`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thomas P. Riley
`Law Offices of Thomas P. Riley, P.C.
`First Library Square
`1114 Fremont Avenue
`South Pasadena, CA 91030-3227
`CA SBN No. 194706
`Fax: 626-799-9795
`TPRLAW@att.net
`Tel: 626-799-9797
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Innovative Sports Management, Inc.,
`d/b/a Integrated Sports Media
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
` Case No.:
`Innovative Sports Management, Inc.,
`
`
`d/b/a Integrated Sports Media,
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` vs.
`
`Artem A. Timofeev, individually and
`d/b/a The Nickel Mine; and Apricode
`KDS, Corp., an unknown business entity
`d/b/a The Nickel Mine
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF ALLEGES:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`1.
`
`Jurisdiction is founded on the existence of a question arising under particular
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 1
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-04160-TJH-PLA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`statutes. This action is brought pursuant to several federal statutes, including the
`
`Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Title 47 U.S.C. 605, et seq., and The
`
`Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, as
`
`amended, Title 47 U.S.C. Section 553, et seq., and California B&P Section 17200, a
`
`California state statute.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. Section 1331, which states that the District Courts shall have original
`
`jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties, of the
`
`United States. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction).
`
`
`
`3.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties in this action as a result
`
`of the Defendants’ wrongful acts hereinafter complained of which violated the
`
`Plaintiff's rights as the exclusive commercial domestic distributor of the televised
`
`fight Program hereinafter set forth at length. The Defendants’ wrongful acts
`
`consisted of the interception, reception, publication, divulgence, display, exhibition,
`
`and tortious conversion of said property of Plaintiff within the control of the
`
`Plaintiff in the State of California constituting an unfair business practice in
`
`violation of the law, including specific California state statutes, more particularly set
`
`forth below.
`
`///
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-04160-TJH-PLA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`VENUE
`
`4.
`
`Pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605, venue is proper in the Central
`
`District of California, because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
`
`rise to the claim occurred in this District and/or because, inter alia, all Defendants
`
`reside within the State of California (28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) and 28 U.S.C. §
`
`84(c)(2)).
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`5.
`
`Assignment to the Western Division of the Central District of California is
`
`proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
`
`claim occurred in Los Angeles County and/or, the United States District Court for
`
`the Central District of California has decided that suits of this nature, and each of
`
`them, are to be heard by the Courts in this particular Division.
`
`
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff, Innovative Sports Management, Inc., d/b/a Integrated Sports Media,
`
`is, and at all relevant times mentioned was, a New Jersey corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 64 North Summit St., Suite 218, Tennafly, NJ
`
`07060.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, including on Saturday, May 11, 2019, Defendant
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Artem A. Timofeev was specifically identified as President and stockholder of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 3
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-04160-TJH-PLA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`Apricode KDS, Corp. on the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
`
`License (ABC #563263) issued to Apricode KDS, Corp. for The Nickel Mine.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, including on Saturday, May 11, 2019, Defendant
`
`Apricode KDS, Corp. was specifically identified as owner of the California
`
`Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control License (ABC #563263) for the
`
`establishment doing business as The Nickel Mine operating at 11363 Santa Monica
`
`Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90025.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, including on Saturday, May 11, 2019, Defendant
`
`Artem A. Timofeev was specifically identified as Chief Executive Officer and
`
`President on the State of California Secretary of State Statement of Information
`
`(C3808562) issued to Apricode KDS, Corp. for The Nickel Mine.
`
`
`
`10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges thereon that on Saturday, May
`
`11, 2019 (the night of the Program at issue herein, as more specifically defined in
`
`Paragraph 18), Defendant Artem A. Timofeev had the right and ability to supervise
`
`the activities of The Nickel Mine, which included the unlawful interception, receipt,
`
`and publication of Plaintiff’s Program.
`
`///
`
`///
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-04160-TJH-PLA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges thereon that on Saturday, May
`
`11, 2019 (the night of the Program at issue herein, as more specifically defined in
`
`Paragraph 18), Defendant Artem A. Timofeev, as an individual had the obligation to
`
`supervise the activities of Apricode KDS, Corp., which included the unlawful
`
`interception, receipt, and publication of Plaintiff’s Program, and, among other
`
`responsibilities, had the obligation to ensure that The Nickel Mine operated lawfully
`
`at all times.
`
`
`
`12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges thereon that on Saturday, May
`
`11, 2019 (the night of the Program at issue herein, as more specifically defined in
`
`Paragraph 18), Defendant Artem A. Timofeev specifically directed or permitted the
`
`employees of The Nickel Mine to unlawfully intercept, receive, and publish
`
`Plaintiff’s Program at The Nickel Mine, or intentionally intercepted, received, and
`
`published the Program at The Nickel Mine himself. The actions of the employees of
`
`The Nickel Mine are directly imputable to Defendant Artem A. Timofeev by virtue
`
`of his acknowledged responsibility for the operation of The Nickel Mine.
`
`
`
`13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges thereon that on Saturday, May
`
`11, 2019, Defendant Artem A. Timofeev, as Chief Executive Officer and President
`
`of Apricode KDS, Corp. and as an individual specifically identified as President and
`
`stockholder on the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control License
`
`#563263 for Apricode KDS, Corp. had an obvious and direct financial interests in
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-04160-TJH-PLA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 6 of 17 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`the activities of The Nickel Mine, which included the unlawful interception, receipt,
`
`and publication of Plaintiff’s Program.
`
`
`
`14. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges thereon that the unlawful
`
`broadcast of Plaintiff’s Program, as supervised and/or authorized by Defendant
`
`Artem A. Timofeev resulted in increased profits for The Nickel Mine.
`
`
`
`15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges thereon that Defendant
`
`Apricode KDS, Corp. is an owner, and/or operator, and/or licensee, and/or
`
`permittee, and/or entity in possession, and/or an entity with dominion, control,
`
`oversight and management of the commercial establishment doing business as The
`
`Nickel Mine operating at 11363 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90025.
`
`
`
`16. On Saturday, May 11, 2019 (the night of the Program at issue herein, as more
`
`specifically defined in Paragraph 18), The Nickel Mine sold food and alcoholic
`
`beverages to its patrons.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605)
`
`17. Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management, Inc., d/b/a Integrated Sports Media,
`
`hereby incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-16,
`
`inclusive, as though set forth herein at length.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-04160-TJH-PLA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 7 of 17 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`18. Pursuant to contract, Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management, Inc., d/b/a
`
`Integrated Sports Media, was granted the exclusive nationwide commercial
`
`distribution (closed-circuit) rights to the Bellator 221: Michael Cahndler v. Patricio
`
`Pitbull event telecast nationwide on Saturday, May 11, 2019 (this included all under-
`
`card bouts and fight commentary encompassed in the television broadcast of the
`
`event, hereinafter referred to as the "Program").
`
`
`
`19. Pursuant to contract, Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management, Inc., d/b/a
`
`Integrated Sports Media, entered into subsequent sublicensing agreements with
`
`various commercial entities throughout North America, including entities within the
`
`State of California, by which it granted these entities limited sublicensing rights,
`
`specifically the rights to publicly exhibit the Program within their respective
`
`commercial establishments.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`20. The Program could only be exhibited in a commercial establishment in
`
`California if said establishment was contractually authorized to do so by Plaintiff
`
`22
`
`Innovative Sports Management, Inc., d/b/a Integrated Sports Media.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`21. As a commercial distributor and licensor of sporting events, including the
`
`26
`
`Program, Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management, Inc., d/b/a Integrated Sports
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Media, expended
`
`substantial monies marketing, advertising, promoting,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 7
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-04160-TJH-PLA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 8 of 17 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`administering, and transmitting the Program to its customers, the aforementioned
`
`commercial entities.
`
`
`
`
`
`22. The Program originated via satellite uplink and was subsequently re-
`
`transmitted to cable systems and satellite companies to Plaintiff’s sub-licensees.
`
`
`
`23. On Saturday, May 11, 2019, in violation of Plaintiff Innovative Sports
`
`Management, Inc., d/b/a Integrated Sports Media rights and federal law, Defendants
`
`intercepted, received and published the Program at The Nickel Mine. Defendants
`
`also divulged and published said communication, or assisted or permitted in
`
`divulging and publishing said communication to patrons within The Nickel Mine.
`
`
`
`24. With full knowledge that the Program was not to be intercepted, received,
`
`published, divulged, displayed, and/or exhibited by commercial entities
`
`unauthorized to do so, each and every one of the above named Defendants, either
`
`through direct action or through actions of employees or agents directly imputable
`
`to Defendants (as outlined above), did unlawfully intercept, receive, publish,
`
`divulge, display, and/or exhibit the Program at the time of its transmission at
`
`commercial establishment located at 11363 Santa Monica Blvd. Los Angeles, CA
`
`90025.
`
`///
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-04160-TJH-PLA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 9 of 17 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`25. Said unauthorized interception, reception, publication, exhibition, divulgence,
`
`display, and/or exhibition by each of the Defendants was done willfully and for
`
`purposes of direct and/or indirect commercial advantage and/or private financial
`
`gain.
`
`
`
`26. Title 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), prohibits the unauthorized interception, receipt,
`
`publication and use of communications, including satellite television signals, such as
`
`the transmission of the Program for which Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management,
`
`Inc., d/b/a Integrated Sports Media had the distribution rights thereto.
`
`
`
`27. By reason of the aforesaid mentioned conduct, the aforementioned
`
`Defendants, and each of them, violated Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605, et seq., either
`
`directly or, in the case of Defendant Artem A. Timofeev, contributorily or
`
`vicariously.
`
`
`
`28. By reason of the Defendants’ violation of Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605, et seq.,
`
`Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management, Inc., d/b/a Integrated Sports Media, has the
`
`private right of action pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605.
`
`
`
`29. As the result of the aforementioned Defendants’ violation of Title 47 U.S.C.
`
`Section 605, and pursuant to said Section 605, Plaintiff Innovative Sports
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-04160-TJH-PLA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 10 of 17 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`Management, Inc., d/b/a Integrated Sports Media, is entitled to the following from
`
`each Defendant:
`
`
`
` (a)
`
`Statutory damages for each violation in an amount to
`
`$10,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II);
`
`
`
`
`
`(b)
`
`Statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount to
`
`$100,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. 605(e)(3)(C)(ii); and
`
` (c) The recovery of full costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees,
`
`pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605(e)(3)(B)(iii).
`
`COUNT II
`
`(Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. Section 553)
`
`30. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in
`
`paragraphs 1-29, inclusive, as though set forth herein at length.
`
`
`
`31.
`
`47 U.S.C. § 553 prohibits the interception or receipt of communications
`
`offered over a cable system absent specific authorization.
`
`
`
`32. The unauthorized interception and receipt of the Program by the above
`
`named Defendants was prohibited by Title 47 U.S.C. §553, et seq.
`
`///
`
`///
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-04160-TJH-PLA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 11 of 17 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`33. By reason of the aforesaid mentioned conduct, the aforementioned
`
`Defendants violated Title 47 U.S.C. Section 553, et seq. either directly or, in the
`
`case of Defendant Artem A. Timofeev, contributorily or vicariously.
`
`
`
`34. By reason of the Defendants’ violation of Title 47 U.S.C. Section 553, et seq.,
`
`Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management, Inc., d/b/a Integrated Sports Media, has the
`
`private right of action pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. Section 553.
`
`35. As the result of the aforementioned Defendants’ violation of Title 47 U.S.C.
`
`Section 553, Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management, Inc., d/b/a Integrated Sports
`
`Media, is entitled to the following from each Defendant:
`
`
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`Statutory damages for each violation in an amount to
`
`$10,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii);
`
`
`
`
`
`(b)
`
`Statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount to
`
`
`
`$50,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(B);
`
`(c) The recovery of full costs pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553
`
`(c)(2)(C); and
`
`(d) In the discretion of this Honorable Court, reasonable attorneys’
`
`
`
`fees, pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(2)(C).
`
`
`
`COUNT III
`
`(Conversion)
`
`
`
` Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-04160-TJH-PLA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 12 of 17 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`36. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in
`
`paragraphs 1-35, inclusive, as though set forth herein at length.
`
`
`
`37. By their aforesaid acts of interception, reception, publication, divulgence,
`
`display, and/or exhibition of the Program at their commercial establishment at the
`
`above-captioned address, the aforementioned Defendants, tortuously obtained
`
`possession of the Program and wrongfully converted same for their own use and
`
`benefit.
`
`
`
`38. The aforesaid acts of the Defendants were willful, malicious, egregious, and
`
`intentionally designed to harm Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management, Inc., d/b/a
`
`Integrated Sports Media, by depriving Plaintiff of the commercial license fee to
`
`which Plaintiff was rightfully entitled to receive from them, and in doing so, the
`
`Defendants subjected the Plaintiff to severe economic distress and great financial
`
`loss.
`
`
`
`39. Accordingly, Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management, Inc., d/b/a Integrated
`
`Sports Media, is entitled to both compensatory, as well as punitive and exemplary
`
`damages, from aforementioned Defendants as the result of the Defendants’
`
`egregious conduct, theft, and conversion of the Program and deliberate injury to
`
`the Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-04160-TJH-PLA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 13 of 17 Page ID #:13
`
`COUNT IV
`
`(Violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.)
`
`
`
`
`
`40. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in
`
`Paragraphs 1-39, inclusive, as set forth herein at length.
`
`
`
`41. By contract, Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management, Inc., d/b/a Integrated
`
`Sports Media, was granted exclusive domestic commercial exhibition closed-circuit
`
`rights to the Program.
`
`
`
`42. Plaintiff did not authorize transmission, interception, reception, divulgence,
`
`exhibition, or display of the Program to the general public, persons at large, or to
`
`the commercial establishment operated by the foregoing Defendants, or any of
`
`them.
`
`
`
`43. With full knowledge that the Program was not to be intercepted, received,
`
`published, divulged, displayed, and/or exhibited by commercial entities
`
`unauthorized to do so, the above named Defendants, either through direct action or
`
`through actions of employees or agents directly imputable to Defendants by virtue
`
`of their respective positions and authority, did unlawfully intercept, receive, publish,
`
`divulge, display, and/or exhibit the Program at the real time transmission of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-04160-TJH-PLA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 14 of 17 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`Program’s broadcast at the commercial establishment, as more particularly
`
`indicated and identified above.
`
`
`
`44. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that the Defendants
`
`and/or their agents, servants, workmen, or employees performed the aforementioned
`
`acts knowingly, willfully and to confer a direct or indirect commercial advantage
`
`and/or private financial gain to the Defendants, to the detriment and injury of
`
`Plaintiff and its business enterprise as a commercial distributor and closed-circuit
`
`licensor of sports and entertainment television programming.
`
`
`
`45. The Defendants’ unauthorized interception, publication, divulgence and/or
`
`exhibition was done by the Defendants wantonly, recklessly, and without regard
`
`whatsoever for the intellectual property rights of the Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`46. The aforementioned unlawful acts of each of the Defendants constituted
`
`unlawful, untrue, fraudulent, predatory, unfair, and deceptive trade practices, and by
`
`reason of the aforementioned conduct, the Defendants violated California and
`
`Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.
`
`
`
`47. As a proximate result of the aforementioned acts attributable to the
`
`Defendants, Plaintiff has been permanently deprived of the patronage of current,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-04160-TJH-PLA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 15 of 17 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`previous and potential customers of the sports and entertainment programming it
`
`licenses commercially to the hospitality industry, all to its severe financial injury
`
`and loss in a sum to be determined at trial.
`
`
`
`48. By reason of the Defendants’ violation of California Business and Professions
`
`Code Section 17200, et seq., Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management, Inc., d/b/a
`
`Integrated Sports Media is entitled to restitution for its injuries, the disgorgement
`
`and turn-over of the Defendants’ ill-gotten gains, as well as injunctive and
`
`declaratory relief, from each of the aforementioned Defendants as may be made
`
`more appropriately determined at trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`49. Plaintiff is entitled to its attorneys’ fees from the Defendants for enforcing
`
`California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 as it meets the standards of
`
`a private attorney general as specifically and statutorily defined under California
`
`Civil Procedure Section 1021.5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.
`
`As to the First Count:
`
` 1.
`
`For statutory damages in the amount of $110,000.00 against the
`
`Defendants, and each of them;
`
` 2.
`
`For reasonable attorneys’ fees as mandated by statute;
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-04160-TJH-PLA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 16 of 17 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
` 3.
`
`For all costs of suit, including, but not limited to, filing fees, service of
`
`
`
`process fees, investigative costs; and
`
` 4.
`
`For such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem
`
`just and proper.
`
`As to the Second Count:
`
`1. For statutory damages in the amount of $60,000.00 against the
`
`Defendants, and each of them;
`
`2. For reasonable attorneys’ fees as may be awarded in the Court’s
`
` discretion pursuant to statute;
`
`
`
`
`
`3. For all costs of suit, including, but not limited to, filing fees, service
`
`of process fees, investigative costs; and
`
` 4. For such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem just
`
`
`
`
`
` and proper.
`
`As to the Third Count:
`
`1.
`
`For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof against
`
`the Defendants, and each of them;
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`For exemplary damages against the Defendants, and each of them;
`
`For punitive damages against the Defendants, and each of them;
`
`For reasonable attorneys’ fees as may be awarded in the Court’s
`
`discretion pursuant to statute;
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-04160-TJH-PLA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 17 of 17 Page ID #:17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`5.
`
`For all costs of suit, including, but not limited to, filing fees, service of
`
`process fee, investigative costs; and
`
`6.
`
`For such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem just
`
`and proper.
`
`
`
`As to the Fourth Count:
`
`1.
`
`For restitution to the Plaintiff in an amount according to and from the
`
`Defendants, for their ill-gotten gains;
`
`For declaratory relief;
`
`For prohibitory and mandatory injunctive relief;
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
` 4. For reasonable attorneys’ fees as may be awarded in the Court’s
`
`
`
`
`
`discretion pursuant to statute;
`
`5. For all costs of suit, including, but not limited to, filing fees, service
`
`
`
`of process fees, investigative costs; and
`
`6.
`
`For such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem
`
`just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: 5/6/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/s/Thomas P. Riley
`
`LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS P. RILEY, P.C.
`By: Thomas P. Riley
`Innovative Sports Management, Inc.,
`d/b/a Integrated Sports Media
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 17
`
`
`
`