`
`Case 2:22-cv-03846-SK Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1
`
`Marc Toberoff (S.B. #188547)
`mtoberoff@toberoffandassociates.com
`Jaymie Parkkinen (S.B. # 318394)
`jparkkinen@toberoffandassociates.com
`TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`23823 Malibu Road, Suite 50-363
`Malibu, CA 90265
`Telephone: (310) 246-3333
`Facsimile: (310) 246-3101
`
`Alex Kozinski (S.B. # 66473)
`alex@kozinski.com
`719 Yarmouth Rd, Suite 101
`Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
`Telephone: (310) 541-5885
`Facsimile: (310) 265-4653
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`SHOSH YONAY, an individual, and
`YUVAL YONAY, an individual,
`
`
`
`
` v.
`
`PARAMOUNT PICTURES
`CORPORATION, a Delaware
`corporation, and DOES 1-10,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 22-CV-03846
`
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`[1] DECLARATORY RELIEF
`[2] COPYRIGHT
`INFRINGEMENT
`[3] INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`29
`30
`31
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-03846-SK Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:2
`
`Plaintiffs Shosh Yonay and Yuval Yonay (collectively, the “Yonays” or
`“Plaintiffs”), the heirs of writer Ehud Yonay (the “Author”), for their complaint
`against defendant Paramount Pictures Corporation (“Paramount”), allege as
`follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1.
`Ehud Yonay is the author of the original 1983 story entitled “Top
`Guns,” (the “Story”) from which the 1986 motion picture “Top Gun” (the “1986
`Film”) and the recently released 2022 sequel motion picture “Top Gun: Maverick”
`(the “2022 Sequel”) are derived.
`2.
`The iconic 1986 Film all started with Paramount securing exclusive
`motion picture rights to Ehud Yonay’s copyrighted Story immediately after its
`publication. In fact, the Author’s Story was duly credited on the derivative 1986
`Film, which is widely known to have been based on the Story.
`3.
`On January 23, 2018, the Yonays properly availed themselves of their
`right to recover the copyright to the Story under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §
`203(a), by sending Paramount a statutory notice of termination (the “Termination
`Notice”) and thereafter filing it with the Copyright Office, effective January 24,
`2020.
`
`4.
`On January 24, 2020, the copyright to the Story thus reverted to the
`Yonays under the Copyright Act, but Paramount deliberately ignored this,
`thumbing its nose at the statute. This case arises out of Paramount’s conscious
`failure to re-acquire the requisite film and ancillary rights to the Yonays’
`copyrighted Story prior to the completion and release of their derivative 2022
`Sequel.
`5.
`the willful conduct alleged herein,
`in
`Paramount engaged
`notwithstanding that it is a sophisticated multinational corporation whose core
`business is based upon the value and enforcement of copyrights and other
`intellectual property.
`
`
`- 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
`29
`30
`31
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-03846-SK Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:3
`
`PARTIES
`6.
`Plaintiff Shosh Yonay is an individual and citizen of, and resides in,
`Israel. Shosh Yonay is the widow and heir of the Author.
`7.
`Plaintiff Yuval Yonay is an individual and citizen of, and resides in,
`Israel. Yuval Yonay is the son and heir of the Author.
`8.
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Paramount is a corporation
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, which has its
`principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles, California.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`9.
`This is a civil action for copyright infringement and injunctive relief
`under the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. (hereinafter, “the
`Copyright Act”) and for declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act,
`18 U.S.C. § 2201.
`10. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the claims set
`forth in this complaint pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., 28
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1338(a), and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.
`§ 2201.
`11. Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction
`over Paramount because it has its principal place of business in the State of
`California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant
`acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District.
`12. Upon information and belief, venue is proper in this Court pursuant
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Paramount resides in this District, and pursuant
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), because a substantial part of the events giving rise to
`this action occurred in this District.
`STATUTORY BACKGROUND
`13. The U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (the
`“Copyright Act”), provides an author with the inalienable right to recapture the
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`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
`29
`30
`31
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-03846-SK Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:4
`
`copyright to the author’s creative material, after a lengthy waiting period, by
`statutorily terminating without cause prior transfer(s) of such copyright.
`Termination is carried out by simply serving advance notice of termination on the
`original grantee or its successors and filing the notice with the U.S. Copyright
`Office, within delineated time windows. 17 U.S.C. § 203(a).
`14. Section 203(a) provides for the termination of post-1977 transfers of
`rights under copyright by the author during a five (5) year period commencing
`thirty-five (35) years after the date the rights were transferred. Id. § 203(a)(3). The
`requisite notice of termination sets forth the “effective date” of termination, within
`the five-year termination “window,” when the previously transferred rights under
`copyright will be recaptured by the author. Notice of termination may be served
`by the author at any time between ten (10), and two (2) years before the effective
`termination date. Id. § 203(a)(4)(A).
`15.
`“Works for hire” are the sole exemption from the Copyright Act’s
`termination provisions. Id. § 203(a).
`16. The termination right is the most important authorial right provided
`by the Copyright Act, short of copyright itself. Congress was therefore very
`protective of the termination right and, to that end, enacted a number of provisions
`to prevent any waiver or encumbrance of the termination interest. For instance,
`“[t]ermination of the [prior copyright] grant may be effected notwithstanding any
`agreement to the contrary[.]” Id. § 203(a)(5).
`17. Furthermore, “[h]armless errors in a [termination] notice that do not
`materially affect the adequacy of the information required to serve the purposes
`of . . . section [203(a)] of title 17, U.S.C. . . . shall not render the notice invalid.”
`37 CFR § 201.10(e)(1).
`18. Congress anticipated that an author’s exercise of his/her termination
`right would usually result in a new license by the author to the terminated grantee
`(such as Paramount). To that end, Congress provided “the original grantee” with
`
`
`- 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
`29
`30
`31
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-03846-SK Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:5
`
`the exclusive opportunity to re-license an author’s recaptured copyright “after the
`notice or termination has been served,” but before “the effective date of the
`termination.” Id. § 203(b)(4). The termination provisions thus reflect a deliberate
`balance of competing interests.
`19. Under the termination provisions, prior derivative works can
`continue to be distributed just as before. 17 U.S.C. § 203(b)(1). Thus, the Yonays’
`recovery of the U.S. copyright to the Story does not prevent Paramount or its
`licensees from continuing to exploit prior derivative works, including the 1986
`Film; it just requires a new license for sequel films and other derivative works
`completed after the January 24, 2020 termination date.
`20.
`In addition, because the Copyright Act has no extraterritorial
`application, foreign rights to the Story remain with Paramount such that,
`notwithstanding the Yonays’ Termination Notice, Paramount would always
`continue to benefit from “Top Gun.” After the January 24, 2020 termination date,
`a new U.S. license from the Yonays to Paramount of the underlying Story would
`simply enable them to fairly participate with others in the proven market value
`and financial rewards of the Author’s creation, just as Congress intended. H.R.
`Rep. No. 94-1476, at 124 (1976).
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`The Chain of Title
`21. Ehud Yonay’s Story was originally published on April 21, 1983 in
`the May 1983 issue of California magazine and was registered in the U.S.
`Copyright Office on October 3, 1983 (Reg. No. TX0001213463).
`22. The magazine was not well known, and the subject of the Story–a
`naval training base–was rather dry. In contrast, however, the Author’s copyrighted
`Story was written in a remarkably vivid and cinematic fashion, with references to
`Hollywood stars and epic films such as “From Here to Eternity.” Rather than
`focusing merely on the dry historical details of the training school, the Story
`
`
`- 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
`29
`30
`31
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-03846-SK Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:6
`
`focuses on the pilots (the “Top Guns”) and their personal experiences, singling
`out two in particular, a hotshot pilot (“Yogi”) and his radio intercept officer
`(“Possum”), as they are hammered into a team. It skillfully selects accounts of the
`pilots’ personal lives and precise details of their “hops” (flight maneuvers) to
`construct a romanticized, first-hand experience of what it is like to be a member
`of an elite Navy fighter squadron. Indeed, the literary and cinematic way the Story
`humanized and energized its subject was so compelling that Paramount
`immediately sought to lock up exclusive film rights from its Author. The resulting
`films, which faithfully translate this vision and narrative to the screen, have given
`audiences worldwide a close-up look at the lives of U.S. Navy fighter pilots, as
`curated by Ehud Yonay’s compelling Story.
`23. Within weeks of the Story’s publication, Paramount secured from
`Ehud Yonay an exclusive “Assignment of Rights” dated May 18, 1983, of motion
`picture and allied rights in the Story (the “Grant”).
`24. There is no doubt that the copyrighted Story was the clear genesis of
`Paramount’s 1986 mega-hit film, “Top Gun.” But for the Author’s literary efforts
`and evocative prose and narrative, Paramount’s beloved film franchise would not
`exist.
`
`25. On January 23, 2018, the Yonays properly availed themselves of their
`termination rights under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 203(a), by sending
`Paramount a statutory notice of termination, terminating the Grant of the Author’s
`rights under U.S. copyright in the Story, effective January 24, 2020.
`26. The Termination Notice, recorded with the U.S. Copyright Office on
`January 29, 2018 (Doc. No. V9949D433), fully complied with Section 203(a) of
`the Copyright Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Register of
`Copyrights, 37 C.F.R. § 201.10.
`27. Therefore, as of January 24, 2020, the Yonays are the sole owners of
`the U.S. copyright in the Story.
`
`
`- 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
`29
`30
`31
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-03846-SK Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:7
`
`The 2022 Sequel is Derived from the Story
`28. Ehud Yonay’s Story told the story of the Navy Fighter Weapons
`School training program as personified by the Author through the eyes of two
`lieutenants in the course, a hotshot pilot (“Yogi”) and his friend and second in the
`two-man cockpit (“Possum”).
`29.
`In the Story, the Author brought to life what could have easily been
`a barren subject of facts and figures by painting the Naval Air Station as a place
`of death-defying competition, comradery, romanticism, and 1950s post-war
`nostalgia. The Author’s incredibly vivid imagery strapped readers in to the cockpit
`of a fighter jet long before the days of GoPro cameras and smartphones.
`30.
`In fact, Ehud Yonay’s colorful telling of the Navy training program
`was so exhilarating and cinematic that it compelled Paramount to immediately
`seek him out and secure the exclusive rights to produce films based on his Story,
`mere weeks after its publication.
`31. The resulting 1986 Film, produced by Jerry Bruckheimer and its
`screenplay written by Jim Cash and Jack Epps, Jr., was derived from the Story.
`Indeed, the 1986 Film specifically credits Ehud Yonay for his Story. It is also well
`accepted that “Top Gun” was based on the Story.
`32.
`It naturally follows that the 2022 Sequel to the 1986 Film, again
`produced by Bruckheimer and on which Cash and Epps again received writing
`credit, is derived from Ehud Yonay’s Story.
`33. A review of the 2022 Sequel, like the 1986 Film, reveals key
`elements that are substantially similar to those in the Story, as set forth in Exhibit
`1 to this complaint, and incorporated by reference herein.
`Paramount’s Exploitation of the 2022 Sequel Infringes the Story
`34. Despite the 2022 Sequel clearly having derived from the Story,
`Paramount consciously failed to secure a new license of film and ancillary rights
`in the copyrighted Story following the Yonays’ recovery of their U.S. copyright
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`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
`29
`30
`31
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-03846-SK Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:8
`
`on January 24, 2020.
`35. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that the
`2022 Sequel was not completed until May 8, 2021, more than one year after
`Paramount’s Grant had been statutorily terminated. The 2022 Sequel therefore,
`unlike the 1986 Film, does not qualify for the “prior derivative works exception”
`to statutory termination, 17 U.S.C. § 203(b)(1), and thus infringes the copyright
`owned by the Yonays.
`36. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that
`Paramount was and is involved in the financing, production, and distribution of
`the 2022 Sequel in the United States and is the film’s purported copyright holder.
`37. Without a newly secured license, Paramount’s exploitation of the
`2022 Sequel in the United States constitutes ongoing intentional infringement of
`the Yonays’ copyright, including without limitation, their exclusive right to
`“prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted [W]ork,” 17 U.S.C. §
`106(2), which Paramount had owned pursuant to the Grant, but lost on January
`24, 2020, and willfully proceeded to exploit nonetheless.
`38. Paramount was placed on clear notice of these issues on January 23,
`2018 when the Yonays served Paramount with their statutory Notice of
`Termination, effective January 24, 2020. On May 11, 2022, the Yonays sent
`Paramount a cease-and-desist letter regarding the 2022 Sequel. On May 13, 2022,
`Paramount responded in total denial of the fact that its 2022 Sequel was obviously
`derivative of the Story. Paramount additionally argued that the 2022 Sequel was
`“sufficiently completed” by January 24, 2020 (the effective termination date) in a
`disingenuous attempt to bootstrap the 2022 Sequel into the “prior derivative works”
`exception to termination, 17 U.S.C. § 203(b)(1).
`39. Plaintiffs are informed and believe by Paramount’s conduct, and
`based thereon allege that Paramount will continue to prepare, produce, copy,
`distribute, exploit, and/or authorize others to prepare, produce, copy, distribute, or
`
`
`- 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
`29
`30
`31
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-03846-SK Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:9
`
`exploit the infringing 2022 Sequel and other derivative works which copy and
`exploit the Story in violation of the Copyright Act.
`40. As a direct and proximate result of Paramount’s actions, the Yonays
`will suffer imminent and irreparable harm, much of which cannot be reasonably
`or adequately measured or compensated in damages.
`COUNT I: DECLARATORY RELIEF
`41. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1
`through 40 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
`42. By reason of the foregoing facts, an actual and justiciable
`controversy has arisen and now exists between the Yonays and Paramount
`regarding whether Paramount continued after January 24, 2020 to have the rights
`to produce and exploit the 2022 Sequel and other derivative works based in whole
`or in part on the Story and the 1986 Film, derived from the Story.
`43. As of January 24, 2020, the Yonays own all rights in and to an
`enforceable copyright to the Author’s original Story.
`44. The Yonays contend and Paramount denies that the 2022 Sequel does
`not qualify for the “prior derivative works exception” under 17 U.S.C. §203(b)(1)
`because it was not completed until long after January 24, 2020.
`45. The Yonays contend and Paramount denies that the 2022 Sequel, like
`the 1986 Film, is derived from the Author’s Story.
`46. The Yonays contend and Paramount denies that, but for the Story, the
`1986 Film and 2022 Sequel would not exist.
`47. The Yonays therefore desire a judicial determination that the 2022
`Sequel is derivative of Ehud Yonay’s Story.
`48. The Yonays further desire a judicial determination that Paramount
`does not have any rights to make, exploit, or distribute the 2022 Sequel or any
`other derivative work based in whole or in part on the Story, and/or the 1986 Film
`(as derived from the Story), in the United States.
`
`
`- 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
`29
`30
`31
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-03846-SK Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:10
`
`49. A declaration of the Court is necessary and appropriate pursuant to
`the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq., so that the Yonays may
`ascertain their rights with respect to the 2022 Sequel and any future derivative
`works based in whole or in part on the Story, and/or the 1986 Film.
`COUNT II: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
`50. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1
`through 49 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
`51. The Story is a wholly original Story and copyrightable subject matter
`under the laws of the United States.
`52. The Story was originally published on April 21, 1983 and was
`registered in the U.S. Copyright Office on October 3, 1983 under registration
`number TX0001213463.
`53. By its exploitation and release of the 2022 Sequel, a motion picture
`plainly derived from the Story, Paramount knowingly and willfully infringed, and
`will continue to infringe, the Yonays’ copyright and rights under copyright in the
`Story.
`54. Each infringement by Paramount and/or other parties of the Story
`constitutes a separate and distinct act of infringement.
`55. The Yonays sent an email and certified letter to Paramount on May
`11, 2022 placing Paramount on notice of its infringement, yet Paramount
`continues to infringe the Yonays’ rights under copyright in willful disregard of and
`indifference to the Yonays’ rights.
`56. As a direct and proximate result of Paramount’s copyright
`infringement, the Yonays have suffered and will continue to suffer severe injuries
`and harm, much of which cannot be reasonably or adequately measured or
`compensated in money damages if such wrongful conduct is allowed to continue
`unabated. The ongoing harm this wrongful conduct will continue to cause the
`Yonays is both imminent and irreparable. The Yonays’ injuries and damages
`
`
`- 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
`29
`30
`31
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-03846-SK Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:11
`
`include, without limitation, repeated infringement of their copyright and interests,
`diminution of the value of their copyright and interests, loss of customers, dilution
`of goodwill, and injury to their business reputation.
`57. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502, the Yonays are entitled to a preliminary
`injunction, during the pendency of this action, and to a permanent injunction,
`enjoining Paramount, its officers, agents and employees, and all persons acting in
`concert with it, from engaging in such further violations of the Copyright Act.
`58. The Yonays are further entitled to recover from Paramount the
`damages, including pre-judgment interest, they sustained and will sustain, and any
`income, gains, profits, and advantages obtained by Paramount as a result of its
`wrongful acts alleged hereinabove, in an amount which cannot yet be fully
`ascertained, but which shall be assessed at the time of trial.
`59. Alternatively, the Yonays are entitled to the maximum statutory
`damages recoverable, or for such other amounts as may be proper, pursuant to 17
`U.S.C. § 504.
`60. The Yonays are further entitled to their attorneys’ fees and full costs
`pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.
`COUNT III: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`61. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1
`through 60 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
`62. Unless enjoined and restrained by order of the Court, Paramount’s
`conduct will infringe the Yonays’ copyright and interests.
`63. By reason of Paramount’s ongoing or
`imminent copyright
`infringement and Paramount’s unfair trade practices and unfair competition
`against the Yonays, the Yonays have sustained and, unless and until Paramount is
`enjoined, will continue to sustain substantial imminent and irreparable injury, loss
`and damage, including repeated infringement of their copyright and interests,
`diminution of the value of their copyright and interests, loss of customers, dilution
`
`
`- 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
`29
`30
`31
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-03846-SK Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:12
`
`of goodwill, and injury to their business reputation.
`64. The Yonays have no adequate remedy at law for many of their
`injuries in that such injuries cannot be reasonably, adequately, or precisely
`measured or compensated in damages if such wrongful conduct is not restrained
`and is allowed to continue unabated.
`65. The Yonays are entitled to a preliminary injunction during the
`pendency of this action and a permanent injunction ordering that Paramount, its
`agents, employees, licensees and assigns be enjoined from producing, reproducing,
`distributing and exploiting or authorizing
`the production, reproduction,
`distribution or exploitation of the 2022 Sequel and ancillary products based
`thereon, derived from the Story.
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, the Yonays pray for judgment against Paramount as
`
`follows:
`
`ON THE FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`For a declaration that the 2022 Sequel is derivative of Ehud Yonay’s
`
`1.
`Story;
`2.
`For a declaration that, as of January 24, 2020, Paramount does not
`have and did not have any rights to make, develop, produce, or distribute the 2022
`Sequel or any other derivative work based in whole or in part on the Story and/or
`the 1986 Film (as derived from the Story); and
`3.
`For an order preliminarily during the pendency of this action and
`thereafter, permanently, enjoining Paramount, its officers, agents, employees,
`licensees and assigns, and all persons acting in concert with it, from developing,
`producing, or distributing the 2022 Sequel and any other derivative work based in
`whole or in part on the Story and/or the 1986 Film.
`/ / /
`/ / /
`
`
`- 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
`29
`30
`31
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-03846-SK Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:13
`
`ON THE SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`4.
`For an order preliminarily during the pendency of this action and
`thereafter, permanently, (i) enjoining Paramount, its officers, agents, employees,
`licensees and assigns, and all persons acting in concert with it, from infringing the
`copyright in the Story, in any manner, and (ii) enjoining Paramount, its officers,
`agents, employees, licensees and assigns, and all persons acting in concert with it,
`from engaging in or authorizing the production, reproduction, distribution, display
`and/or exploitation of the infringing 2022 Sequel and ancillary products based
`thereon, derived from the Story, without a new license from the Yonays;
`5.
`For compensatory and consequential damages, according to proof in
`an amount determined at trial, together with interest thereon as provided by law;
`For an accounting and restitution to the Yonays of all gains, profits
`6.
`and advantages Paramount has derived from its production, distribution, display
`and exploitation of the infringing 2022 Sequel, ancillary exploitations based
`thereon, and from its copyright infringement of the Story;
`7.
`In the alternative to actual damages, for statutory damages pursuant
`to 17 U.S.C. §504(c), which election the Yonays shall make prior to the rendering
`of final judgment herein; and
`8.
`For such other and further relief and remedies available under the
`Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., which the Court may deem just and
`proper.
`
`ON ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`For the Yonays’ costs of suit;
`9.
`10. For interest at the highest lawful rate on all sums awarded the Yonays
`other than punitive damages;
`11. For reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
`12. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
`appropriate.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 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
`29
`30
`31
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-03846-SK Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:14
`
`DATED: June 6, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`
`By: /s/ Marc Toberoff
` Marc Toberoff
`Marc Toberoff
`mtoberoff@toberoffandassociates.com
`Jaymie Parkkinen
`jparkkinen@toberoffandassociates.com
`TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`23823 Malibu Road, Suite 50-363
`Malibu, CA 90265
`Telephone: (310) 246-3333
`Facsimile: (310) 246-3101
`
`Alex Kozinski
`alex@kozinski.com
`719 Yarmouth Rd, Ste 101
`Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
`Telephone: (310) 541-5885
`Facsimile: (310) 265-4653
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`- 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
`29
`30
`31
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-03846-SK Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:15
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs
`
`hereby demand a trial by jury for all issues triable to a jury.
`
`
`
`
`DATED: June 6, 2022
`TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`
`By: /s/ Marc Toberoff
` Marc Toberoff
`
`
`Marc Toberoff
`mtoberoff@toberoffandassociates.com
`Jaymie Parkkinen
`jparkkinen@toberoffandassociates.com
`TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`23823 Malibu Road, Suite 50-363
`Malibu, CA 90265
`Telephone: (310) 246-3333
`Facsimile: (310) 246-3101
`
`Alex Kozinski
`alex@kozinski.com
`719 Yarmouth Rd, Suite 101
`Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
`Telephone: (310) 541-5885
`Facsimile: (310) 265-4653
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`- 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
`29
`30
`31
`
`