' -)

-Fs.
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
qoMo>
THOMAS V. GIRARDI, State Bar No. 36603
tgirardi@girardikeese.com
GRAHAM B. LIPPSMITH, State Bar No. 221984
lippsmith@girardikeese.com
fRARDrf KEESE
1126 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California90017
Telephone: (213)977-0211
Facsimile; (213)481-1554
WILLIAM T. GIBBS, Illinois Bar No. 6282949
CORBOY & DEMETRIO
33 North Dearborn St., Suite 2100
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Telephone: (312)346-3191 <->>
Facsimile: (312)346-5562 \J"
Attorneys for PLAINTIFF
FILED
Superior Court of California
County ofLos Angeles
JUL 15 2014
Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk
fiy ^ &* Deputy
Moses Soto
W
W
\V-Uft|W
C \k*V\
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
MANUEL NORIEGA
Plaintiff,
v.
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, Inc., a
corporation, d/b/a ACTIVISION and
TREYARCH, a corporation,
Defendants.
CASE NO.:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
1) Violation of California Civil Code
3344and Common Law Right of
Publicity
2) Unjust Enrichment
3) Unfair Business Practices in Violation
of California Business and Professions
Code17200
COMPLAINT
BCMi7tffAX
33
rn
o
m
3> C ,Tr
53 3
X -i
- -it
<
f". O O
<W -./ ri
'-" ---. x
~ ** CI
o cn f
^ CO
CO
o
o
O CO
* a-
o o o
S ? *> -
22 w to
C" Z X O
<" CD 7^
TO ..
2s 2J
o rn
Sf ft * u
c< q p ifn
S1 e o o
o o o 3
o
J> ~i
m
o
X>
TO
r-i
in
ci
--j
*.
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
COMPLAINT
On information and belief, Plaintiff Manuel Noriega ("Plaintiff) alleges as follows:
L NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Defendants, ACTIVISIONBLIZZARD, Inc., a corporation, d/b/a
ACTIVISION and TREYARCH, a corporation ("Defendants"), engaged in the blatant misuse,
unlawful exploitation, and misappropriation of Plaintiffs image and likeness for economic
gain in the video game they produced and distributed.
2. Defendants designed, created, advertised and sold the popular video game
CALL OF DUTY: BLACK OPS II ("Black Ops II").
3. In an effort to increase the popularity and revenue generated by BLACK OPS II,
Defendants used, without authorization or consent, the image and likeness of Plaintiff in
BLACK OPS II.
4. Defendants' use of Plaintiffs image and likeness caused damage to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff was portrayed as an antagonist and portrayed as the culprit of numerous fictional
heinous crimes, creating the false impression that Defendants are authorized to use Plaintiffs
image and likeness. This caused Defendantsto receive profits they would not have otherwise
received.
5. Plaintiff is portrayed in BLACK OPS II as a kidnapper, murderer and enemy of
the state. An objective of one portion of BLACK OPS II is solely to capture Plaintiff.
6. Defendants' video game, BLACK OPS II, features several non-fiction
characters, including Plaintiff, for one purpose: to heighten realism in its video game, BLACK
OPS II. This translates directly into heightened sales for Defendants.
7. Defendants deliberately and systematically misappropriated Plaintiffs
COMPLAINT
?g
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
likeness to increase revenues androyalties, at theexpense of Plaintiffand without the consent
of Plaintiff.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has personal jurisdiction over eachand everyone of the Defendants.
Venue in this Court is proper becauseDefendants reside and/or carry on business here, and the
wrongful acts of Defendants originated here.
III. THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is an individual residing in Gamboa, Panama.
2. Defendant ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, d/b/a ACTIVISION is, and at all times
mentioned herein, was a corporation existing under the laws of California. ACTIVISION is
incorporated in Delaware, however maintains its headquarters and principle place of business
in Santa Monica, California.
3. Defendant TREYARCH is, and at all times mentioned herein, was a corporation
organized and existing under the taws of California.
4. Defendants are a multi-billion dollar interactive entertainment software
company (ACTIVISION) and its subsidiary (TREYARCH) that produce the Call of Duty
video game franchise, which includes the Black Ops series.
5. Defendant ACTIVISION describes itself as "a leading worldwide
developer, publisher and distributor of interactive entertainment and leisure products." Its
revenues support this claim. In 2012, ACTIVISION reported in its Annual 10-KReport to the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission a consolidated net revenue of $4.9 billion
for 2012 and a consolidated net income of $1.1 billion. ACTIVISION'S principle place of
business is California, but it sells its games directly to consumers throughout the country
3
COMPLAINT
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
through its website www.activision.com and indirectly through major retailers inall fifty states
and around the world.
IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTIONVIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
3344 AND COMMON LAW RIGHT OF PUBLICITY
1. Plaintiff incorporates herein by this referenceeach and every allegation
contained in each paragraph above.
2. At all relevant times, Plaintiff had the sole and exclusive right of publicity
with regard to the use of his name arid likeness as displayedand portrayed in BLACKOPS II
and all correspondingadvertisingmaterials disseminatedby Defendants.
3. Defendants used the name, image, and likeness of Plaintiff in the video game
BLACK OPS II without Plaintiffs or his representatives' permission, consent or
authorization.
4. Plaintiff was readily identifiable in the video game, insofar as one who views
the photograph with a naked eye can reasonably determine that the person depicted in the
photograph is the same personwho is complaining of its unauthorized use.
5. Plaintiff is identified by name on numerous occasions throughout BLACK
OPS II.
6. Defendants' unauthorized and unlawful use of Plaintiff s name and
likeness was willful, intentional, and knowing and was done for the direct purpose of
profiting off of and gaining a commercial benefit through the popularity and sales of BLACK
OPS II.
7. The acts alleged above constitute a violation of California Civil Code 3344 and
Plaintiffs common law right of publicity.
COMPLAINT
iv1
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
8. As a direct andproximate resultof Defendants' unauthorized andunlawful
use of Plaintiffs name and likeness, Plaintiff suffered harm, including but not limited to
damage to his reputation and denial ofthe benefit ofthe rights ofpublicity which belong to
him.
9. Plaintiff is therefore entitled tocompensation for the willful, intentional,
unauthorized, and unlawful use ofhis name and likeness, in an amount to be proven at trial.
10. Defendants' conduct was malicious, fraudulent, oppressive and intended to
injure Plaintiff. Consequently. Plaintiff is entitled topunitive damages.
V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTIONUNJUST ENRICHMENT
1. Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference each and every allegation
contained in eachparagraph above.
2. At all relevant times, Plaintiff had the sole and exclusive right ofpublicity
with regard to the use of his image and likeness asdisplayed and portrayed in BLACK OPS II
and all corresponding advertising materials disseminated by Defendants.
3. Defendants appropriated the image and likeness of PlaintiffinBLACK
OPS II and all corresponding advertising materials disseminated by Defendants without proper
permission orauthorization. Defendants also intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs right to
publicity by misappropriating his image and likeness inBLACK OPS II.
4. Defendants' unauthorized and unlawful use ofPlaintiffs image and
likeness was intentional, willful, knowing and done for the purpose ofobtaining profit and for
the purpose of denying Plaintiff of his rightful share of any profit to be made from the
commercial use of his image and likeness.
5
COMPLAINT
U]
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. As aresult ofDefendants' unauthorized and unlawful use ofPlaintiff's image
and likeness, Defendants have been unjustly enriched in an amount to be proven attrial.
6. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensation for theunauthorized and
unlawful use of his image and likeness, in anamount tobe proven at trial.
VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIONUNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES IN
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 17200
1. Plaintiff incorporates herein bythis reference each and every allegation
contained in each paragraph above.
2. Defendants have deceived and confused the public into believing that
Plaintiff authorized, approves, and endorses the use of its name and likeness in BLACK OPS
II.
3. Defendants' acts, alleged above, constitute unfair competition inthat they
reflect untair, deceptive, untrue, and misleading business acts within the meaning of Business
and Professions Code 17200.
4. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Defendants have
unfairly and wrongfully obtained andmust disgorge profits belonging to Plaintiffin an amount
which shall be proved at trial.
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as
follows:
1. For an injunction of the following conduct:
Defendants' use of Plaintiffs' image and likeness without Plaintiffs
consent at any time in the future
COMPLAINT
I. p

1 2. For restitution in the amount of the benefit to Defendants;
2
3. For general damages sustained by Plaintiff;
3 4. For special damages sustained by Plaintiff;
4 5. For lost profits sustained by Plaintiff;
5 6. For Defendants' profits;
6 7. For an accounting;
7 8. For punitive damages;
8 9. For Plaintiffs costs;
9 10. For prejudgment interest; and
10 11. For such other and further relief as the Court may deemjust and proper.
11
12 VIII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
13 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial for all issues in this lawsuit.
14
15 Dated: July 15,2014 GIRARDI | KEESE
16
17 ^SBAHAM B. LIPPSMITH
18
Attorneys for Plaintiff
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
COMPLAINT
ATTORNEYOR PARTYWITHOUTATTORNEY(Warns, Slate Barnumber, end address):
"Graham B. LippSmith (SBN 221984}
Girarcii I Keese
1126 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
telephone no.: 213-977-0211 FAXNO.: 213-481-1554
attorney for (Namey. Plaintiff Manuel Noriega
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFLOS Angeles
STREET AOORESS: 111 N. Hill St.
mailing address: 111 N. Hill Street
cityandTip code: Los Angeles 90012
branch name: St an lev Mosk Courthouse
CASE NAME: Noriega v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.
al.
et
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
1 x 1Unlimited 1 i Limited
(Amount (Amount
demanded demanded is
exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less)
Complex Case Designation
| | Counter | ) Joinder
Filed with first appearance by defendant
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402)
FOR COURT USE ONLY
CM-010
Superior Court of California
County ofLos Angeles
JUL 15 2014
Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk
fly ^ ^kfo Deputy
Moses Soto
CASE NUMBER:
JUDGE:
OEPT:
5 5174 7
BY FAX
Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructionson page 2).
1 Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation
cz
Auto (22)

Breach of contract/warranty (06)

(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
r Uninsured motorist (46)
CZ
Rule 3.740 collections (09)
I | Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)
Other PI/PO/WD(Personal Injury/Property
n Other collections (09)
I | Construction defect (10)
Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort
n
Insurance coverage (18)
I | Masstort (40)
[ IAsbestos (04)
L_
Other contract (37) I | Securities litigation (28)
I IProduct liability (24) Real Property I J Environmental/Toxic tort (30)
f ]Medical malpractice (45) I I Eminentdomain/Inverse i I Insurancecoverage claimsarisingfrom the
[ | OtherPI/PO/WD (23)
condemnation (14)
above listed provisionally complex case
Non-PHPO/WD (Other) Tort
| | Wrongful eviction (33) types (41)
I | Business tort/unfair business practice (07)
I IOther real property (26)
Enforcement of Judgment
I | Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer I | Enforcement ofjudgment (20)
| | Defamation (13) I ICommercial (31)
Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
! J Fraud (16) | | Residential (32) RICO (27)
[__! Intellectual property (19) I IDrugs (38) | | Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
1 JProfessional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition
I x IOther non-PI/PD/WD tort (35) | IAsset forfeiture (05) II Partnership andcorporate governance (21)
Employment [ _J Petition re: arbitration award(11) I | Other petition (not specified above) (43)
[ ]] Wrongful termination (36) [ IWrit of mandate (02)
l jOther employment (15) [ IOther judicial review (39)
This case ZH is l~x"l is not complex under rule 3.400 oftheCalifornia Rules ofCourt. If thecase iscomplex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
' ' d. ZD Large number ofwitnesses
e. I I Coordination with related actions pending inoneormore courts
in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
:c. I I Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. I I Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
x ] nonmonetary; declaratory orinjunctive relief c. |~~x~l punitive
a. j I Largenumber of separately represented parties
b. | | Extensivemotion practice raisingdifficult or novel
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve
C.l
3."-"Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. (~x~l monetary b.
4%-Number of causes of action (specify): three (3)
5-"'This case | I is LxJ is not a class action suit.
6i/lf there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You mayuse form CM^015.)
Date: July 15, 2014
Graham B. LippSmith (SBN 221984)
f ! (TYPE ORPRINT NAME)
-, NOTICE
"Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
rounder the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and InstitutionsCode). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result
r< insanctions.
-'''File thiscover sheet inaddition to anycover sheet requiredby local court rule.
If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on alt
other parties to the action or proceeding.
Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only.
Page1of 2
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
Judicial Council d California
CM-OIOIRev. July 1, 2007]
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET,
Solucions-
$5* Plus
oal Cal. Rules ofCourt, rules 2.30. 3.220. 3.400-3.403, 3.740;
Cal. Standards of JgdidaJ Adminislrason, std. 3.10
instructions on howto complete thf cnvFR ^hfft ~,.,-.v
statistics about the types and numbesofwses ? vi f <? ?co"ta,ned on P39* 1- s information will be used to compile
one box for the casetvoo that betZlcliZfLt ?, t?5' C?ple(e "ems !^^h 6on th ^et In item 1, you must check
check tl rnoro t^Tn^t^^J^ZZ**bf!neral and amore sPecific ^<* *** *" L
To assist you In comptellmthe she*L.Z ft " 3CS'Qn' Check ,he box that best indicates lhe Primarv caus of action,
sheet ^^Xi^^F2^i?fiT^ r?9 Undtr e3Ch eMe'l* in i,em 1are *** **' A"
its counsel, or both to icJ^T^io^^'uSK^ST"""*8*" ""^ "^' ^
which property services or monav wal VIZ1 1 * !, GXC'US'Ve f mtefesl and 8ito^ey's fees, arising from a transaction In
damage i<2)'^'<^mZ^%T" t***1' <*** d0es not inc,uda an ac,lon **"*<he fo,towi"9- <1>tort
aLSnt. TheS^ recovery.of personal property, or (5) a%reiud9men. writ of
tfrne-for-servfce reQuirewntTandr^nLL* ,7 co,,ectJ0ns * on ,his f means that it will be exempt from the general
LsePirtc!>mpr|ex0iTaPSSS'^lT^ T* ^ Paf1'eS miiSt 3fS US9 She C'V* Csse O^S*st *> designate whether ihe
tS?dtaL?Z^^Z^ maV f"e and Sew m,3lef than * time of ils to appearance ajoinder in .he
the SLis comptex COun,efdesi9nal:0ft ,hat ,he <*** *no. complex, or. if the plaintiff has made no designation, adesignation that
CASETYPES AND EXAMPLES
Auto Tort
Auto (22)~Porsonal Injury/Properly
Damage/Wrorxjlul Daalh
Uninsured MotOfl6. (48)(ifthe
case Involves an uninsured
motorist cfafmsubjectto
arbitration, check this item
Insteadof Auto)
OtherPt/PD/WD (Personal Injury/
Property Damage/Wrongful Death)
Tort
Asbestos (04)
Asbestos Property Damage
Asbestos Personal Injury/
. Wrongful Death
Product Liability (not asbestos or
toxlc/envlronmenta!) (24)
Medical Malpractice (45)
Medical Malpracllcs-
Physfclans &Surgeons
Other Professional Health Care
Malpractice
Other PWPD/WD (23)
Premises Uab)6ly (e.g., slip
and feB)
Intertkmsl BodJy InjuryyPDAM)
(o.Q^ aasault, vandalism)
Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress
Negligent InWcdon of
Emotional Distress
OihafPVPD/vM)
Non-PlrPDWD(Other) Tort
Bustnes* Tort/Unfair Business
Practice <07)
OS RJ^>le(0.g:, dlscrtmlnaBon.
felso arrest) (not ch>8
,;":) harassment) (OS)
Defairtatlon(e.g., stancer. Bbel)
I (13)
Fraud (16)
'" Intei/ectual Property(18)
k-.;. Professional NegBgenoa (25)
Legal Mefp/acUco
yi OtherProfessionalMalpractlca
(notmedical orlegal)
'"* CharNorvPI/PDArVDTort(35)
Employment
is V*on8fulTeirn(n8tJor.(36)
(T\ OtherEmptoyment (16)
- I ..
4rOIOJR., July I. 2007)
Contract
Breach o( Contract/Warranty (06)
Oieach ol ftenlal/Lease
Cortrad (notunlawful detainer
or wrongful eviction)
Cont/actArVerranty Breacrv-Seller
Plalnl/lf (not fraud ornegligence)
NegKoent Breach of Contract/
Warranty
Other Breach of CortractAfVafranty
Collections (e.g.. money owed, open
book accounts) (08)
CoBecUonCase-Seller Plaintiff
OtherPromissory Note/Collections
Case
Insurance Coverage (notprovisionally
complex}(t8)
Aufo Subrogation
OtherCoverage
Other Contract (37)
Com/actual Fraud
OtherContract Dispute
Real Property
Emtnent Domain/Inverse
Condemnation (14)
VvronaM Eviction f)
Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) (26)
Writ ofPossession ofReal Properly
Mortgage Foreclosure
Quiet Title
OtherReal Properly (not eminent
domain, lendhrd/lemnt, or
foreclosure)
Unlawful Detainer
Commercial (31)
Resldenllal (32)
Drue* (38) {tithe caseInvolves Illegal
drvgs, cftec*thisItem; otherwise,
mpoit as CommanMorReskloatfah
Judicial Review
Asset Forfeiture (05)
Petition Re: Arbitration Award (it)
Writof Mandate (02)
Wm-TAdmWslratfve Mandamus
WHI-Mandaoiu* on LimitedCourt
Case Matter
Writ-Other UmftedCourt Case
Review
Other Judicial RevtewDS)
Review of Health Officer Order
Noticeol Appeal-Labor
Commissioner Appeab
CIVILCASECOVERSHEET
ProvisionallyComplexCivil Litigation (Cat.
Rules of Court Rulos 3.400-3.403)
Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03)
Construction Delect(10)
ClaimsInvolving Mass Tort (40)
Securilles Litigation (28)
Bivtronmentel/ToxIcTort (30)
Insurance Coverage Claims
(arisingfromprovisionallycomplex
case type 8sted*bovo) (41)
Enforcement of Judgment
Enforcement ofJudgment (20)
Abstract of Judgment (Out of
County)
ConfessionofJudgment (non-
domaslkmlaUons)
Sister State Judgment
AdministrativeAgency Award
(not unpaidtaxes)
PetSBorVCerllScatlon of Entry of
Judgment on Unpaid Taxes
Other Enforcement of Judgment
Case
Miscellaneous CtvU Complaint
RICO(2?)
Other Complefnl (notspecified
above) (42)
Declaratory ReSef Only
Injunctive ReliefOnly(non-
harassment)
Mechanics Lien
OtherCommercial Complaint
Case (non-tortAxtn-comphx)
Other ChrO Complaint
fcofrtotVnorhcoinpfox)
Miscellaneous CtvU Petition
Partnership and Corporate
Governance (21)
Other Petition(notspecified
above) (43)
CMI Harassment
Workplace Violence
Ekter/Dependent Adult
Abuse
Election Contest
Petition forNameChangs
Petition for Relief From tale
Claim
OiharCMPetWon
P8*<XJ