Case 3:15-cv-02245-GPC-JLB Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 13

r---------.'------~

F~lED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

R~'-O_ 10~
8

:~fDs DISTRICT COURT
OUTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA
DEf'UTY

-,111__

(333 West Broadway. Suite 420. San Diego. CA 92101)

Ronald Satish Emrit,
Plaintiff (pro Se)

)
)
)
)
)

v.
YouTube, LLC,
Google, Inc.,
Sony BMG/ Sony
Music and Entertainment,
Warner Music Group, Inc.
(WMG), Universal Music
Group, Inc. (UMG),
VEVO,LLC, &
Blue2Digital,
Defendants

--'-'-

I
15CV2245 GPC JLB

c.A. No. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

****************************************************************************
**
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, the plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit, who is bringing forth this cause
of action against all seven defendants looking to assess joint and several liability.
Presumably, the defendants would seek contribution and indemnity from each other
through the ftling of cross-claims. Accordingly, the plaintiff is suing all seven of the
defendants for a remedy at law amounting to $325,000,000 (three hundred and
twenty-five million dollars). In bringing forth this cause of action, the plaintiff
states, avers, and alleges the following:

I.) NATURE OF THE CASE

1

 Case 3:15-cv-02245-GPC-JLB Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 13

1.) The plaintiff is suing the defendants for having committed the following
tortious acts: negligence, conversion, intentional infliction of emotional
distress (IIED), civil fraud/material misrepresentation, tortious interference
with business relations/contracts, and products liability (e.g. a design defect or
manufacturing defect).
2.) The plaintiff is also suing the defendants for having committed a material
breach of contract.
3.) Furthermore, the plaintiff is suing the defendants for having violated the
following ~'black-Ietter law" provisions of federal copyright law: Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension
Act (CTEA), Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), and Online Copyright
Infringement Ilmitation and Liability Act (OCILLA).
4.) The plaintiff is trying to hold Universal Music Group (UMG), Sony
BMG/Sony Music and Entertainment, and Warner Music Group, Inc.
(WMG) vicariously liable based on the doctrine of respondeat superior given
that Vevo, LLC is a joint venture and/ or subsidiary of the major record labels.
5.) Accordingly, agents working for Vevo, LLC (such as Katelyn Cano and
Armand Adams) have the apparent, actual, express, and implied authority to
bind all of the major record labels into contractual obligations in addition to
Vevo, LLC.
II.) PARTIES TO THIS LITIGATION
6.) The plaintiff is an indigent, disabled, and unemployed citizen/resident of the
state of Nevada. His mailing address is 4529 Townwall Street, Las Vegas, NV
89115. His telephone number is (702)816-2863 and his cell phone number is
(702)831-7255. The plaintiffs email addressiseinsteinrockstar2@outlook.com.
7.) The first defendant is "doing business as" (d/b/a) Google, Inc .. Its nerve center
and/or principal place of business (Ppb) is located at 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy.
Mountain View, CA, 94043. Its telephone number is (650) 253-0000.

2

 Case 3:15-cv-02245-GPC-JLB Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 3 of 13

8.) The second defendant is "doing business as" (d/b/a) YouTube, LLC. Its nerve
center and/or principal place of business is located at the following address: 901
Cherry Ave., San Bruno, CA 94066. Its email address is listed as
press((!l,youtubc.com, and its fax number is listed as 1 650-253-0001. The telephone
number to contact YouTube is 650-253-0000.
8.) The third defendant is "doing business as" (d/b/ a) Vevo, LLC. Its nerve center
and/ or principal place of business (Ppb) is located at the following address: 825 8th
Avenue
23rd Floor, New York, NY 10019. Its telephone number is 212-331-1357 and its
fax number is 212-331-2298. The president and CEO ofVevo, LLC is Mr. Erik
Adrianus Hubertus Huggers. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for Vevo, LLC is
Mr. Alan Price. The international senior vice president is Nic Jones, and the Chief
Product Officer is Mr. David Rice.
9.) The fourth defendant is "doing business as" (d/b/a) Sony BMG and/or Sony
Music and Entertainment. Apparently, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
approved of a merger between Sony and BMG as not being violative of the federal
antitrust laws. The nerve center and/or principal place of business (Ppb) for Sony
BMG /Sony Music and Entertainment has, the following address: 9830 Wilshire
Blvd, Beverly Hills, CA 90212. Its telephone number is listed as (310) 2722555. Its
fax number is listed as (310) 272-2570.
10.) The fifth defendant is "doing business as" (d/b/a) the Universal Music Group,
Inc. (UMG). Its nerve center and/or principal place of business (Ppb) is listed as the
following: 2220 Colorado Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90404. Its telephone number is
listed as (310) 8654500. Its email addressislistedasinfo@umusic.com.
11.) The sixth defendant is "doing business as" (d/b/a) Warner Music Group, Inc.
(WMG). Its nerve center and/or principal place of business (Ppb) has the following
address: 3400 W Olive Ave, Burbank, CA 91505. Its telephone number is listed as
(818) 9532600.

3

 Case 3:15-cv-02245-GPC-JLB Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 4 of 13

12.) The seventh defendant is "doing business as" (d/b/ a/) Blue2Digital; it is a
digital distribution company which appears to have the following address as its
principal place of business (Ppb) and/or "nerve center:" Avian House, 87 Brook St,
Dundee, Angus DD5 1D], United Kingdom. Its telephone number is listed as +44
1382223111 (in Great Britain).

III.) JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13.) According to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1), Plaintiff is required to
provide "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction,
unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional
support;"
14.) Because the court does not already have personal or subject matter jurisdiction
over this issue, it is necessary to engage in a brief discussion of the court's
jurisdiction so that the defendants can not move to dismiss this case based on
procedural grounds involving a lack of proper jurisdiction.
15.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.c.A. Section 1332, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
Di~trict

of California (as an Article III court) has jurisdiction over this matter

because there is complete diversity of jurisdiction between the Plaintiff and the
seven defendants.
16.) As an Article III court, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California also has subject matter jurisdiction over the present case at bar because
this proceeding involves a discussion of the following "black-letter law" provisions
of federal law: Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), Audio Home
Recording Act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and the Online
Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA).
17.) Venue in this jurisdiction is also proper pursuant to 28 U.S.c.A. Sections 1391
and 1400.
18.) Because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (i.e. $325,000,000 is greater
than $75.000), this court also has jurisdiction with regards to that particular issue.
4

 Case 3:15-cv-02245-GPC-JLB Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 5 of 13

IV,) STATEMENT OF FACTS
19.) The plaintiff used a company called Blue2Digital (i.e. the fourth defendant) to
have his music videos distributed onto the Vevo platform used by major record
labels and their artists; the plaintiff paid approximately $30.00 to have his music
videos distributed.
20.) In total, the plaintiff had eight music videos commercially released onto the
popular Vevo platform. Those music videos were "High Definition" or "Standard
Definition" (SD) videos for the following songs: "Three-Car Garage," "There She
Goes Again," "Lookin' for My Dimepiece," "Brenda (Having My Baby)," "Lady
Brazil," and "La Reina Cubana."
21.) Two of the commercially-released music videos were of live performances at the
Sony Building in South Beach of Miami, FL aired live on or around August of 2009.
22.) The live performances were "aired" on Krib.tv in conjunction with "Miami
Vibez." The video hosts were Golden Child and Matari of Pure Gold
Entertainment, and the music videos were mmed and edited by Abdul of
ThaLot.com.
23.) The plaintiff had been invited to the set of "Miami Vibez" by Sherry Carey of
Pure Gold Entertainment.
24.) The models for the live music vide performance were provided by Explore
Talent, Craigslist, and Cheryl Steele of The Junkyard in Hollywood, FL.
25.) The live performances were of the plaintiffs songs "La Reina Cubana" and "All
the Fine Ladies."
26.) The music video for "Brenda (Having My Baby)" was mmed and edited by Tee
Platinum of Platinum Plus Productions in Atlanta, GA. This particular music video
was mmed at Columbia Mall in Columbia, MD and the model featured was Deena
Minnoia of Tampa, FL (booked via Model Mayhem/Craigslist).

5

 Case 3:15-cv-02245-GPC-JLB Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 6 of 13

27.) The music video for 'Lookin' for My Dimepiece" was also mmed and edited by
Tee Platinum of Platinum Plus Productions based in Atlanta, GA. This particular
music video was mmed in Bowie, MD and Owings Mills, MP, and the models were
Ashley Boxley (of A Taste of Honey Media Group in Charlottesville, VA), Suni
Degeneste (of Washington, D.C.), and an artist whose stage name is Plink (of
Baltimore, MD).
28.) The music video for "La Reina Cubana" was [limed by Paul Gillingwater of
New York, NY and edited by his business partner Luis Ruiz also of New York, NY.
The music video was mmed at the Gansevoort Hotel in the meat-packing district of
Manhattan, NY. The models were Nicole Rocio Leal-Mendez of Las Vegas, NV and
Bianca "Vesani" Ayuso of Carolina, Puerto Rico.
29.) The music video for "Lady Brazil" was mmed and edited by Santiago Semino of
Quincy, MA. The model for the music video was provided by Pamela Masucci of
The Beauty Within Models of Westerly, RI.
30.) The music video for "Three-Car Garage" was [limed and edited by Indrayudh
Shome of Providence, RI (an alumnus of Brown University). The models were
provided by Pamela Masucci of The Beauty Within Models and Cathy King of Safari
Models of Providence, RI.
31.) The music video for "There She Goes Again" was also mmed and edited by
Indrayudh "Indy" Shome of Providence, RI. The models for this music video were
Kelly Sabatino and Audrey Demick of Providence, RI.
32.) Recently, all eight of the plaintiffs music videos were removed from Vevo and
YouTube/Vevo with an explanation from Katelyn Cano at Vevo that Vevo no
longer carries the library of material provided by Blue2Digital notwithstanding the
fact that the plaintiff paid money to have his eight music videos distributed to Vevo
through Blue2Digital.
33.) The plaintiff would like to hold Sony BMG, Universal Music Group, Inc.
(UMG) , Warner Music Group, Inc. (WMG) vicariously liable through the doctrine
6

 Case 3:15-cv-02245-GPC-JLB Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 7 of 13

of respondeat superior since Vevo appears to be a subsidiary of the major record
labels including but not limited to Sony BMG, WMG, and UMG. Accordingly,
Google and YouTube should be held liable because they are in "privity of contract"
with Vevo, LLC and Blue2Digitai (in addition to the other three record label
defendants) .

V.) COUNT ONE: NEGLIGENCE
34.) In order to prove a prima facie case for negligence, the following elements must
be proved:

i.) A duty on the part of the defendant to conform to a specific standard of conduct
for protection of the plaintiff against an unreasonable risk of injury;
ii.) A breach of that duty by the defendant;

iii.) The breach is the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury; and
iv.) Damage
35.) The plaintiff argues that all seven of the defendants committed negligence
because they had a duty of care and duty ofloyalty to safeguard the plaintiffs
intellectual property in the form of the eight music videos which had been
commercially-released by the plaintiff and distributed to the Vevo website.
36.) The plaintiff argues that all seven of the defendants breached their duty of care
and loyalty by removing all eight of the plaintiffs music videos from the Vevo
website.

VI.) COUNT TWO: CONVERSION
37.) In order to prove a prima facie case for conversion, the following elements
must be established:
i.) An act by the defendant that interferes with the plaintiffs right of possession in a

chattel;
ii.) The interference is so serious that it warrants requiring the defendant to pay the
chattel's full value;
iii.) Intent; and
7

 Case 3:15-cv-02245-GPC-JLB Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 8 of 13

iv.) Causation
38.) The plaintiff claims that all seven of the defendants have committed conversion
by removing the plaintiff's music videos from the Vevo platform without paying the
plaintiff any royalties for his music videos being streamed and/or broadcasted on
Vevo
39.) Royalties are supposed to be distributed by ASCAP and Sound Exchange in the
form of mechanical and performance royalties.

VII.) COUNT THREE: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (lIED)
40.) In order to prove a prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional
distress (IIED), the following elements must be proved:
i.) An act by the defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct;
ii.) Intent or recklessness;
iii.) Causation; and
iv.) Damages- severe emotional distress
41.) The plaintiff claims that all seven of the defendants have committed the
intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) because it is and was extreme,
outrageous, and egregious for them to remove eight commercially-released music
videos copyrighted by the plaintiff.

VIII.) COUNT FOUR: CIVIL FRAlJD/MATERIAL
MISREPRESENTATION
42.) In order to prove a prima facie case for civil fraud/material misrepresentation,
the following elements must be proved:
i.) Misrepresentation of a material fact (no duty to disclose and opinion not
actionable unless rendered by someone with superior skill in the area). Silence is
generally not enough; one must make affirmative misrepresentations;
ii.) Scienter, i.e., when the defendant made the statement, he or she knew or believed
it was false or that there was no basis for the statement;
8

 Case 3:15-cv-02245-GPC-JLB Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 9 of 13

iii.) Intent to induce the plaintiff to act or refrain from acting in reliance upon the

misrepresentation;
iv.) Causation (actual reliance);
v.) Justifiable reliance (generally, reliance is justifiable only as to a statement of fact,
not opinion); and
vi.) Damages (plaintiff must suffer actual pecuniary loss)
43.) The plaintiff argues that all seven of the defendants committed civil fraud
and/ or material misrepresentation by accepting money from the plaintiff and
subsequendy removing all eight of the plaintiffs commercially-released music videos
distributed onto the Vevo platform.

IX.) COUNT FIVE: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS
RELATIONS/CONTRACTS
44.) In order to prove a prima facie case for the tortious interference with business
relations/ contracts, the following elements must be proved:
i.) Existence of a valid contractual relationship between the plaintiff and a third party
or valid business expectancy of the plaintiff;

ii.) Defendant's knowledge of the relationship or expectancy;
iii.) Intentional interference by the defendant inducing a breach or termination of the

relationship or expectancy; and
iv.) Damages
45.) The plaintiff argues that all seven of the defendants committed the tortious
interference with business relations/contracts by removing all eight of the plaintiffs
commercially-released music videos which would thereby prevent the plaintiff from
being able to secure a commercial recording contract from any of the major record
labels in the form of a "360 deal" with a cross-collateralization clause, controlled
composition clause, and Minimum Delivery and Release Commitment (MDRC).

X.) COUNT SIX: PRODUCTS LIABILITY (DESIGN
DEFECT (MANUFACTURING DEFECT)
9

 Case 3:15-cv-02245-GPC-JLB Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 10 of 13

46.) In order to prove a prima facie case for products liability based on strict tort
liability, the following elements must be established:
i.) A strict duty owed by a commercial supplier of a product;

ii.) Breach of that duty
iii.) Actual and proximate cause; and

iv.) Damage
47.) The plaintiff argues that all seven defendants committed a design defect and! or
manufacturing defect by removing all eight of the plaintiffs commercially-released
music videos from the Vevo platform; a music video that originally was broadcasted
and! or streamed on Vevo and which is no longer available is defective by nature
because it no longer exists.

XI.) COUNT SEVEN: MATERIAL BREACH OF CONTRACT
48.) A breach of contract is material if, as a result of the breach, the nonbreaching
party does not receive the substantial benefit of his or her bargain. If the breach is
material, the nonbreaching party (i) may treat the contract as at an end (any duty of
counter-performance is discharged), and (ii.) has an immediate right to all remedies
for breach of the entire contract, including total damages (Note that a minor breach,
if coupled with anticipatory repudiation, is treated as a material breach).
49.) In determining whether a breach is material or minor, the courts look at the
following factors:
i.) The amount of benefit received by the nonbreaching party;

ii.) The adequacy of compensation for damages to the injured party;
iii.) The extent of part performance by the breaching party;

iv.) Hardship to the breaching party;
v.) Negligent or willful behavior of the breaching party; and
vi.) The likelihood that the breaching party will perform the remainder of the
contract.

10

 Case 3:15-cv-02245-GPC-JLB Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 11 of 13

50.) The plaintiff asserts that all seven of the defendants committed a material
breach of contract by accepting a payment from the plaintiff and subsequently
removing his eight commercially-released music videos from the Vevo platform.

XII.) COUNT EIGHT: VIOLATION OF THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM
COPYRIGHT ACT (DMCA)
51.) The plaintiff argues that all seven of the defendants violated the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by removing all eight of the plaintiffs
commercially-released music videos from the Vevo platform.

XIII.) COUNT NINE: VIOLATION OF THE SONNY BONO
COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT (CTEA)
52.) The plaintiff argues that all seven of the defendants have violated the Sonny
Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) by removing all eight of the plaintiffs
commercially-released music videos from the Vevo platform.

XIV.) COUNT TEN: VIOLATION OF THE AUDIO HOME
RECORDING ACT (.AHRA.)
53.) The plaintiff argues that all seven of the defendants have violated the Audio
Home Recording Act (AHRA) by removing all eight of the plaintiffs
commercially-released music videos from the online Vevo platform.

XV.) COUNT ELEVEN: VIOLATION OF THE ONLINE COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT LIMITATION AND LIABILITY ACT (OCILLA)
54.) The plaintiff argues that all seven of the defendants have violated the Online
Copyright Infringement Limitation and Liability Act (OCILLA) by removing all
eight of the plaintiffs commercially-released music videos from the online Vevo
platform.

XVI.) PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff is requesting a remedy at law in the form of a judgment
in the amount of $325,000,000 (three hundred and twenty-five million dollars). This
remedy at law would be appropriate considering the fact that all seven of the
11

 Case 3:15-cv-02245-GPC-JLB Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 12 of 13

defendants have committed a material breach of contract in addition to the
following torts: conversion, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress
(lIED), civil fraud/material misrepresentation, the tortious interference with
business relations/ contracts, and products liability (e.g. design defect or
manufacturing defect.). Moreover, all seven of the defendants have committed a
violation of the following "black-letter law" provisions of federal copyright law:
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension
Act (CTEA), Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), and Online Copyright
Infringement Limitation and Liability Act (OCILLA). In asserting this "prayer for
relief," the plaintiff states, avers, and alleges the following:
A.) The remedy at law in the form of a judgment in the amount of $325,000,000

would be appropriately considered to be expectation, reliance, restitution, incidental,
and consequential damages for the defendants' material breach of contract.
B.) The remedy at law in the form of a judgment in the amount of $325,000,000
would also be appropriately considered to be punitive, compensatory, treble, actual,
presumed, and special damages for the defendants' commission of the
aforementioned tortious acts in addition to a violation of the following "black-letter
law" provisions of federal copyright law: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(DMCA), Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), Audio Home
Recording Act (AHRA), and Online Copyright Infringement Limitation and Liability
Act (OCILLA).
B.) The plaintiff is also requesting the equitable remedy of an injunction or specific
performance mandating that the plaintiff Ronald Emrit be offered a commercial
recording contract by either UMG, Sony BMG, or WMG in the form of a "360
deal" with an accompanying controlled composition clause, cross-collateralization
clause, and a Minimum Delivery and Release Commitment (MDRC).

C.) While punitive damages are not allowed pursuant to the common law of
contracts or the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, liquidated damages may be
12

 Case 3:15-cv-02245-GPC-JLB Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 13 of 13

applicable according to Ronald Emrit's initial contract with Blue2Digital and Vevo,
LLC with there being a delegation of duties to the employees at Vevo, LLC.
D.) A discussion of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment may also be applicable.
Presumably, Ronald Emrit's contracts with Blue2Digital and Vevo, LLC are not
caveat emptor or "buyer beware."
Respectfully submitted,

Ronald Satish Emrit
4529 Townwall Street
Las Vegas, NV 89115
(702)816-2863
(702)831-7255
einsteinrockstar@hotmail.com
einsteinrockstar2@oudook.com

13