
24

26
27
28
8

2
3
4
5
NBCUniversal Plaintiffs Host Private Television Show Tapings
6
7
8
9

11
12
WEX LAW

15
16

19
20

23
24
27
28
9

2
3
4

6
7
8

10
11

WEX LAW

14
15
17
NBCUniversal Plaintiffs Private Events and Television Tapings Not
18
19 Yet Scheduled
20
21 39. The allegations in Paragraph 39 are legal conclusions to which no
22 response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

23
each and every such allegation.
24

27
28
10

2
3
4
5 42. Answering Paragraph 42, no such paragraph exists in the Complaint.

6
43. Answering Paragraph 43, no such paragraph exists in the Complaint.
7
8
44. Defendants deny, generally and specifically, the allegations in
9 paragraph 44.
10
11 Warner Bros. Plaintiffs Private Movie Premiers

12
WEX LAW
15
16
19
20
23
24

27
28
11

2
3
4
5
Warner Bros. Host Private Television Show Tapings
6
7
8
9

11
12
WEX LAW

15
16

19
20

23
24
27
28
12
1 Warner Bros. Plaintiffs Private Events and Television Tapings Not Yet
2
Scheduled
3

5
response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny
6
7 each and every such allegation.

9
10

12
WEX LAW
13
14

16
17
paragraph 58.
18
19
SPE Plaintiffs Private Movie Premiers
20
21
22
23

25
26
27

13

2
3
4

6
7
8
9
SPE Plaintiffs Private Events and Television Tapings Not Yet
10
11 Scheduled
12
WEX LAW

15
16
19
20
22 paragraph 65.
23
24 Defendants Use of Plaintiffs Intellectual Property

25
26
27
28
14

2
3
4
5
Disneys Intellectual Property
6
7
8
9

11
68. The allegations in Paragraph 68 are legal conclusions to which no
12
WEX LAW

15
16

19
20

23
24 NBCUniversals Intellectual Property

25
26
27
28
15

2
3
4

6
7
8

10
11

WEX LAW

14
15
17
Warner Bros. Intellectual Property
18
19
20

23
24

27
28
16

2
3
4

6
7
8
9
SPEs Intellectual Property
10
11
12
WEX LAW

15
16

19
80. Answering Paragraph 80(2), Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or
20

23
24
27
28 Defendants Conduct
17

5
6
7
Disneys Demand
8
9 83. Defendants admit prior communications from Disney but Defendants

10
have insufficient information and knowledge upon with to admit or deny the
11
12 remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 82, and upon that basis, those
WEX LAW
13
allegations are denied, generally and specifically.
14
84. Defendants admit prior communications from LucasFilm but
15
16 Defendants have insufficient information and knowledge upon with to admit or

17
deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 83, and upon that basis, those
18
19
21
22
23
24
NBCUniversals Demand
25
26
86. Defendants admit prior communications from NBCUniversal but
27
Defendants have insufficient information and knowledge upon with to admit or
28
18
1 deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 86, and upon that basis, those
2
3
4

6
7
8
9 88. Defendants admit prior communications from NBCUniversal but

10
11
WEX LAW
13 allegations are denied, generally and specifically.

14
15
18
19
20 90. Defendants admit prior communications from NBCUniversal but

22
23

25
Warner Bros. Demand
26
27
28
19
1 91. Defendants admit prior communications from Warner Bros. but

2
3
4

6
92. Defendants admit prior communications from Warner Bros. but
7
8
10
11
12
SPEs Demand
WEX LAW
13
14 93. Defendants admit prior communications from SPE but Defendants

15
have insufficient information and knowledge upon with to admit or deny the
16

19
94. Defendants admit prior communications from SPE but Defendants
20
21 have insufficient information and knowledge upon with to admit or deny the
23
24
25 95. Defendants admit prior communications from SPE but Defendants

26 have insufficient information and knowledge upon with to admit or deny the
27
28
20
2
3
4 Defendants Continued Behavior

5

7
8
9
10
V.
11
CAUSES OF ACTION
12
COUNT I
WEX LAW
13
TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT IN VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. 1114
14 (Against All Defendants)
15 97. Defendants re-allege and incorporate by this reference, each of their
16
responses to paragraphs 1 through 96 of the Plaintiffs Complaint as though fully
17
18 set forth herein.

20
21

24
paragraph 99.
25

27 paragraph 100.
28
21

2
paragraph 101.
3
4
5 paragraph 102.
6
7
8
paragraph 103.

10
paragraph 104.
11
12
COUNT II
WEX LAW
13 COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IN VIOLATION OF 17 U.S.C. 106, et

seq.
14
(Against All Defendants)
15

17
18

21
paragraph 106.
22
24 paragraph 107.
25
26
27 paragraph 108.
28
22
1 COUNT III
2
UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF
15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A)
3
4
109. Defendants re-allege and incorporate by this reference, each of their
5 responses to paragraphs 1 through 108 of the Plaintiffs Complaint as though fully

6
set forth herein.
7
8
9 paragraph 110.
10
11
12 paragraph 111.
WEX LAW

14
paragraph 112.
15
17 paragraph 113.
18
19
20 paragraph 114.
21
COUNT IV
22
UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES IN
23 VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE 17200 AND 17500
24
25
26
27
28
23

2
3
4
set forth herein.

6
paragraph 116.
7
8
9 paragraph 117.
10
11
12 paragraph 118.
WEX LAW

14
paragraph 119.
15
17 paragraph 120.
18
19 COUNT V
INDUCEMENT OF TRESPASS
20
21

23
24

26
27
28
24

2
3
4

6
7
8

10
paragraph 124.
11

WEX LAW
13 paragraph 125.
14
15
16 paragraph 126.

18
paragraph 127.
19
20
ANSWER TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF
21
Answering paragraphs 1-11 of the prayer for relief, the Defendants deny that
22
23 Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought in these paragraphs, and denies that
24
Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief whatsoever.
25
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
26
27
28
25
1 The Defendants plead the following separate and distinct affirmative defenses
2
without conceding that it bears the burden of proof as to any of these issues. The
3
4
Defendants reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses that discovery
5 indicates are proper.

6
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7
8 (Failure to State a Claim)
9 Plaintiffs Complaint, and each claim for relief alleged therein, fails to state a
10
claim upon which relief can be granted.
11
12 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

WEX LAW
13 (Lack of Standing)
14
Plaintiffs Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, fails because
15
16 Plaintiffs lack standing to assert the purported claims set forth in the
17 Complaint.
18
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19
20 (Statute of Limitations)
21 Plaintiffs Complaint, and each claim for relief alleged therein, is barred by
22
such statutes of limitation as may be applicable, including, but not limited to,
23
24 17 U.S.C. 507(b).
25 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26
(Laches)
27
28
26
1 Plaintiffs Complaint, and each claim for relief alleged therein, is barred in
2
whole or in part by the doctrine of laches.
3
4
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 (Estoppel)
6
Plaintiffs Complaint, and each claim for relief alleged therein, is barred in
7
8
whole or in part by the doctrine of estoppel.
9 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

10
(Waiver)
11
12 Plaintiffs Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, is barred in

WEX LAW
13 whole or in part by the doctrine of waiver.

14
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15
16 (Unclean Hands)
17 Plaintiffs Complaint, and each claim for relief alleged therein, is barred in
18
whole or in part by the doctrine of unclean hands.
19
20 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 (First Amendment)
22
Plaintiffs Complaint, and each claim for relief alleged therein, is barred by
23
24 the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

25 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26
(Fair Use)
27
28
27
1 Plaintiffs Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, is barred

2
because the Defendants use of the subject material constitutes fair use.
3
4
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 (Generic Mark)
6
Plaintiffs Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein, fails because
7
8
Plaintiffs mark is generic and descriptive and is not entitled to protection.
9 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

10
(Nominative Fair Use)
11
12 The Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of Nominative Fair Use.
WEX LAW
13 TWELVETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14
(First Sale Doctrine)
15
16 The Plaintiffs claims are barred by the First Sale Doctrine.
17 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

18
(Lack of Confusion)
19
20 The Plaintiffs claims under or relating to the Lanham Act are barred because
21 consumer confusion could not have arisen, as the goods allegedly sold by
22
Defendants were genuine products of the Plaintiffs.
23
24 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25 (Copyright Misuse)
26
The Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse.
27
28 FIFTHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

28
1 (Invalidity/Unenforceability)
2
The Plaintiffs claims are barred because the Academys alleged trademarks
3
4
and copyrights are invalid and/or unenforceable.
5 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6
(Safe Harbor)
7
8
The Plaintiffs claims are barred under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,
9 17 USC 512.
10
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11
12 (Acquiescence)
WEX LAW
13 The Plaintiffs claims are barred due to its own acquiescence in any actions
14
taken by Defendants.
15
16 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 (De Minimus Use)

18
Plaintiffs Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, is barred in
19
20 whole or in part because the Defendants use of the subject material was de
21 minimus.
22
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23
24 (Innocent Infringement)
25 As to each and all claims for relief based upon the Defendants alleged
26
infringement of alleged copyrights owned by Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs are barred
27
28 from recovering damages arising from such alleged infringement, or such

29
1 damages should be reduced, because any infringement by the Defendants

2
was innocent, and without notice or knowledge of Plaintiffs purported
3
4
rights.
5 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6
(No Waiver of Any Affirmative Defenses)
7
8
The Defendants assertion of specific affirmative defenses herein does not
9 constitute a waiver of any other affirmative defenses not asserted herein, and
10
the Defendants reserves the right to assert any applicable affirmative
11
12 defenses disclosed by its investigation and discovery in this matter.

WEX LAW
13 ///
14
///
15
16 ///
17 ///
18
///
19
20 ///
21 ///
22
///
23
24 ///
25 ///
26
///
27
28 ///
30
1 WHEREFORE, the Defendants pray for relief as follows:

2
1. That the Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice and in its entirety;
3
4
2. That Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of this Complaint and that
5 judgment be entered against Plaintiffs and in favor of the Defendants;

6
3. That the Defendants be awarded attorneys fees and costs incurred in
7
8
defending this action, to the extent permitted by law; and
9 4. That the Defendants be granted such other and further relief as the Court may
10
deem just and proper.
11
12
WEX LAW
13 Dated: February 27, 2017 WEX LAW

14
15
16
17 By: __________________________
Michael K. Cernyar
18 Attorneys for Defendants
19 HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT
GROUP LLC, d/b/a VIP Concierge,
20 Inc. and CRAIG BANASZEWSKI
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31
1 COUNTER-CLAIMS
2
1. For their counterclaims against Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants Disney
3
4
Enterprises, Inc, Lucasfilm Ltd, Llc, Lucasfilm Entertainment Company
5 LLC, Marvel Characters, Inc., MVL Film Finance LLC, NBCUniversal

6
Media, LLC, Universal City Studios LLC, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.,
7
8
And Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc (collectively, Plaintiffs or Counter-
9 Defendants) and Defendants and Counter-Claimants Hollywood

10
Entertainment Group LLC (HEG) and Craig Banaszewski (Mr.
11
12 Banaszewski) (collectively Defendants or Counter-Claimants) alleges as

WEX LAW
13 follows:
14
PARTIES
15
16 2. Counter-Claimant HEG admits that it is a Nevada limited liability company
17 with its mailing address located at 9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450, Beverly
18
Hills, California 90210. HEG admits that it does business under the trade
19
20 name VIP Concierge Inc.
21 3. Counter-Claimant Mr. Banaszewski admits that he resides in or around Los

22
Angeles County, California, and that he is an owner and managing member
23
24 of HEG.
25 4. Counter-Defendants and their agents do business in the United States.
26
5. The true names and capacities of Counter-Defendants Roes 1 through 25,
27
28 inclusive, are unknown to Counter-Claimants. Counter-Claimants therefor

32
1 sues these Counter-Defendants by such fictitious names. Counter-Claimants

2
will appropriately seek leave of the Court to amend these Counter-Claims to
3
4
show the true names and capacities of such Counter-Defendants when that
5 information has been ascertained.

6
JURISDICTION
7
8
6. This Court has jurisdiction over these counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
9 1331 and 1332.

10
VENUE
11
12 7. Venue is proper in the Central District because Counter-Defendants brought

WEX LAW
13 this lawsuit against Counter-Claimants in the Central District and because

14
Counter-Defendants and their agents do business in and/or may be found in
15
16 the Central District.
17 FACTS
18
8. The Counter-Claimants have been selling tickets for many years to various
19
20 events and have been selling tickets online thru VIP Concierge since 2007 at
21 www.TheVIPConcierge.com (VIP Website).

22
9. The Counter-Claimants operate legally in the State of California as a ticket
23
24 broker. The Counter-Claimants purchase tickets from those holding tickets

25 to various events (including Hollywood events) but dont wish to attend or
26
cannot attend the event or just want to cash in on the tickets. The Counter-
27
28 Claimants then resell the tickets through VIP Concierge.

33
1 10.Counter-claimants are informed and believe that the typical ticket holder that
2
sells tickets to the Counter-Claimants are executives, officers, employees,
3
4
agents, representatives and guests of the studios, distribution companies,
5 production companies, and talent tied to the event.

6
11.The Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that any restrictions on the
7
8
tickets were not a condition of those initially receiving the tickets.
9 12.There is no privity of contract between Counter-Claimants and Counter-

10
Defendants so any conditions would not apply to Counter-Claimants.
11
12 13.Each page of the VIP Website, contains the disclaimer: ** Please note that
WEX LAW
13 we have no official affiliation with any motion picture, awards show,

14
television show, or film festivals, producers or distributors.
15
16 14.The Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that this is no California
17 statute that prevents them from selling the tickets mentioned in the
18
Complaint.
19
20 15. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that the Plaintiffs have not
21 pursued any legal action with Counter-Claimants competitors.

22
16. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that the Plaintiffs have not
23
24 pursued any legal action with those who initially were provided tickets.
25 17.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that Counter-Defendants have
26
movie premieres to hype (market) their latest movie release.
27
28
34
1 18.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that Counter-Defendants release

2
the date, time and location of the movie premiere to the general public for the
3
4
purpose of having the public near and/or on the location at the specific date
5 and time mentioned.

6
PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT EVENTS
7
8
19.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that Counter-Defendants for
9 private gatherings / events / showings / premieres will typically use a theatre

10
/ studio / sound stage on the studio lot. The studio lots have secured
11
12 entrances for the purpose of denying access to the general public. Generally,
WEX LAW
13 the date, time & location of the event are not published to the general public.
14
GENERAL PUBLIC AT MOVIE PREMIERES /TV SHOWS
15
16 20. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that Counter-Defendants
17 guests come from all types of backgrounds from sweepstakes winners,

18
auction winners, production crew, sponsors, public relations people,
19
20 marketing people, studio executives, studio employees, and friends of any the
21 aforementioned in this paragraph.

22
21. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that Counter-Defendants have
23
24 competition winners from radio contests, auctions, sweepstakes contests,

25 social media contests, etc., in which the Counter-Defendants have open to the
26
public and typically anyone associated with the film/television show is not
27
28 qualified to win.
35
1 22.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that the general public is invited
2
to attend movie premieres and television showings through various credit
3
4
card promotions for a fee.
5 23.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that the general public is invited
6
to attend movie premieres and televisions showings through various airline
7
8
points promotions and credit card points promotions.
9 VALUE OF PRIZE TICKETS TO GENERAL PUBLIC

10
24.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that the competitions have
11
12 assigned a value in terms of a dollar amount to the premiere prize. The value
WEX LAW
13 is actually referred to Actual Retail Value or ARV which reflects the

14
actual value of the premiere tickets. If the ARV cannot be accurately
15
16 ascertained then there is an Estimated Retail Value or ERV assigned to
17 the prize.
18
25. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that Counter-Defendants that
19
20 the typical competition includes round trip airfare, hotel accommodations,
21 ground transportation and attendance at the movie premiere / television show

22
for two people. Although the winners typically receive the same
23
24 arrangements the ARV for such prizes are variable and can range from
25 $2,500 to $12,500 with children films and televisions shows being on the
26
low-end while the sexier adult films being higher in value. So it appears that
27
28
36
1 there is a market value for premiere tickets with the Counter-Defendants

2
and/or their sponsors setting the price.
3
4
COMPANIES EARNING FEES FOR TICKETS
5 26.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that Counter-Defendants give

6
away or sell tickets to alleged charities in which the charities then auction off
7
8
the tickets to the general public. The company running the charity auction
9 will earn at least a 20% fee of the auction price.

10
27. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that Counter-Defendants open
11
12 many of the premieres and special events to the public at various fees.
WEX LAW
13 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

14
For Violation of Sherman Act, Section 1
15
16 Against All Defendants
17 28.Counter-Claimants repeat, re-allege and incorporates by reference paragraphs

18
1-27 as though fully set forth herein.
19
20 29.Counter-Defendants are engaged in intrastate commerce and produces,
21 distributes, markets and sells film and television media for entertainment
22
purposes throughout the United States. This activity represents a regular,
23
24 continuous and substantial flow of intrastate commerce and, therefore, has a

25 substantial effect on intrastate commerce in California and the United States.
26
30.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe and thereon alleges that, at all
27
28 times mentioned, Counter-Defendants ROE 1 through ROE 25 were agents

37
1 of each other and of the named Counter-Defendants and, in doing the things
2
alleged in the Complaint, were acting in the scope of such agency and with
3
4
the permission and consent of the Counter-Defendants.
5 31. This lawsuit is filed within the four years statute of limitations period as
6
described in 15 USC 15b.
7
8
32.Beginning at a time currently unknown to Counter-Claimants, and continuing
9 to the present, Counter-Defendants have entered into and engaged in a

10
continuing unlawful combination and conspiracy in an unreasonable restraint
11
12 of trade or commerce in violation of the Sherman Act, Section 1.

WEX LAW
13 33.These violations of the Sherman Act, Section 1, consisted without limitation,

14
of a continuing combination of trust, agreement, understanding and concert
15
16 of action among the Counter-Defendants, including to but not limited to,
17 purchasers concerning the sale and marketing of their events in California.

18
34.In April, 2016, Counter-Defendants Disney denied entrance to Radio Disney
19
20 Music Awards to the Counter-Claimants clients for entrance on the Red
21 Carpet. The clients were alleged in the Complaint to have paid $3,600 for
22
the event.
23
24 35.The Radio Disney Music Awards is open to the general public. Stub Hub,
25 Microsoft Theatre, Radio.Disney.com, Cheaptickets.com, Ticketmaster and
26
scores of other websites offer tickets to the Radio Disney Music Awards.
27
28 Accordingly, Counter-Claimants are a competitor of Disney and competes

38
1 with Disney in regard to distribution and sales of tickets to the Radio Disney
2
Music Awards.
3
4
36. Counter-Defendant NBCUniversal is seeking to enjoin Counter-Claimants
5 from selling tickets to the Tonight Show and to the Saturday Night Live
6
Show, along with tickets to several movie premieres.
7
8
37.Counter-Defendant Warner Bros is seeking to enjoin Counter-Claimants
9 from selling tickets to several television shows such as Ellen, the Big Bang
10
Theory, etc.
11
12 38.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that in April 2014, Counter-

WEX LAW
13 Defendant Warner Bros denied entrance to a Counter-Claimant client who

14
had purchased two tickets for the Transcendence film premiere at the cost of
15
16 $5,000.
17 39.In March 2015, Counter-Defendant Lucasfilm demanded that the Counter-

18
Claimants stop offering the sale of tickets to its movie premiere and after
19
20 party for the latest Star Wars movie.
21 40.Counter-Defendant Sony Pictures Entertainment is seeking to enjoin

22
Counter-Claimants from selling tickets to their television shows, along with
23
24 tickets to several movie premieres.

25 41.All Counter-Defendants have demanded that the Counter-Claimants stop
26
selling tickets to their events. Counter-Defendants attempt to monopolize the
27
28
39
1 distribution of tickets to their events restrains and directly affects Counter-

2
Claimants ability to compete in the marketplace.
3
4
42.Counter-Claimants believe are informed and believe that the Counter-
5 Defendants have not filed a law suit against the Counter-Claimants

6
competitors to enjoin them from selling the same items.
7
8
43. The reduction of Counter-Claimants from the marketplace will reduce
9 competition thus driving up the prices of tickets to the consumers.

10
44. As mentioned in the Complaint, and as the Counter-Claimants are informed
11
12 and believe that the tickets to many of these events are provided to an elite
WEX LAW
13 group of invited guests, which includes studio executives, officers,

14
employees, agents, representatives, talent and production team members of
15
16 the studios, distribution companies, and/or production companies, thus the
17 Counter-Claimants are direct purchasers of the products or services sold by

18
the conspirators or their employees, agents or representatives.
19
20 45.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that the Counter-Defendants
21 have done minimal at best to prevent the studio executives, officers,

22
employees, agents, representatives, talent and production team members of
23
24 the studios, distribution companies, and/or production companies from

25 selling their tickets.
26
46.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that and therefore alleges that
27
28 each of the Counter-Defendants are negligently responsible in some manner

40
1 for the injuries and damages herein referred to, and thereby the approximate
2
caused injuries and damages to Counter-Claimants, as herein alleged.
3
4
47.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that there are no state or federal
5 statutes and/or regulations to prevent them from selling tickets to the events
6
that the Counter-Defendants are attempting to enjoin Counter-Claimants
7
8
from selling.
9 48.Entry of new competitors or expansion of the market will not be timely,

10
likely, or sufficient to undo the competitive harm that has resulted and will to
11
12 continue to result from the Counter-Defendants restraining activity and

WEX LAW
13 attempt to monopolize the market.

14
49.Any efficiency resulting from the Counter-Defendants commercially
15
16 restraining active, attempt to monopolize is insufficient to offset the anti-
17 competitive effects of the Counter-Defendants conduct.

18
50.If Counter-Defendants restraining activity, attempt to monopolize is allowed
19
20 to continue unabated, it will likely have the following effects:
21 a. Competition in the relevant product and geographic markets will be

22
eliminated or substantially lessened.
23
24 b. Actual and future competition between Counter-Claimants and

25 Counter-Defendants and between these companies in the sale and
26
support in the relevant geographic markets will be eliminated or
27
28 substantially lessened.
41
1 c. Prices for the relevant product in the relevant markets will likely
2
increase to levels above those that would prevail absent Counter-
3
4
Defendants commercially restraining active, attempt to monopolize
5 the market.
6
d. Consumers will continue to pay taxes on overinflated sweepstakes
7
8
values or will overpay in an auction to attend the events.
9 51.As a result of the Counter-Defendants behavior, the Counter-Claimants have

10
been harmed and have suffered actual damages and therefore are seeking
11
12 monetary, compensatory, exemplary (amount to be in accordance with anti-

WEX LAW
13 trust law), expert fees and reasonable attorney fees. In addition, an

14
injunction enjoining, preliminary and permanently, Counter-Defendants from
15
16 continuing the unlawful combination and conspiracy alleged in this
17 complaint.
18
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
19
20 For Violation of Sherman Act, Section 2

22
52.Counter-Claimants repeat, re-allege and incorporates by reference paragraphs
23
24 1-51 as though fully set forth herein.

25 53. This lawsuit is filed within the four years statute of limitations period as
26
described in 15 USC 15b.
27
28
42
1 54.Beginning at a time currently unknown to Counter-Claimants, and continuing

2
to the present, Counter-Defendants have entered into and engaged in a
3
4
5 of trade or commerce in violation of the Sherman Act, Section 2.

6
55.These violations of the Sherman Act, Section 2, consisted without limitation,
7
8
of a continuing combination of trust, agreement, understanding and concert
9 of action among the Counter-Defendants, including to but not limited to,

10
purchasers concerning the sale and marketing of their events in California.
11
12 56.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe and thereon alleges that, at all
WEX LAW
13 times mentioned, Counter-Defendants ROE 1 through ROE 25 were agents

14
of each other and of the named Counter-Defendants and, in doing the things
15
16 alleged in the Complaint, were acting in the scope of such agency and with
17 the permission and consent of the Counter-Defendants.

18
57.Counter-Defendants are engaged in intrastate commerce and produces,
19
20 distributes, markets and sells film and television media for entertainment
21 purposes throughout the United States. This activity represents a regular,

22
continuous and substantial flow of intrastate commerce and, therefore, has a
23
24 substantial effect on intrastate commerce in California and the United States.

25 58.In April, 2016, Counter-Defendants Disney denied entrance to Radio Disney
26
Music Awards to the Counter-Claimants clients for entrance on the Red
27
28
43
1 Carpet. The clients were alleged in the Complaint to have paid $3,600 for
2
the event.
3
4
59.The Radio Disney Music Awards is open to the general public. Stub Hub,
5 Microsoft Theatre, Radio.Disney.com, Cheaptickets.com, Ticketmaster and

6
scores of other websites offer tickets to the Radio Disney Music Awards.
7
8
10
Show, along with tickets to several movie premieres.
11
12 61.Counter-Defendant Warner Bros is seeking to enjoin Counter-Claimants

WEX LAW
14
Theory, etc.
15
16 62.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that in April 2014, Counter-

18
had purchased two tickets for the Transcendence film premiere at the cost of
19
20 $5,000.

22
23
24 party for the latest Star Wars movie.

26
27
28 tickets to several movie premieres.

44

2
3
4
distribution of tickets to their events restrains and directly affects Counter-
5 Claimants ability to compete in the marketplace.

6
66.Counter-Claimants believe are informed that none of their other competitors
7
8
have a lawsuit filed against the competitor to enjoin them from selling the
9 same items.
10
11

WEX LAW
13 68. As mentioned in the Complaint, and as the Counter-Claimants are informed

14
and believe that the tickets to many of these events are provided to an elite
15
17 employees, agents, representatives, talent and production team members of

18
the studios, distribution companies, and/or production companies, thus the
19
21 the conspirators or their employees, agents or representatives.

22
69.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that the Counter-Defendants
23
24 have done minimal at best to prevent the studio executives, officers,

26
the studios, distribution companies, and/or production companies from
27
28 selling their tickets.

45
1 70.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that and therefore alleges that
2
each of the Counter-Defendants is negligently responsible in some manner
3
4
for the injuries and damages herein referred to, and thereby the approximate
5 caused injuries and damages to Counter-Claimants, as herein alleged.

6
71.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that there are no state or federal
7
8
statutes and/or regulations to prevent them from selling tickets to the events
9 that the Counter-Defendants are attempting to enjoin Counter-Claimants

10
from selling.
11

WEX LAW
13 likely, or sufficient to undo the competitive harm that has resulted and will to
14
continue to result from the Counter-Defendants restraining activity and
15
17 73.Any efficiency resulting from the Counter-Defendants commercially

18
restraining active, attempt to monopolize is insufficient to offset the anti-
19
20 competitive effects of the Counter-Defendants conduct.
21 74.If Counter-Defendants restraining activity, attempt to monopolize is allowed

22
to continue unabated, it will likely have the following effects:
23
24 a. Competition in the relevant product and geographic markets will be

25 eliminated or substantially lessened.
26
b. Actual and future competition between Counter-Claimants and
27

46
1 support in the relevant geographic markets will be eliminated or

2
substantially lessened.
3
4
c. Prices for the relevant product in the relevant markets will likely
5 increase to levels above those that would prevail absent Counter-

6
7
8
the market.
9 d. Consumers will continue to pay taxes on overinflated sweepstakes

10
11

WEX LAW
13 been harmed and have suffered actual damages and therefore are seeking
14
monetary, compensatory, exemplary (amount to be in accordance with anti-
15
17 injunction enjoining, preliminary and permanently, Counter-Defendants from

18
continuing the unlawful combination and conspiracy alleged in this
19
20 complaint.
21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

22
For Violation of the Cartwright Act Bus. & Prof. Code 16720, et seq.
23

25 76.Counter-Claimants repeat, re-allege and incorporates by reference paragraphs
26
1-75 as though fully set forth herein.
27
28
47
1 77.Counter-Defendants are engaged in intrastate commerce and produces,

2
distributes, markets and sells film and television media for entertainment
3
4
purposes throughout the United States. This activity represents a regular,
5 continuous and substantial flow of intrastate commerce and, therefore, has a

6
substantial effect on intrastate commerce in California and the United States.
7
8
78.Beginning at a time currently unknown to Counter-Claimants, and continuing
9 to the present, Counter-Defendants have entered into and engaged in a

10
11
12 of trade or commerce in violation of California Business and Profession

WEX LAW
13 Code 16720.
14
79.These violations of California Business and Profession Code 16720,
15
16 consisted without limitation, of a continuing combination of trust, agreement,
17 understanding and concert of action among the Counter-Defendants,

18
including to but not limited to, purchasers concerning the sale and marketing
19
20 of their events in California.
21 80.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe and thereon alleges that, at all
22
times mentioned, Counter-Defendants ROE 1 through ROE 25 were agents
23
24 of each other and of the named Counter-Defendants and, in doing the things
25 alleged in the Complaint, were acting in the scope of such agency and with
26
the permission and consent of the Counter-Defendants.
27
28
48
1 81.In April, 2016, Counter-Defendants Disney denied entrance to Radio Disney

2
Music Awards to the Counter-Claimants clients for entrance on the Red
3
4
Carpet. The clients were alleged in the Complaint to have paid $3,600 for
5 the event.
6
82.The Radio Disney Music Awards is open to the general public. Stub Hub,
7
8
Microsoft Theatre, Radio.Disney.com, Cheaptickets.com, Ticketmaster and
9 scores of other websites offer tickets to the Radio Disney Music Awards.
10
Accordingly, Counter-Claimants are a competitor of Disney and competes
11
12 with Disney in regard to distribution and sales of tickets to the Radio Disney
WEX LAW
13 Music Awards.
14
15
17 Show, along with tickets to several movie premieres.

18
84.Counter-Defendant Warner Bros is seeking to enjoin Counter-Claimants
19
21 Theory, etc.
22
85.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that in April 2014, Counter-
23

25 had purchased two tickets for the Transcendence film premiere at the cost of
26
$5,000.
27
28
49

2
3
4
party for the latest Star Wars movie.

6
7
8
tickets to several movie premieres.

10
11
12 distribution of tickets to their events restrains and directly affects Counter-

WEX LAW
13 Claimants ability to compete in the marketplace.

14
89.Counter-Claimants believe are informed that none of their other competitors
15
16 have a lawsuit filed against the competitor to enjoin them from selling the
17 same items.
18
19
21 91. As mentioned in the Complaint, and as the Counter-Claimants are informed

22
and believe that the tickets to many of these events are provided to an elite
23

26
the studios, distribution companies, and/or production companies, thus the
27
28
50

2
the conspirators or their employees, agents or representatives.
3
4
92.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that the Counter-Defendants
5 have done nothing to prevent the studio executives, officers, employees,

6
agents, representatives, talent and production team members of the studios,
7
8
distribution companies, and/or production companies from selling their
9 tickets.
10
93.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that and therefore alleges that
11
12 each of the Counter-Defendants is negligently responsible in some manner

WEX LAW
13 for the injuries and damages herein referred to, and thereby the approximate
14
caused injuries and damages to Counter-Claimants, as herein alleged.
15
16 94.Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that there are no state or federal
17 statutes and/or regulations to prevent them from selling tickets to the events
18
that the Counter-Defendants are attempting to enjoin Counter-Claimants
19
20 from selling.

22
likely, or sufficient to undo the competitive harm that has resulted and will to
23
24 continue to result from the Counter-Defendants restraining activity and

26
27
28
51
1 96.Any efficiency resulting from the Counter-Defendants commercially

2
restraining active, attempt to monopolize is insufficient to offset the anti-
3
4
competitive effects of the Counter-Defendants conduct.
5 97.If Counter-Defendants restraining activity, attempt to monopolize is allowed

6
to continue unabated, it will likely have the following effects:
7
8
a. Competition in the relevant product and geographic markets will be
9 eliminated or substantially lessened.

10
b. Actual and future competition between Counter-Claimants and
11

WEX LAW
13 support in the relevant geographic markets will be eliminated or

14
substantially lessened.
15
16 c. Prices for the relevant product in the relevant markets will likely
17 increase to levels above those that would prevail absent Counter-

18
19
20 the market.
21 d. Consumers will continue to pay taxes on overinflated sweepstakes

22
23

25 been harmed and have suffered actual damages and therefore are seeking
26
monetary, compensatory, exemplary (amount to be in accordance with anti-
27

52
1 injunction enjoining, preliminary and permanently, Counter-Defendants from

2
continuing the unlawful combination and conspiracy alleged in this
3
4
complaint.
5 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

6
For Violation of Business and Professions Code 17000, 17040, et seq.
7
9 99.Counter-Claimants hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-98 herein,

10
as though alleged fully in this Cause of Action.
11
12 100. As described above, Counter-Defendants have and continue to engage

WEX LAW
13 in a deliberate campaign to severely damage the Counter-Claimants business

14
value by other things, to engage in the distribution of an article of general use
15
16 with the intent to destroy the competition of a regular established dealer in
17 the secondary market of the distribution of or to prevent the competition of

18
the Counter-Claimants who in good faith, intends and attempts to become
19
20 such dealer.
21 101. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe and thereon alleges that,
22
at all times mentioned, Counter-Defendants ROE 1 through ROE 25 were
23
24 agents of each other and of the named Counter-Defendants and, in doing the
25 things alleged in the Complaint, were acting in the scope of such agency and
26
with the permission and consent of the Counter-Defendants.
27
28
53
1 102. Counter-Claimants are regular established dealers in a legal market for

2
the selling of tickets to events of general interest and have been in such
3
4
market for more than 10 years in good faith.
5 103. Counter-Claimants have been contacted numerous times by the

6
Counter-Defendants before and since the filing of the Complaint in attempts
7
8
to prevent Counter-Claimants from competing in the marketplace or to
9 destroy the Counter-Claimants business.

10
104. Counter-Defendants have not pursued the Counter-Defendants
11
12 competitors, thus allowing the competitors to continue business as usual.

WEX LAW
13 105. Counter-Defendants have denied Counter-Claimants customers

14
access to events in which Counter-Claimants customers have paid in good
15
16 faith, but the Counter-Defendants have allowed others from the general
17 public to participate in the events.

18
106. Counter-Defendants through their agents, employees, representatives
19
20 or other entities have removed various web pages from the VIP website in
21 destroying and/or preventing the Counter-Claimants from competing in the

22
marketplace.
23
24 107. As a result of the Counter-Defendants behavior, the Counter-

25 Claimants have been harmed and have suffered actual damages and therefore
26
are seeking monetary, compensatory, exemplary, in addition to other relief to
27
28 be proven at trial.
54
1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2
For Violation of Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq.
3
4
Against All Defendants
5 108. Counter-Claimants hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-107

6
herein, as though alleged fully in this Cause of Action.
7
8
109. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe and thereon alleges that
9 each of the Counter-Defendants are negligently responsible in some manner

10
for the events and happenings herein referred to, and thereby the proximately
11
12 caused injuries and damages to the Counter-Claimants.

WEX LAW
14
at all times mentioned, Counter-Defendants ROE 1 through ROE 25 were
15
16 agents of each other and of the named Counter-Defendants and, in doing the
18
with the permission and consent of the Counter-Defendants.
19
20 111. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Business and
21 Professions Code 17200 et seq., which provides that any person who
22
engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition may be
23
24 enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction; and the court may make such
25 orders or judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as may be
26
necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice
27
28 which constitutes unfair competition, or as may be necessary to restore to any

55
1 person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have
2
been acquired by means of such unfair competition, and Business and
3
4
Professions Code 17204, which provides for actions for any relief pursuant
5 to the Unfair Competition Law to be prosecuted exclusively in a court of

6
competent jurisdiction by any person who has suffered injury in fact and has
7
8
lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition.
9 112. As described above, Counter-Defendants have and continue to engage

10
in a deliberate campaign to severely damage the Counter-Claimants value
11
12 and business by preventing the Counter-Claimants from competing while

WEX LAW
13 allowing the Counter-Claimants competitors to continue to conduct business

14
as usual.
15
16 113. At least one Counter-Defendant is in direct competition and sells
17 tickets for the same event(s).

18
114. Counter-Claimants are regular established dealers in a legal market for
19
20 the selling of tickets to events of general interest and have been in such
21 market for more than 10 years.

22
115. Counter-Claimants have been contacted numerous times by the
23
24 Counter-Defendants before and since the filing of the Complaint in attempts

25 to prevent Counter-Claimants from competing in the marketplace or to
26
destroy the Counter-Claimants business.
27
28
56
1 116. Counter-Defendants have not pursued the Counter-Defendants

2
competitors, thus allowing the competitors to continue business as usual.
3
4
117. Counter-Defendants have denied Counter-Claimants customers
5 access to events in which Counter-Claimants customers have paid in good

6
faith, but the Counter-Defendants have allowed others from the general
7
8
public to participate in the same events.
9 118. Counter-Defendants through their agents, employees, representatives

10
or other entities have removed various web pages from the VIP website in
11
12 destroying and/or preventing the Counter-Claimants from competing in the

WEX LAW
13 marketplace.
14
119. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that the Counter-
15
16 Defendants unfair acts as described above are a serious and continuing threat
17 to the Counter-Claimants and the public. If the Counter-Defendants are

18
allowed to continue their wrongful acts, Counter-Claimants and the public
19
20 will suffer further immediate and irreparable injury, loss and damage.
21 120. Counter-Defendants are further informed and believe that in absence

22
of a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions
23
24 as prayed for below, Counter-Defendants will continue to engage in unfair

25 business practices. Unless restrained by this Court the Counter-Defendants
26
will continue to engage in unfair business practices and members of the
27
28 general public will have no adequate remedy at law.

57
1 121. Such acts constitute unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts and
2
practices prohibited by Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq.
3
4
122. As a result of the Counter-Defendants behavior, the Counter-
5 Claimants have been harmed and have suffered actual damages and therefore
6
are seeking monetary, compensatory, exemplary, in addition to other relief to
7
8
be proven at trial.
9 123. By these actions, Counter-Claimants are seeking restitution in an

10
amount to be determined at trial and seek to enjoin Counter-Defendants from
11
12 their continuing behavior.

WEX LAW
13 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

14
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP
15
16 Against Disney & Warner Bros
17 124. Counter-Claimants hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-123

18
herein, as though alleged fully in this Cause of Action.
19
21 at all times mentioned, Counter-Defendants ROE 1 through ROE 25 were

22
agents of each other and of the named Counter-Defendants and, in doing the
23
25 with the permission and consent of the Counter-Defendants.
26
126. Beginning at a time currently unknown to Counter-Claimants, and
27
28 continuing to the present, Counter-Defendants have entered into and engaged

58
1 in a continuing unlawful combination and conspiracy in an unreasonable

2
restraint of trade or commerce against the Counter-Claimants.
3
4
127. In April 2016, Counter-Claimants sold tickets to the Radio Disney
5 Music Awards to a client (Client).

6
128. The Radio Disney Music Awards is open to the general public. Stub
7
8
Hub, Microsoft Theatre, Radio.Disney.com, Cheaptickets.com, Ticketmaster
9 and scores of other websites offer tickets to the Radio Disney Music Awards.
10
129. In April 2016, Counter-Defendants Disney denied entrance to the
11
12 Client for Radio Disney Music Awards to the entrance on the Red Carpet.
WEX LAW
13 The clients were alleged in the Complaint to have paid $3,600 for the event.
14
130. Disney knew that the Client purchased the tickets from the Counter-
15
16 Claimants and it was on that basis alone that the Client was denied entrance.
17 131. Counter-Claimants had to refund money to the Client.

18
132. Disneys conduct was the proximate cause of the damages suffered by
19
20 Counter-Claimants and as a result of Disneys conduct the Counter-
21 Claimants have suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

22
133. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that in April 2014,
23
24 Counter-Claimants sold two tickets to the Warner Bros movie premiere for
25 the film Transcendence for a price of $5,000.
26
134. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that in April 2014,
27
28 Counter-Defendant Warner Bros denied entrance to a Counter-Claimant

59
1 client who had purchased two tickets for the Transcendence film premiere on
2
the basis that the client had purchased the tickets from the Counter-
3
4
Claimants.
5 135. Counter-Claimants had to refund money to the Client.

6
136. Warner Bros conduct was the proximate cause of the damages suffered
7
8
by Counter-Claimants and as a result of Disneys conduct the Counter-
9 Claimants have suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

10
137. The aforementioned acts of the Counter-Defendants, Disney and
11
12 Warner Bros were willful and malicious. Counter-Claimants are therefore

WEX LAW
13 entitled to punitive damages.

14
138. Counter-Defendants threaten to and will, unless restrained, to disrupt
15
16 business relationships between Counter-Claimants and its customers, to
17 Counter-Claimants great irreparable injury for which damages would not

18
afford adequate relief, in that they would not completely compensate for the
19
20 injury to Counter-Claimants business reputation and good will.
21 WHEREFORE, Counter-Claimant prays judgment against Counter-

22
Defendants as follows:
23
24 1. For general damages according to proof;

25 2. For special damages according to proof;
26
3. For exemplary or punitive damages;
27
28 4. For restitution;
60
1 5. For reasonable attorney and expert witness fees;

2
6. For permanent injunction enjoining defendants and his/her agents,
3
4
servants, and employees, and all persons acting under, in concert with, or
5 for him/her from continuing their unfair competition conduct;

6
7. For costs of suit herein incurred, and;
7
8
8. For such other relief as the court may deem proper.

10
11
12 By: __________________________
WEX LAW
13 Michael K. Cernyar
Attorneys for Defendants
14 HOLLYWOOD
15 ENTERTAINMENT GROUP
LLC, d/b/a VIP Concierge, Inc. and
16 CRAIG BANASZEWSKI
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
61
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
3

6
9
By: __________________________
11 Attorneys for Defendants
HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT
12 GROUP LLC, d/b/a VIP Concierge,
WEX LAW
13 Inc. and CRAIG BANASZEWSKI
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
62
1 CASE NO.: CV 16-9432-JFW (MRWx)

2
3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
6
8
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court
9 for the United States District Court for the Central District of California by using
the Districts CM/ECF system on February 27, 2017.
10
11
I certify that all participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be
12 served by the Districts CM/ECF system.
WEX LAW
13
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the
14 foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on February 27,
2017, at Long Beach, California.
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
63

Broker

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Broker

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:16-cv-09432-JFW-MRW Document 19 Filed 02/27/17 Page 1 of 63 Page ID #:383

1 WEX LAW, PROFESSIONAL LEGAL CORPORATION

8 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. et al, CASE NO.: CV 16-9432-JFW

13 HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT GROUP Walter and Magistrate Judge

Case No.: 2:16-CV-09432-JFW (MRWx) 1 ANSWER; DEMAND FOR JURY

1 company; NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC, a

13 Company LLC, Marvel Characters, Inc., MVL Film Finance LLC,

22 1. Answering Paragraph 1, the Defendants admit that the Plaintiffs have

1 2. Answering Paragraph 2, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

19 4. Answering Paragraph 4, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

26 basis denies each and every such allegation.

1 6. Answering Paragraph 6, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

7 7. Answering Paragraph 7, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

16 Warner Bros Entertainment Inc.

18 9. Answering Paragraph 9, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

3 11. Answering Paragraph 11, HEG admits that it is a Nevada limited

1 14. Answering Paragraph 14, Defendants deny generally and specifically

17 district. Except as expressly admitted hereinabove, Defendants deny generally and

10 Disney Plaintiffs Private Events

12 20. Answering Paragraph 20, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

22 22. Answering Paragraph 22, Defendants admit selling tickets to this

23 event. Except as expressly admitted hereinabove, Defendants lack sufficient

1 23. Answering Paragraph 23, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

5 24. Defendants deny, generally and specifically, the allegations in

10 25. Answering Paragraph 25, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

13 basis denies each and every such allegation.

14 26. Answering Paragraph 26, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

17 basis denies each and every such allegation.

18 27. Answering Paragraph 27, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

21 basis denies each and every such allegation.

22 28. Answering Paragraph 28, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

25 basis denies each and every such allegation.

1 29. Answering Paragraph 29, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

10 basis denies each and every such allegation.

14 basis denies each and every such allegation.

18 basis denies each and every such allegation.

22 basis denies each and every such allegation.

1 35. Answering Paragraph 35, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

5 36. Answering Paragraph 36, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

9 37. Answering Paragraph 37, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

12 basis denies each and every such allegation.

13 38. Answering Paragraph 38, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

16 basis denies each and every such allegation.

21 39. The allegations in Paragraph 39 are legal conclusions to which no

22 response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny

25 40. Answering Paragraph 40, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

1 41. Answering Paragraph 41, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

5 42. Answering Paragraph 42, no such paragraph exists in the Complaint.

11 Warner Bros. Plaintiffs Private Movie Premiers

13 45. Answering Paragraph 45, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

17 46. Answering Paragraph 46, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

21 47. Answering Paragraph 47, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

25 48. Answering Paragraph 48, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

1 49. Answering Paragraph 49, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or

10 basis denies each and every such allegation.

14 basis denies each and every such allegation.

18 basis denies each and every such allegation.

22 basis denies each and every such allegation.

4 55. The allegations in Paragraph 55 are legal conclusions to which no

7 each and every such allegation.

11 basis denies each and every such allegation.

15 basis denies each and every such allegation.

24 basis denies each and every such allegation.