Iskander V Laugh Factory Counterclaims

Case 2:19-cv-01076-MWF-JEM Document 10 Filed 02/27/19 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:149
1 Clifton W. Albright (SBN 100020)

David Martin (SBN 189755)
2
David Song (SBN 323073)
3 ALBRIGHT, YEE & SCHMIT, APC
888 West 6th Street, 14th Floor
4 Los Angeles, California 90017
5 Tel: (213) 833-1700 / Fax: (213) 833-1710
Email: david.martin@ayslaw.com;
6 david.song@ayslaw.com
7
Attorneys for Defendants
8 LAUGH FACTORY, INC. and JAMIE MASADA
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 HARITH ISKANDER, an individual, ) Case No.: 2:19-cv-01076-MWF-JEM

12 )
Plaintiff, ) (Assigned to Hon. Michael W. Fitzgerald)
13 v. )
) AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTER-
14 LAUGH FACTORY, INC., a California ) CLAIMS OF DEFENDANTS/COUNTER-
15 corporation; JAMIE MASADA, an ) CLAIMANTS LAUGH FACTORY, INC.
individual; and DOES 1 through 50, ) AND JAMIE MASADA
16 inclusive, )
17
)
Defendants. )
18 )
LAUGH FACTORY, INC. and JAMIE )
19 MASADA, )
20 )
Counter-Claimants, )
21 v. )
)
22 HARITH ISKANDER, and DOES 1 )
23 through 10, )
)
24 Counter-Defendants. )
25
)
26
27
28
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTER-CLAIMS OF DEFENDANTS/COUNTER-CLAIMANTS

LAUGH FACTORY, INC. AND JAMIE MASADA
1 Defendants/Counter-Claimants Laugh Factory, Inc. (“Laugh Factory”) and Jamie

2 Masada (“Masada”) (collectively, “Defendants”) file this Amended Answer, Affirmative
3 Defenses, and Counter-Claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1) and L.R. 15-1 – 15-4 as
4 follows:
5 The Complaint contains an introductory paragraph which does not require a
6 response. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny any allegations
7 contained therein.
8 THE PARTIES
9 1. Defendants admit that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Harith Iskander
10 (“Iskander”) is an individual over the age of 18 and a resident of Malaysia. Defendants
11 lack information to admit or deny the remainder of Paragraph 1, and therefore those
12 allegations stand denied.
13 2. Admitted.
14 3. Admitted.
15 4. Defendants admit that Masada is the owner, manager, and an officer of
16 Laugh Factory. The remainder of Paragraph 4 is denied.
17 5. Denied.
18 6. Denied.
19 7. Denied.
20 THE CONTEST
21 8. The document attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint as Exhibit A speaks for
22 itself and is the best evidence of the matters set forth in the email. Defendants deny the
23 remaining allegations of Paragraph 8.
24 9. The document attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint Exhibit B speaks for itself
25 and is the best evidence of the matters set forth in the email. Defendants deny the
27
28
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
1
1 10. The document attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint Exhibit C speaks for itself
4 11. Denied.
5 12. The document attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint Exhibit D speaks for itself
8 13. The document attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint Exhibit E speaks for itself
11 14. The document attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint Exhibit F speaks for itself
14 15. Defendants admit that Iskander was not paid $100,000.00, but maintain that
15 Iskander breached the agreement with Defendants, and relieved them of any alleged
16 obligations to Iskander, as described below. Defendants paid Iskander $30,000 for the
17 installments on the Contest contract which Iskander did honor. Defendants therefore
18 filled their contractual obligations. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of
19 Paragraph 15.
20 16. The Official Rules and Regulations cited by Iskander speak for themselves
21 and are the best evidence of the matters set forth in the document. Defendants deny the
23 17. Denied.
24 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
25 (Promissory Fraud against Laugh Factory, Masada & Does 1-50)
26 18. Defendants incorporate their responses to the foregoing paragraphs as if set
27 forth fully herein.
28
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
2
1 19. Defendants admit that there was a potential $100,000.00 prize for the winner
2 of the contest, but denies that Iskander was entitled to that award. Defendants deny that
3 the allegations in Paragraph 19 set forth the full terms and conditions of the contest.
4 Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 19.
5 20. Denied.
6 21. Denied.
7 22. Denied.
8 23. Denied.
9 24. Denied.
10 25. Denied.
11 26. Denied.
12 27. Denied.
13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
14 (Intentional Misrepresentation against Laugh Factory, Masada & Does 1-50)
21 30. Denied.
22 31. Defendants admit that Iskander was contractually obligated to fulfill certain
23 terms and conditions of the parties’ agreement, which he failed to perform. Iskander’s
24 performance of his contractual obligations was a condition precedent to any obligation(s)
25 on the part of Defendants. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 31.
26 32. Denied.
27 33. Denied.
28 34. Denied.
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
3
1 35. Denied.
2 36. Denied.
3 37. Denied.
4 38. Denied.
5 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
6 (Negligent Misrepresentation against Laugh Factory, Masada & Does 1-50)
13 41. Denied.
14 42. Defendants admit that Iskander was contractually obligated to fulfill certain
15 terms and conditions of the parties’ agreement, which he failed to perform. Iskander’s
16 performance of his contractual obligations was a condition precedent to any obligation(s)
17 on the part of Defendants. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 42.
18 43. Denied.
19 44. Denied.
20 45. Denied.
21 46. Denied.
22 47. Denied.
23 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 (Breach of Contract against Laugh Factory & Does 1-50)
25 48. Defendant Laugh Factory incorporates its responses to the foregoing
26 paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
27 49. Denied.
28
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
4
1 50. Defendant Laugh Factory admits that Iskander submitted a video in

2 connection with the contest. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 50.
3 51. Denied.
4 52. Denied.
5
6 53. Denied.
7 54. Denied.
8 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9 (Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing against
10 Laugh Factory & Does 1-50)
11 55. Defendant Laugh Factory incorporates its responses to the foregoing
12 paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
13 56. Defendant Laugh Factory admits that the parties formed an agreement
14 regarding the contest, and allege that Iskander breached that agreement, as set forth
15 below. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 56.
16 57. Paragraph 57 contains a legal conclusion which does not require an
17 admission or denial. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies that it
18 breached any implied covenant.
19 58. Denied.
20 59. Denied.
21 60. Denied.
22 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23 (Declaratory Relief against all Defendants)
26 62. Defendants deny that Iskander complied with the terms of the parties’
27 agreement.
28 63. Denied.
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
5
1 64. Denied.
2 65. Denied.
3 66. Denied.
4 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 (Misleading Advertising as against all Defendants)
8 68. Defendants deny they breached any obligation to Iskander and deny that he
9 is entitled to any relief.
10 69. Denied.
11 70. Paragraph 70 contains legal conclusions which require no response. To the
12 extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 70.
13 71. Denied.
14 72. Denied.
15 73. Denied.
16 74. Denied.
19 76. Denied.
20 77. Denied.
21 78. Denied.
22 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23 (Unfair Competition as against all Defendants)
26 80. Defendants deny they breached any obligation to Iskander and deny that he
27 is entitled to any relief.
28
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
6

5 83. Denied.
8 85. Denied.
9 86. Denied.
10 87. Denied.
11 88. Denied.
12 89. Denied.
13 The balance of Iskander’s Complaint consists of a prayer for relief, to which no
14 specific answer is required, and Defendants deny that Iskander is entitled to any relief
15 requested in the prayer for relief.
16 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
17 Defendants demand a jury trial and allege the following Affirmative Defenses.
18 Defendants reserve the right to amend their answer to assert any other defenses, separate
19 or otherwise, that may become known or available during discovery in this case.
20 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 Iskander’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
22 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 Iskander’s claims and defenses are barred by the equitable doctrine of unclean
24 hands.
25 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 Iskander lacks standing to assert the claims and defenses in his Complaint.
27
28
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
7
1 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 Iskander, by reason of his prior acts, conduct, representations and omissions, has
3 waived his right, if any, to obtain the relief sought in the Complaint.
4 COUNTERCLAIM
5 Defendants and Counterclaimants Laugh Factory and Masada, by and through
6 counsel, hereby counterclaim against Iskander and the Doe defendants (collectively,
7 “Counterclaim Defendants”) as follows:
8 PARTIES
9 1. Counterclaimant Masada is an individual over the age of eighteen and a
10 resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Masada is an owner and
11 officer of Laugh Factory.
12 2. Counterclaimant Laugh Factory is a California Corporation and has its
13 principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles.
14 3. Counterclaim Defendant Iskander, upon information and belief, is an
15 individual over the age of eighteen and a resident of Malaysia.
16 4. Defendants are ignorant of the true names of Counterclaim Defendants Does
17 1-10, inclusive, and therefore sue them through fictitious names. Defendants are
18 informed and believe that each of the fictitiously named Counterclaim Defendants is
19 responsible for the injuries suffered by Defendants, in whole or in part. Defendants will
20 amend these Counterclaims when the true identities of the Doe Counterclaim Defendants
21 are discovered.
22 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
23 5. This Court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
24 Iskander has subjected himself to the venue and jurisdiction of this Court by filing this
25 action in Los Angeles, California.
26
27
28
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
8
1 FACTS
2 A. Iskander’s Misappropriation of Intellectual Property
3 6. Iskandar first came to the attention of Defendants on or about September 10,
4 2016 when Iskander contacted a Laugh Factory representative about the possibility of
5 “bringing the Laugh Factory brand to Asia.” (Exhibit 1). Iskander represented that he
6 loved the Laugh Factory brand and wanted to know the history of the brand, how the
7 name was created, and if it was copyrighted. He indicated that he thought the brand
8 would do very well in Malaysia.
9 7. Iskander in that initial contact also inquired about a contest being sponsored
10 by Defendants, known as the Laugh Factory's Funniest Person in the World Competition
11 (the “Competition”).
12 8. Iskander acknowledged that the Laugh Factory brand was well known
13 around the world, including in Malaysia. He represented that he had silent partners who
14 could help bring the brand to Malaysia.
15 9. Iskander again expressed his interest in bringing the Laugh Factory brand to
16 Malaysia in an email to Masada dated September 21, 2016. (Exhibit 2). He repeated that
17 expression of interest to another Laugh Factory representative the same day, and again
18 approached Defendants regarding the Laugh Factory brand on October 6th, 2016.
19 (Exhibits 3, 4).
20 10. Iskander spoke openly about his desire to open a Laugh Factory in Malaysia
21 in front of several contestants who were in the Competition.
22 11. In or about December 2016, Iskander and Masada agreed to pursue
23 discussions about opening a Laugh Factory in Malaysia. Those discussions continued in
24 January 2017. (Exhibit 5).
25 12. When Iskander indicated that he wished to come to the United States in
26 January 2017, Masada instructed him to obtain a visa through an immigration attorney so
27 as not to give the false impression that a partnership existed. (Exhibit 6).
28
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
9
1 13. Iskander then approached Masada with an offer to open three Laugh Factory
2 clubs in Kula Lumpur, Singapore, and Jakarta. (Exhibit 7). Iskander’s written
3 communications made clear that there was no agreement allowing him to open a Laugh
4 Factory or that he had any legal interest in the Laugh Factory brand. (Exhibit 8).
5 14. Iskander and Masada communicated about these opportunities and their
6 prospective venture in Asia not only in emails, but in lengthy telephone calls and on
7 Skype.
8 15. In the processing of discussing a potential arrangement, Iskander represented
9 that he had as a “silent partner” the former Prime Minister of Maylaysia Najib Razak. On
10 information and belief, that representation was and is untrue, and was made in an effort to
11 deceive Masada.
12 16. The parties ultimately came to an agreement in principle to become 50/50
13 partners in a venture to expand the Laugh Factory brand in Asia, including real estate.
14 This agreement was never executed or formalized. (Exhibit 9).
15 17. Iskander never intended to honor this agreement; rather, it was a deceit
16 designed to gain access to and then misappropriate Defendants’ protected, proprietary
17 intellectual property, including trade secrets, trademarks, business operations, and other
18 intellectual property.
19 18. Masada, unaware of Iskander’s unlawful intentions, proceeded in good faith.
20 In reliance on the parties’ partnership understanding, when Iskander came to the United
21 States, he came to Defendants’ offices and then to the Laugh Factory club and took
22 copious, detailed notes, asking questions about the Laugh Factory and its operations.
23 19. Iskander asked questions about the operations of the club, including “open
24 mic” shows, the origins and growth of the brand, and Defendants’ Comedy Camp for
25 underprivileged children. For example, Masada disclosed to Iskander that he had
26 originally wanted to call the club “Joke and Yolk”, and that he had registered that name
27 and gotten a license, but ultimately decided on the “Laugh Factory” name.
28
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
10
1 20. Iskander falsely represented that he would not use any of Defendants’
2 proprietary information. Iskander knowingly, intentionally and maliciously violated this
3 commitment, which was false at the time it was made. Iskander intentionally
4 misappropriated all of Defendants’ intellectual property and trade secrets.
5 21. As just one example of Iskander’s misappropriation of Defendants’
6 intellectual property, he subsequently opened a business and called it “Joke and Lok.”
7 Iskander is using all of Defendants’ misappropriated proprietary trade secrets and other
8 intellectual property in connection with his operations of a substantially-similar operation
9 in Malaysia.
10 22. Iskander also misappropriated Defendants’ proprietary operations on
11 Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, and is using the same techniques in his operations in
12 Malaysia.
13 B. Iskander’s Breach of the Competition Agreement
14 23. In 2016, Defendants sponsored the Competition, which involved an
15 international group of comedians vying to garner the most votes to win.
16 24. Masada specifically told Iskander in writing that the winner of the
17 Competition “must make ten scheduled trips to the United States” to perform.
18 (Exhibit 10). The Competition award of $100,000.00 was to be paid in 10 installments,
19 and specifically conditioned on those 10 appearances. (Exhibit 11).
20 25. By entering the Competition, Iskander became contractually bound to honor
21 these terms and conditions.
22 26. Iskander breached the Competition agreement in numerous ways. On
23 information and belief, Iskander created an unfair advantage to gain votes and win the
24 Competition.
25 27. Iskander also breached the Competition agreement by failing to fulfill his
26 obligation to make 10 visits to the United States to perform, and by failing to make
27 himself available to the press. (Exhibits 12, 13, 14).
28
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
11
1 C. Iskander’s Interference with Defendants’ Business Opportunities.

2 28. As a result of Iskander’s intentional deceit and other unlawful conduct
3 alleged herein, Iskander knowingly and intentionally interfered with Defendants’ current
4 and prospective business opportunities.
5 29. Iskander was aware that Defendants had other current and prospective
6 business opportunities in Asia.
7 30. The prospective business relationships and other prospective ventures in
8 Asia contained the probability of future economic benefits to Defendants. Iskander knew
9 of and intended to disrupt these relationships through the unlawful means alleged herein;
10 did in fact disrupt them; and caused substantial economic damages to Defendants as a
11 direct and proximate result.
12 COUNT I
13 (Willful Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114-1117; Lanham Act §32)
14 (Against all Counterclaim Defendants)
15 31. Defendants incorporate by reference the above-paragraphs as though fully
16 set forth herein.
17 32. Defendants own the exclusive and incontestable trademark rights to the
18 Laugh Factory brand.
19 33. Iskander and the other Counterclaim Defendants have used and continue to
20 use the Laugh Factory brand and other proprietary trade information in commerce and
21 without Defendants’ consent.
22 34. The Counterclaim Defendants’ use of this proprietary information and other
23 acts of trademark infringement have been committed with the intent to and have caused
24 confusion, mistake or deception in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114.
25 35. As a direct and proximate result of Counterclaim Defendants’ unlawful
26 conduct, Defendants have and will continue to suffer substantial harm and injury to their
27 business, goodwill and reputation. Unless enjoined, Counterclaim Defendants’ conduct
28 will continue to cause Defendants immediate and irreparable injury.
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
12
1 36. Counterclaim Defendants’ acts of trademark infringement are willful,

2 intentional and committed with malice to harm Defendants’ business.
3 37. Counterclaim Defendants’ infringement of Defendants’ trademarks
4 constitutes an exception case with the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1117, and Defendants are
5 therefore entitled to recover enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.
6 COUNT II
7 (Common Law Trademark Infringement)
11 39. Counterclaim Defendants’ unlawful acts as described herein violate
12 Defendants’ trademark rights under California common law.
13 40. Counterclaim Defendants’ acts of trademark infringement have been
14 committed with the intent to and have caused confusion, mistake or deception.
15 41. As a direct and proximate result of Counterclaim Defendants’ unlawful
16 conduct, Defendants have and will continue to suffer substantial harm and injury to their
17 business, goodwill and reputation. Unless enjoined, Counterclaim Defendants’ conduct
18 will continue to cause Defendants immediate and irreparable injury.
19 42. Counterclaim Defendants’ acts of trademark infringement are willful,
20 intentional and committed with malice to harm Defendants’ business. Defendants
21 therefore seek to recover enhanced damages and an award of attorneys’ fees.
22 COUNT III
23 (Misappropriation of Trade Secrets pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1836(b)
27
28
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
13
1 44. Defendants’ trade secrets derive independent economic value from not being
2 known to the public or other persons who could obtain economic value from their
3 disclosure or use.
4 45. Defendants’ trade secrets are confidential and are the subject of Defendants’
5 efforts that were reasonable under the circumstances to maintain their secrecy.
6 Defendants are informed and believe that Counterclaim Defendants misappropriated such
7 confidential trade secrets by disclosing them and/or using them.
8 46. Defendants are informed and believe that Counterclaim Defendants
9 misappropriated the trade secrets while being aware that the trade secrets belong to
10 Defendants and of Counterclaim Defendants’ duties and obligations to Defendants to
11 limit the disclosure and use of such trade secrets only for the benefit of Defendants, and
12 that such disclosure was in violation of Iskander’s agreements with and obligations to
13 Defendants.
14 47. Counterclaim Defendants' misappropriation has caused and continues to
15 cause Defendants damages and irreparable and substantial injury and therefore cannot be
16 fully redressed through damages alone. An injunction prohibiting Counterclaim
17 Defendants from further use or disclosure of Defendants’ trade secrets is necessary to
18 provide Defendants with complete relief.
19 48. Counterclaim Defendants' misappropriation is willful and malicious and
20 thereby entitles Defendants to an award of exemplary damages.
21 COUNT IV
22 (Misappropriation of Trade Secrets pursuant to
23 California Civil Code §3426, et seq.)
27
28
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
14
1 50. Defendants’ trade secrets derive independent economic value from not being
2 known to the public or other persons who could obtain economic value from their
3 disclosure or use.
4 51. Defendants’ trade secrets are confidential and are the subject of Defendants’
5 efforts that were reasonable under the circumstances to maintain their secrecy.
6 Defendants are informed and believe that Counterclaim Defendants misappropriated such
7 confidential trade secrets by disclosing them and/or using them.
8 52. Defendants are informed and believe that Counterclaim Defendants
9 misappropriated the trade secrets while being aware that the trade secrets belong to
10 Defendants and of Counterclaim Defendants’ duties and obligations to Defendants to
11 limit the disclosure and use of such trade secrets only for the benefit of Defendants, and
12 that such disclosure was in violation of Iskander’s agreements with and obligations to
13 Defendants.
14 53. Counterclaim Defendants' misappropriation has caused and continues to
15 cause Defendants damages and irreparable and substantial injury and therefore cannot be
16 fully redressed through damages alone. An injunction prohibiting Counterclaim
17 Defendants from further use or disclosure of Defendants’ trade secrets is necessary to
18 provide Defendants with complete relief.
19 54. Counterclaim Defendants' misappropriation is willful and malicious and
20 thereby entitles Defendants to an award of exemplary damages.
21 COUNT V
22 (Breach of Written Contract)
23 (Against Iskander)
26 56. As set forth above, Defendants and Iskander entered into a contract
27 concerning the Competition. The terms and conditions of that agreement were agreed to
28 both orally and were memorialized in writing.
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
15
1 57. Defendants duly performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required
2 on its part to be performed pursuant to the agreement.
3 58. Iskander breached his contractual obligations to Defendants under the
4 agreement by, inter alia, failing to perform the required 10 shows following the
5 Competition.
6 59. As a direct and proximate result of Iskander’s breach of the agreement,
7 Defendants have incurred and continue to incur damages in an amount to be proven at
8 trial.
9 COUNT VI
10 (Unfair Competition pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.)
14 61. By committing the acts and practices alleged in this Counterclaim,
15 Counterclaim Defendants have violated California’s Unfair Competition Laws by
16 engaging in unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading acts. For example, Counterclaim
17 Defendants misappropriated Defendants’ trade secrets in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1836
18 and California Civil Code §3426.
19 62. Defendants are informed and believe that Counterclaim Defendants' actions
20 are and will continue to be willful and deliberate. As a direct and proximate result of such
21 actions by Counterclaim Defendants, Defendants have incurred and continue to incur
22 damages and irreparable injury, including, without limitation, the loss of sales and profits
23 it would have earned but for Counterclaim Defendants' actions, and interference with
24 Defendants’ relationships with customers and potential customers.
25 63. Defendants are informed and believe that Counterclaim Defendants have
26 derived and received, and will continue to derive and receive, gains, profits, and
27 advantages from their acts of unfair competition.
28
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
16
1 COUNT VII
2 (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
4 set forth herein.
5 65. As alleged above, Defendants had prospective ventures in Asia contained the
6 probability of future economic benefits to Defendants.
7 66. Iskander knew of and intended to disrupt these relationships through the
8 unlawful means alleged herein.
9 67. Iskander did in fact disrupt Defendants’ economic opportunities, causing
10 substantial economic damages to Defendants as a direct and proximate result.
11 68. Iskander’s misappropriation of Defendants’ trade secrets and other
12 intellectual property continues to damage Defendants to this day, and will continue to
13 cause damage into the future.
14 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
15 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment and relief as follows:
16 A. Judgment in Defendants’ favor that:
17 1. Counterclaim Defendants wrongfully misappropriated or used
18 Defendants’ trade secrets;
19 2. Counterclaim Defendants wrongfully misappropriated or used
20 Defendants’ trademarks;
21 3. Counterclaim Defendants engaged in unfair competition;
22 4. Iskander breached his agreement with Defendants.
23 B. Temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining
24 Counterclaim Defendants from:
25 1. Misappropriating and/or aiding and abetting in the misappropriation
26 of Defendants’ trade secrets and/or trademarks;
27 2. Maintaining - and, correspondingly, requiring Counterclaim
28 Defendants to promptly deliver and turn over to Defendants - any and
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
17
1 all property of Defendants which is in Counterclaim Defendants'

2 possession, custody or control.
3 C. Compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but at least $10
4 million.
5 D. Disgorgement of profits.
6 E. Constructive trust.
7 F. Punitive and/or exemplary damages.
8 G. Attorneys’ fees.
9 H. Interest and costs.
10 I. Such further and other relief as the Court may deem proper and just.
11
12 Respectfully submitted,
13 DATED: February 27, 2019 ALBRIGHT, YEE & SCHMIT, APC
14
15
16 By: /s/ David Martin
David Martin
17
18 Attorneys for Defendants
LAUGH FACTORY, INC. and
19
JAMIE MASADA
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
18
Harith Iskander v. Laugh Factory, Inc., et al.
LASC Case No. 18STCV08097
1 ECF/PACER FILE AND SERVE

2
3 I, CONNIE R. WHITE, declare:
4 1. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within action. I am
5 employed by Albright Yee and Schmit, APC in the City of Los Angeles, State of
6 California.
7 2. My business address is 888 West 6th Street, 14th Floor, Los Angeles, CA
8 90017.
9 3. On February 27, 2019, I served a copy of the foregoing document, titled:
10
11 AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTER-CLAIMS OF
12 DEFENDANTS/ COUNTER-CLAIMANTS LAUGH FACTORY,
13 INC. AND JAMIE MASADA
14
15 [ X ] by filing and serving directly through ECF/Pacer at the USDC-Central
16 District of California website at: https://cacd.uscourts.gov.
17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the
18 United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
19 Executed on February 27, 2019 at Los Angeles, California.
20
21
22 By: /s/ Connie White
Connie White
23
24
25
26
27
28
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
PROOF OF SERVICE
Harith Iskander v. Laugh Factory, Inc., et al.
LASC Case No. 18STCV08097
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I certify that on February 27, 2019 the foregoing document, entitled:
3
AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTER-CLAIMS OF
4
DEFENDANTS/COUNTER-CLAIMANTS LAUGH FACTORY, INC. AND
5 JAMIE MASADA
6
was served on all parties or their counsel of record by serving a true and correct copy by
7 U.S. MAIL at the address listed below:
8
Joseph K. Johnson, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff
9 LAW OFFICE OF HARITH ISKANDER, an individual
10 JOSEPH K. JOHNSON, PC
27201 Puerta Real, Suite 300
11 Mission Viejo, CA 92691-8590
12 Tel: (949) 284-0062 / Fax: (949) 284-0062
Email: jjohnson@josephkjohnson.com
13
14
15
Connie R. White
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Albright Yee
& Schmit APC ____________________________________________________________________________________
PROOF OF SERVICE
Case 2:19-cv-01076-MWF-JEM Document 10-1 Filed 02/27/19 Page 1 of 37 Page ID #:170
EXHIBIT 1.
EXHIBIT 2.
EXHIBIT 3.
EXHIBIT 4.
Case 2:19-cv-01076-MWF-JEM Document 10-1 Filed 02/27/19 Page 10 of 37 Page ID
#:179
#:180
EXHIBIT 5.
#:181
#:182
#:183
EXHIBIT 6.
#:184
#:185
#:186
EXHIBIT 7.
#:187
#:188
#:189
EXHIBIT 8.
#:190
#:191
EXHIBIT 9.
#:192
#:193
EXHIBIT 10.
#:194
#:195
#:196
EXHIBIT 11.
#:197
#:198
#:199
EXHIBIT 12.
#:200
#:201
#:202
EXHIBIT 13.
#:203
#:204
#:205
EXHIBIT 14.
#:206

Iskander V Laugh Factory Counterclaims

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Iskander V Laugh Factory Counterclaims

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Case 2:19-cv-01076-MWF-JEM Document 10 Filed 02/27/19 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:149

1 Clifton W. Albright (SBN 100020)

11 HARITH ISKANDER, an individual, ) Case No.: 2:19-cv-01076-MWF-JEM

AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTER-CLAIMS OF DEFENDANTS/COUNTER-CLAIMANTS

1 Defendants/Counter-Claimants Laugh Factory, Inc. (“Laugh Factory”) and Jamie

1 50. Defendant Laugh Factory admits that Iskander submitted a video in

1 81. Paragraph 81 contains legal conclusions which require no response. To the

1 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

1 C. Iskander’s Interference with Defendants’ Business Opportunities.

1 36. Counterclaim Defendants’ acts of trademark infringement are willful,

1 all property of Defendants which is in Counterclaim Defendants'

1 ECF/PACER FILE AND SERVE

You might also like