They Could Be Heroes v. Simson Complaint PDF

ft
GRADSTEIN & MARZANO, p.c.

2
3
4
Henry Gradstein, (State Bar No. 89747)

hgradstein@gradstein.cora
Maryann R. Marzano (StateBarNo. 96867)
tnmarzano@gradstein.com
Matthew A.Slater (State Bar No. 259986)
00
Superior Sour? of California
County of Los Angeles
mslater@gradstein.com
6310 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 510
NOV 1 0 2014
Los Angeles, California 90048
Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk
By UiAjfc**J'JJ^JLj^J
Deputy
1
Tel: (323) 776-3100
Cfistinai Grijali)
Grijala
FINK & STEINBERG

7
8
9
10
11
Keith A. Fink (State BarNo. 146841)

kfink@finksteinberg.com
S. Keven Steinberg (State BarNo. 151372)
ksteinberg@finksteinberg.com
OlafJ. Muller (State BarNo. 247372)
omuller@finksteinberg.com
11500 Olympic Boulevard, Suite316
LosAngeles, California 90064
Telephone: (310) 268-0780
Facsimile: (310) 268-0790
12
Attorneys for Plaintiff

13
THEY COULD BE HEROES, LLC

and THOMAS RABOIN
14
^5 vU ^O^MkOkJ
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

15
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

16
17
THEY COULD BE HEROES, LLC, a

California limitedliability company; and
THOMAS RABOIN, an individual,
- NO.
CASE
BC56 3 47 0
PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR:
18
Plaintiffs,
1.
2.
19
3.
vs.
4.
20
21
GARYSIMSON, an individual; and DOES 1

to 50, inclusive,
h-
Defendants.
NCE
INTENTIONAL IN
WITH PROSPECT
RELATIONS;
2 m2
5.
BREACH OFfl^pilR^|>TY m
6.
DECLARAT^iaMLTEF;,? *
rr
22
BREACH OF CONTRACT;
FRAUD;
CONVERSION;
7.
0 \ oi
K
-t
24
>
PRELIMINARY^CNrD PERMANENT*
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF S
23
j>
[JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]

o
o
25
26
-1-
PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
*
o
w
en
o
o
o
o
COME NOW PLAINTIFFS THEY COULD BE HEROES, LLC and THOMAS
RABOIN and hereby allege as follows:

PARTIES
3
4
1.
PLAINTIFF THEY COULD BE HEROES, LLC ("Plaintiff" and/or TCBH") is
andat all timesrelevant hereto was a California limited liability company that maintains offices and
does business in Los Angeles County, California.
2.
PLAINTIFF THOMAS RABOIN ("Plaintiff" and/or "Raboin")) is and at all
times relevant hereto was an individual residing in Los Angeles County, California. (TCBH and
Raboin are collectively referred to herein as "Plaintiffs".)
10
11
12
3.
DEEFENDANT GARY SIMSON ("Defendant" and/or Simson" ) is and at all
times relevant hereto was an individual residing in LosAngeles County, California.

4.
Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities, whether individual,
13
corporate, associate or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 to 50, inclusive ("the DOE
14
Defendants"), and therefore sue said DOE Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will
15
seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of such DOE
16
Defendants when the same has been ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon
17
allege that each of the fictitiously-named Defendants is responsible to Plaintiffs for the injuries
18
suffered and alleged herein, and/oris subject to thejurisdiction ofthe Courtas necessary party for
19
the relief herein requested.
20
5.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant Simson and each of the DOE
21
Defendants (collectively, "Defendants") are now and were at all times mentioned herein the
t-
22
agents, principals, partners, joint venturers, employees and/or alter-egos of the other Defendants,
~ 23
and that allof the acts and conductalleged herein were performed within the course andscope and
24
in furtherance of such agency, partnership, joint venture, employment and/or alter-ego
25
relationship.
26
-lr
6.
Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court because the wrongful acts and
omissions alleged occurred in the County ofLos Angeles, the harm suffered by Plaintiffs occurred
in the County ofLos Angeles, and Defendant is and atall times relevant herein was doingbusiness
intheCounty ofLos Angeles, State ofCalifornia.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
6
7
7.
Plaintiffs re-allege, and incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 6,
inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
8.
In or about February 2008, Plaintiff Raboin was introduced to Defendant Simson
through a shared business associate, Troy Bogert ("Bogert"). Raboin first met with Defendant in
10
Burbank, California to discuss a then-untided film project, which came to be known as "They
11
Could BeHeroes" (the "Film").
12
9.
During this meeting, Defendant Simson described the Film as a project whereby
13
some ofthe biggest names in the music industry including but not limited to a number ofcelebrity
14
musicians, would be interviewed for the Film. Simson explained that the Film would center on
15
Waddy Wachtel, asession musician famous within the music industry for playing and collaborating
16
with various high-profile rock musicians, a roster which included but was not limited to Keith
17
Richards, Roger Daltry, Robert Plant, Joe Walsh, Stevie Nicks, Iggy Pop, Jackson Browne, James
18
Taylor, and many others. Simson specifically represented to Raboin that he could and would
19
interview many if not all of these high-profile musicians, among others, in connection with the
20
Film to reminisce about their times with Wachtel. In subsequent meetings, Raboin and Simson
21
further developed the Film's structure to include live performances of these musicians with
22
Wachtel at a rock and roll club then called "the Joint" at 8771 W. Pico Bivd, Los Angeles, CA
23
90035, during which segments these musicians would play some of the more famous songs on
24
which Wachtel had collaborated. Raboin explained to Simson that the greater the number ofhigh-
25
profile musicians and celebrities interviewed by Simson for the Film during production, the easier
26
it would be for Raboin to raiseinvestment funds needed to complete the Film.

'
-_t
10.
During the initial meeting, Simson explained to Raboin that he needed Raboin's
help to raise capital for the Film and to otherwise handle the business affairs ofthis project. Simson
explained that he had already conducted and filmed a number ofthese interviews himself under
the moniker "Gary Simson Productions," which interviews and footage would be incorporated
intothe Film. Simson estimated that the remainder of the Film would takeapproximately one and
one-half (1-1/2) years to complete. Raboin expressed interest in the project, and the two agreed to
continue their discussions.
11.
On or about March 3, 2008, Defendant Simson e-mailed Plaintiff Raboin his
business plan for making and financing the Film. In this e-mail, Simson set forth his personal
10
financial estimates on first returns to investors, a list of prospective interviewees, a discussion
11
regarding cost deferment, and his plans relating to a theatrical release of the Film. Simson also
12
outlined abudget for the Film, wherein he listed his personal fees for services to be rendered in
13
connection with the Film at $52,800 in exchange for twenty-four (24) weeks of work. Simson
14
further (under) estimated the cost to obtain music rights for the Film at atotal of $240,000 for the
15
useof forty(40) songs.
12.
16
Shortly thereafter and over the next four (4) years, the parties commenced filming,
17
marketing, developing, and editing the Film as agreed. In reliance on Defendant Simson's conduct
18
and comments to Plaintiffs, Plaintiff TCBH purchased thousands ofdollars' worth ofequipment
19
to film and edit the Film via capital calls which were funded almost entirely by Plaintiff Raboin
20
himself. PlaintiffTCBH also hired various third-party contractors to work on the Film. During this
*"'
21
time period, the parties regularly referred to one another as "business partners" with one other
v--
22
and with third parties including, but not limited to, potential distributors and marketers of the
% 23
;: 24
H
Film.
13.
The parties' mutual business associate, Bogert, was initially involved in the Project.
25
The parties initially agreed that Bogert would serve as the Film's editor. Within approximately
26
nine (9) months of these initial meetings, however, Bogert left the project, frustrated with
r.
+-
-_
1
1
Defendant Simson's lack ofprogress in securing and conducting the various musician interviews,
which in turn made it exceedingly difficult to raise funding sufficient to pay Bogert's requested
fees.
14.
On or around March 30, 2008, the parties, with Bogert, drafted their first Private
Placement Memorandum ("PPM") wherein they outlined their joint business plan with respect to
the Film for prospective investors in the project. The purpose of the PPM was to raise funds for
the project which would be managed through a limited liability company (the "LLC") they
intended to create.
15.
In exchange for hiswork filming, editing and conducting mostof the interviews, the
10
parties agreed that Defendant Simson would be paid a $52,500 fee from PlaintiffTCBH, which fee
11
would be separate from his member share of the LLC's projected future profits (from the Film's
12
eventual sale and distribution). The parties referenced this fee in this initial PPM as an expense of
13
the LLC. Over the next few years, Simson repeatedly demanded that his fee be increased to
14
$93,000, neardouble the originally agreed-upon amount.
15
16.
On or about April 23, 2008, Plaintiff Raboin, Defendant Simson, and Troy Bogert
16
formed Plaintiff They Could Be Heroes, LLC, as a California limited liability company, for the
17
purpose of creating, filming, editing, marketing, developing, and distributing the Film. All three
18
individuals initially served as co-Managers ofTCBH. When Bogert leftthe project later that year,
19
PlaintiffRaboin and Defendant Simson became thesole remaining co-Managers ofTCBH.
20
17.
On or about May 16, 2008, Raboin, Simson and Bogert entered into a written
h'
21
Operating Agreement forTCBH (the "Operating Agreement"), which generally memorialized the
*-
22
terms of their operation and management of TCBH. A true and correct copy thereofis attached
23
hereto as Exhibit A.
r 24
h
18.
Pursuant to the terms of the OperatingAgreement, Plaintiffand Defendants agreed
25
to create, produce, film, edit, market, develop, and distribute the Film under the sole control,
26
ownership, and authorship of PlaintiffTCBH. Exhibit A. Pursuant to the terms of the Operating
J:
Agreement, Plaintiff and Defendants also agreed that the Film and all related materials including,
but not limited to, all video and audio footage, edited materials, derivative materials, marketing
materials, distribution materials, paperwork, correspondence, and other such items, would be
owned (and ultimately distributed and/or sold) solely by Plaintiff TCBH, for which purpose they
formed and managed this entity. Exhibit A.
19.
In June 2008, Plaintiff Raboin drafted and distributed a new PPM for investment
purposes. Simson personally reviewed and approved it prior to circulation. As set forth inthis new
PPM, the parties sought to raise $1 million in investment funds on or by December 1, 2008.
Further, by its terms, Plaintiff Raboin was to receive a ten per cent (10%) commission on any
10
investment funds raised. Notwithstanding Raboin's bestefforts, the parties were able to raise only
11
a scant $30,000 bythe December 1,2008 deadline.
12
20.
During the first year of TCBH's operations, Simson interviewed a number of
13
musicians for the Film, but he was only able to secure and conduct the filmed interview of one
14
high-profile musician - George Thorogood.
15
21.
On or about October 28, 2008, Plaintiff Raboin pre-registered the copyright for the
16
Film on behalf of the LLC. He specifically pre-registered the Film's author/owner as Plaintiff
17
They Could Be Heroes, LLC.
18
22.
Through 2009, Plaintiff Raboin contacted and contracted with various third parties
19
for graphics and editing work in connection with the Film. He hired cameramen, a film editor (to
20
replace Bogert), a production assistant, an associate producer, and other individuals to assist
21
Simson in the Film's pre-production, filming, and post-production work. He made a point of
y-
22
keeping Plaintiff Raboin apprised of his work and progress and regularly sent invoices to Plaintiff
^ 23
r 24
Raboin to coverthese various Film-related expenses, which PlaintiffRaboin did.
23.
In 2009, Plaintiff Raboin prepared a third PPM to again try to raise more money for
T 25 the Film project. He again sent it to Simson, who personally reviewed andapproved it beforehand.
26
__
By and through this third PPMS the parties sought to raise $1 million by the end of2009. This
time, PlaintiffRaboin was able to raise $180,000 from various investors.
24.
Through 2009, Defendant Simson interviewed eleven (11) more musicians. As in
2008, only two - Jackson Browne and Mick Fleetwood - were relatively high-profile musicians as
the parties had discussed.
25.
In 2010, after working onthe Film for over two years, Defendant Simson's interest
in the Film appeared to be flagging. Simson only interviewed two (2) musicians during the entire
year, neither ofwhom was particularly well-known.
26.
Around this time in 2010, Defendant Simson abruptly asked Raboin how he could
10
"limit his liability" on the Film and in connection with the LLC. Surprised by this query, Raboin
ii
asked what Simson had in mind. Simson responded by explaining to Raboin that he no longer
12
wished to be personally responsible for the Film's sale and distribution, or for the LLC's
13
management and operations. He further explained that he merely wanted to produce and direct the
14
film inexchange for a flat fee, like the LLC's other third-party contractors. Raboin suggested that
15
Simson remove himself as co-Manager ofTCBH, in place ofwhich Raboin, acting on the LLC's
16
behalf, would contract with Simson toserve as a producer/director on the project. As part ofthese
17
discussions, Simson asked Raboin for a detailed accounting of the LLC's finances, which Raboin
18
provided. Raboin also prepared a fourth PPM to seek another round ofinvestor funding for the
19
Film, which he again sentto Simson beforehand for his review.
20
27.
The parties henceforth commenced negotiations of the terms of Simson's
21
producer/director agreement. During the subsequent two (2) year-long negotiations period,
22
Simson continued to perform his previously agreed upon producer/director duties for TCBH, but
". 23 ceased performing any LLC management duties as TCBH's co-Manager, leaving Plaintiff Raboin
.
24
as the sole remaining Manager ofPlaintiff TCBH. Simson subsequently confirmed as much in e-
25
mails and verbal communications with Plaintiff Raboin.
f-
26
28.
In 2011, Defendant Simson managed to secure and film eight (8) additional
musician interviews, the most high-profile of which was that of Fleetwood Mac's vocalist, Stevie
Nicks.
29.
During this same year, Defendant Simson sharply increased his spending ofTCBH
funds for purported Film-related expenses. When Raboin questioned Simson's sudden "need" for
the requested expenditures, Simson complained to Raboin that the Film was underfunded and that
Raboin needed to increase his fundraising efforts on TCBH's behalf. Raboin in turn prepared a
fifth PPM to seek yet another round ofinvestor funding for the project.
30.
During the first few months of 2012, the parties' ongoing negotiations regarding the
10
terms of Defendant Simson's producer/director agreement stalled, as Simson increasingly
11
demanded exceedingly high fees for his services that Plaintiff TCBH simply could not afford.
12
Raboin repeatedly explained to Simson that TCBH simply could not afford to pay Defendant
13
Simson his demanded $93,000 fee and cover other production expenses. During these
14
negotiations, Simson repeatedly proposed that he personally take over the entire Film project from
15
Plaintiffs including, but not limited to, the Film's ownership, distribution, and marketing efforts,
16
which offers PlaintiffRaboin politely declined.
17
31.
On or aroundMarch 23,2012, Defendant Simson announced to Raboin that he was
18
"resigning" from Plaintiff TCBH as a member and as a producer/director and that he wanted
19
nothing further to do with Plaintiffs whatsoever. He further demanded that "all references" to his
20
name be removed from "the LLC's website, literature, bank account(s), promotional materials,
21
and all appropriate government documents." As part of his resignation letter, Simson accused
r-
22
Raboin of financially mismanaging the Film and failing to account for various Film-related
" 23
expenses, even though Raboin had repeatedly provided thorough and accurate accountings on
.-
24
demand to Simson. Simson's accusation of mismanagement was particularly ironic insofar as
H 25
Simson personally depleted the company's funds through his sudden increase in "expense
4;
26
reimbursements" in 2011.
32.
At the time that Defendant Simson cut all ties with the Film in March 2012,
Plaintiff Raboin had raised approximately half a million dollars for the Film's marketing,
development, filming, and editing. The various investors in the Film collectively owned fifteen
percent (15%) ofPlaintiff TCBH at this time. When Simson quit Plaintiff TCBH entirely, Plaintiff
Raboin assumed ownership ofSimson's membership share.
33.
Notwithstanding the same, Defendant Simson refused to relinquish TCBH's
equipment that he had used to film and edit the Film. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, moreover,
Defendant Simson failed to relinquish all copies of the Film itself including, but not limited to, all
footage filmed, all edited material and all other physical material relating to the Film in his
10
11
possession, custodyand control.
34.
Ratherthan return LLC property to Plaintiff TCBH and relinquish hisinvolvement
12
with the Film,Defendant Simson instead continued to conduct interviews forthe Filmon hisown,
13
as if he had never entered into the Operating Agreement or other agreements with Plaintiffs.
14
Defendant Simson started an online fundraising campaign in or about 2013 to raise funds to
15
continue the filming, editing, marketing and distribution work for the Film, in which campaign
16
materials he claimed that the project was his and his alone. He also changed the Film's name to
17
"King of the Sidemen," to hide his conversion of the Film for himself from Plaintiffs and their
18
investors.
19
20
21
22
35.
Plaintiffs have since had no choice but to seek judicial redress for their grievances
against Defendant Simson.
..
K
23
24
25
26
-9-
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT
(By Plaintiffs against All Defendants)
36.
Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-35, inclusive,
as though fully set forth herein.
37.
On orabout May 16,2008, Plaintiff Raboin and Defendant Simson entered into the
Operating Agreement, which generally memorialized the terms oftheir operation and management
of Plaintiff TCBH. Exhibit A.
38.
Pursuant to the terms of the Operating Agreement, Plaintiffs and Defendant
10
Simson agreed tocreate, produce, film, edit, market and distribute the Film under the control and
11
ownership of Plaintiff TCBH. Exhibit A. Pursuant to the terms of the Operating Agreement,
12
Plaintiff Raboin and Defendant Simson also agreed that the Film itself and all footage, marketing
13
materials, and related items and property would be owned exclusively by Plaintiff TCBH. Exhibit
14
A.
15
16
17
39.
The Operating Agreement represents a valid and binding written contract, the
terms of which are certain and enforceable.
40.
Plaintiffs performed their obligations under the Operating Agreement, save those
18
obligations that have been waived, excused or prevented by Defendants' actions, omissions and/or
19
breaches.
20
41.
As alleged above, Defendant Simson has converted the Film for his own personal
21
use in breach of the Operating Agreement, and he has continued to create, produce, film, edit,
22
market and distribute theFilm for his own personal use inbreach oftheOperating Agreement, and
23
in derogation ofthe rights ofPlaintiffs and to theirdetriment.
24
42.
Defendants' breaches were undertakenwithout justification or excuse.
^ 25
43.
Plaintiffs' damages are a certain, foreseeable, and measurable consequence of
26
Defendants' breaches. As a direct and proximate result of said breaches, Plaintiffs have been
_(_
damaged in an amount to be proven at trial according to proof, and which they believe to be in
excess of $10 million, plus pre-judgment interestthereon at the maximum legal rate.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
FRAUD
(By Plaintiff Raboin against All Defendants)
6
7
8
44.
asthrough fully set forth herein.

45.
As alleged above, Defendant Simson repeatedly lied and misrepresented his true
intentions to PlaintiffRaboin to induce him intogoing intobusiness with Defendant, to induce him
10
into forming Plaintiff TCBH with Defendant Simson, and to induce Plaintiffs into continuing to
11
fund and otherwise assist with the filming, editing, marketing anddistribution of the Film. During
12
their initial meetings in 2008, Defendant Simson repeatedly represented to PlaintiffRaboin that he
13
had every intention of sharing the profits and control of the Film with Plaintiff Raboin. During
14
their subsequent meetings in 2010 - 2012 relating to their producer/director agreement
15
negotiations, Defendant Simson repeatedly represented to Plaintiff Raboin that he wished to be
16
paid a flat fee for his producer/director services in lieu of any rights to the Film's ownership,
17
marketing, control, and profits. At no point in time did Defendant Simson inform Plaintiff Raboin
18
that he had no intention of doing any of the above and instead had every intention of taking the
19
Film's controland profits for himself.
20
^
21
22
'l 23
46.
Defendant's representations and omissions of material fact were false, false at the
time they were made, and continued to be false through the date offiling this lawsuit.
47.
Defendant knew these representations and omissions of material fact were false,
false at the time they were made, and false through the point intime when he "resigned" from the
^ 24 project in 2012, but he intentionally made them anyway. Defendant intentionally made these false
H
25
representations and omissions of material fact to induce Plaintiff into going into business with
r.
26
__
Defendant and to further induce Plaintiff into continuing to fond and otherwise assist with the
filming, editing, marketing, and distribution oftheFilm.
48.
Had Defendant Simson been honest, forthcoming and truthful about his true
intentions with respect to the Film, Plaintiff Raboin would never have gone into business with
Defendant, and Plaintiff Raboin would never have permitted or authorized Defendant to work on
the Film. Defendant understood this, and yet willfully and fraudulently induced Plaintiff into going
into business with him and funding, editing, marketing and distributing the Film to Plaintiff's
ultimate detriment.
49.
Plaintiff was reasonably justified in relying on the false representations and
10
omissions of material fact made by Defendant. Plaintiff relied on these representations and
11
omissions because he had no reason to disbelieve these statements given the years-long History of
12
working together with Defendant on the Film. Plaintiff otherwise developed a personal friendship
13
with Defendant Simson and did not believe that his friend woulddeceive him in such a despicable,
14
uglymanner.
15
50.
Plaintiffs damages are a certain, foreseeable and measurable consequence of
16
Defendants' lies, misrepresentations and omissions. As a direct and proximate result of
17
Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial
18
according to proof, and which they believe to be in excess of $10 million, plus pre-judgment
19
interest thereon at the maximum legal rate.
20
51.
Defendant's actions were willful, fraudulent and/or malicious within the meaning
"
21
of California Civil Code 3294, thereby entitling Plaintiff to recover exemplary and punitive
22
damages in anamount according to proof at trial.
'" 23
k
24
25
a
26
-12-
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
CONVERSION
52.
4
5
53.
Plaintiffs were atall times mention herein, and are currently, the rightful owners of
the Film and ail related materials thereto, including, but not limited to, all footage filmed,
photographs, edited segments of the Film, audio portions of the Film, and all marketing materials,
correspondence, notes, credit sequences, paperwork, papers, and derivative versions oftheFilm.
54.
10
11
13
55.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege thatDefendant Simson
has converted the Film and all related materials thereto tohis own personal use.
56.
14
15
Defendant Simson knew at all times relevant herein that the Film and related
materials thereto rightfully belong to the Plaintiffs.
12
Defendant Simson has ignored Plaintiffs' requests that he relinquish control of the
Film and all related materials thereto to them.
57.
16
Plaintiffs' damages are a certain, foreseeable and measurable consequence of
17
Defendant's wrongful conduct. As adirect and proximate result ofDefendant's wrongful conduct,
18
Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount tobe proven at trial according to proof, and which they
19
believe to be in excess of $10 million, plus pre-judgment interest thereon at the maximum legal
20
h
Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1- 35, inclusive,
21
rate.
58.
H 22
of California Civil Code 3294, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to recover exemplary and punitive
^ 23
damages in anamount according to proofat trial.
[: 24
r-
25
f-.
4-
26
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS

59.
, 5
6
60.
PlaintiffRaboin and Defendant Simson agreed to create, produce, film, edit, market
and distribute the Film under the control and ownership ofPlaintiff TCBH. Exhibit A. Pursuant
to the terms ofthe Operating Agreement, Plaintiff and Defendants agreed that the Film would be
10
owned entirely by PlaintiffTCBH, for which purpose they formed this entity. Exhibit A.
61.
11
After "resigning" from TCBH, Defendant Simson has continued to film, edit,
12
market, and distribute the Film to various third parties, including but not limited to raising
13
additional funds for the same by soliciting money from the general public using the website
14
Kickstarter.com. in breach of the Operating Agreement. Defendant further has "renamed" the
15
film "King of the Sidemen" and marketed it as such, as though he never had any business
16
relationship relating to the film with Plaintiffs in the first place. This has direcdy interfered with
17
Plaintiffs' own ongoing efforts to film, edit, market, and distribute the Film on their own behalf, as
18
well as solicit investment to fund the same.
19
62.
Defendant Simson's actions were undertaken without justification orexcuse.
20
63.
Plaintiffs' damages are a certain, foreseeable and measurable consequence of
21
Defendant's wrongful conduct. As adirect and proximate result ofDefendant's wrongful conduct,
y. 22
Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial according to proof, and which they
I*"
U 23 believe to be in excess of$10 million, plus pre-judgment interest thereon at the maximum legal
K.
24
rate.
25
J:
26
-14-
64.
damages inan amount according to proofat trial.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
65.
Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege, and incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-35,
inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

66.
By virtue of his status as TCBH's co-manager pursuant to the terms of the
10
Operating Agreement, Defendant Simson owed duties of fiduciary loyalty and care to Plaintiff
11
Raboin and Plaintiff TCBH.
67.
12
As alleged herein, Defendant Simson breached both of his fiduciary duties to
13
Plaintiffs by: (a) failing to interview the celebrity musicians he had purportedly lined up to
14
participate in the Film as he had previously promised; (b) requesting reimbursement for excessive
15
expenditures, thereby causing TCBH's account to become depleted; and (c) effectively "stealing"
16
the Film and related materials from Plaintiffs for his own personal use in breach of the Operating
17
Agreement, and to Plaintiffs' detriment.
68.
18
*-
Plaintiffs' damages are a certain, foreseeable, and measurable consequence of
19
Defendant's breaches of fiduciary duties. As a direct and proximate result of said breaches,
20
Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to beproven at trial according to proof, and which they
21
believe to be in excess of $10 million, plus pre-judgment interest thereon at the maximum legal
rate.
C-
'
23
69.
Z 24
damages in an amount according to proofat trial.
25
r-
26
-jjt
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
DECLARATORY RELIEF
70.
as thoughfully set forth herein.
71.
An actual controversy has arisen and now exists as between Plaintiffs and
Defendant Simson concerning their respective rights and duties under the Operating Agreement
and with respect to the Film and all related materials thereto. Plaintiffs contend that Plaintiff
TCBH owns all rights and title to the Film pursuant to the Operating Agreement, and that
10
Defendant Simson's continued work on the Film for his own personal use is a breach of the
11
Operating Agreement.
72.
12
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and onthatbasis allege, that Defendant Simson
13
disputes that he has breached the terms of the Agreement as alleged above, and that he further
14
disputes Plaintiffs' contention that they have the sole right to ownership and control over the
15
Film.
16
73.
Plaintiffs desire a judicial determination ofthe parties' respective rights and duties
17
relating to the Film, a declaration that the Operating Agreement has been breached by
18
Defendants, and a declaration that Plaintiff TCBH owns all rights, title and interest inand to the
19
Film and all related materials thereto. Ajudicial determination is necessary and appropriate atthis
20
time under the circumstances in order that the Plaintiffs may ascertain their rights and duties
k- 21
under the Operating Agreement, and to resolve, among other things, the rightful ownership and
k 22
possession of the Film and all related materials thereto.
"~ 23
^ 24
G
r-
25
26
-16-
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
4
5
74.
Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-35, inclusive, as
thoughfully set forth herein.
75.
The actions of Defendant alleged above have caused, and continue to cause, great
and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs, which cannot adequately be measured solely by monetary
damages.
76.
Plaintiffs are entided to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining and
10
prohibiting Defendant Simson, and any and all ofhis agents, servants, assigns and all others acting
11
in concert with or on behalf of Defendant, from taking any action in connection with the Film
12
inconsistent with Plaintiffs' ownership thereof including, without limitation, continuing to create,
13
produce, film, edit, market and distribute the Film, transferring any interest in the Film oraffecting
14
titleto the Film in anymanner.
15
16
17
18
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs THEY COULD BE HEROES, LLC and THOMAS RABOIN
pray for judgment against Defendants GARY SIMSON and DOES 1through 50 as follows:
1.
accordance withproofat the time oftrial, in excess of $10 million;
19
20
{-*.'
2.
3.
y- 25
For a declaration that Plaintiffs own all rights, tide and interest in and to the Film
and all related materials thereto;
r 23
f2 24
For a declaration that the Operating Agreement has been breached by Defendant
Simson;
21
22
For general and compensatory damages, including prejudgment interest, in
4.
For disgorgement/restitution of Defendant's ill-gotten gains, including, but not

limited to, any and all profits made by Defendant Simson in connection with the
~ 26
-17-
PLAINTIFFS' complaint
Film and the immediate return of the Film and all related materials thereto to
Plaintiffs' possession, custody, and control;
For an Order enjoining and prohibiting Defendants and any and all oftheir agents,
servants, assigns and all others acting in concert with or on behalf of Defendants,
from taking any action in connection with the Film inconsistent with Plaintiffs'
ownership thereof including, without limitation, continuing to create, produce,
film, edit, market and distribute the Film, from transferring any interest in the Film,
and from affecting title tothe Film inany manner;
6.
For punitive damages in favor of Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined at trial
10
according to proof;
11
ForPlaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees, as permitted by law;
12
and
13
14
8.
'
Forsuch other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: November 10,2014
GRADSTEIN & MARZANO, P.C.

HENRY GRADSTEIN
MARYANN R. MARZANO
MATTHEW A. SLATER
15
16
-and17
FINK & STEINBERG

KEITH A. FINK
18
S.KEVEN STEINBERG
OLAF J. MJ
19
20
21
i- 22
'* 23
K
By:
OLAFjrMULLER
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
THEY COULD BE HEROES, LLC,
and THOMAS RABOIN
24
>- 25
i:
26
-18-
PLAINTIFFS' complaint
1
2
3
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs demand atrial by jury ofall issues triable by ajury.

Dated: November 10,2014
GRADSTEIN &MARZANO, P.C.

HENRY GRADSTEIN
MARYANN R. MARZANO
MATTHEW A. SLATER
-and6
FINK& STEINBERG
KEITH A. FINK
OLAFJ. Ml
S.KEVEN STEINBERG
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
20
K-
21
t~ 22
" 23
h: 24
H 25
r.
26
By:
OLAFJ. MULLI
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
THEY COULD BE HEROES, LLC,

and THOMAS RABOIN

They Could Be Heroes v. Simson Complaint PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

They Could Be Heroes v. Simson Complaint PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ft

GRADSTEIN & MARZANO, p.c.

Henry Gradstein, (State Bar No. 89747)

Los Angeles, California 90048

Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk

Tel: (323) 776-3100

FINK & STEINBERG

Keith A. Fink (State BarNo. 146841)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

THEY COULD BE HEROES, LLC

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

THEY COULD BE HEROES, LLC, a

PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR:

GARYSIMSON, an individual; and DOES 1

[JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]

COME NOW PLAINTIFFS THEY COULD BE HEROES, LLC and THOMAS

RABOIN and hereby allege as follows:

PLAINTIFF THEY COULD BE HEROES, LLC ("Plaintiff" and/or TCBH") is

does business in Los Angeles County, California.

PLAINTIFF THOMAS RABOIN ("Plaintiff" and/or "Raboin")) is and at all

Raboin are collectively referred to herein as "Plaintiffs".)

DEEFENDANT GARY SIMSON ("Defendant" and/or Simson" ) is and at all

times relevant hereto was an individual residing in LosAngeles County, California.

corporate, associate or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 to 50, inclusive ("the DOE

the relief herein requested.

in furtherance of such agency, partnership, joint venture, employment and/or alter-ego

intheCounty ofLos Angeles, State ofCalifornia.

Plaintiffs re-allege, and incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 6,

inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

In or about February 2008, Plaintiff Raboin was introduced to Defendant Simson

Could BeHeroes" (the "Film").

it would be for Raboin to raiseinvestment funds needed to complete the Film.

continue their discussions.

On or about March 3, 2008, Defendant Simson e-mailed Plaintiff Raboin his

financial estimates on first returns to investors, a list of prospective interviewees, a discussion

useof forty(40) songs.

$93,000, neardouble the originally agreed-upon amount.

PlaintiffRaboin and Defendant Simson became thesole remaining co-Managers ofTCBH.

Pursuant to the terms of the OperatingAgreement, Plaintiffand Defendants agreed

formed and managed this entity. Exhibit A.

a scant $30,000 bythe December 1,2008 deadline.

During the first year of TCBH's operations, Simson interviewed a number of

high-profile musician - George Thorogood.

They Could Be Heroes, LLC.

Raboin to coverthese various Film-related expenses, which PlaintiffRaboin did.

time, PlaintiffRaboin was able to raise $180,000 from various investors.

Through 2009, Defendant Simson interviewed eleven (11) more musicians. As in

the parties had discussed.

year, neither ofwhom was particularly well-known.

Film, which he again sentto Simson beforehand for his review.

The parties henceforth commenced negotiations of the terms of Simson's

mails and verbal communications with Plaintiff Raboin.

terms of Defendant Simson's producer/director agreement stalled, as Simson increasingly

which offers PlaintiffRaboin politely declined.

On or aroundMarch 23,2012, Defendant Simson announced to Raboin that he was

demand to Simson. Simson's accusation of mismanagement was particularly ironic insofar as

Raboin assumed ownership ofSimson's membership share.

Notwithstanding the same, Defendant Simson refused to relinquish TCBH's

possession, custodyand control.

Ratherthan return LLC property to Plaintiff TCBH and relinquish hisinvolvement

against Defendant Simson.