IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
BRETT DANIELS, an individual, and
BRETT DANIELS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
a Wisconsin corporation,
Case No.
Plaintiffs,
v.
SIMON PAINTER, an individual;
TIMOTHY LAWSON, an individual;
INTERNATIONAL SPECIAL
ATTRACTIONS, LTD., a Colorado
corporation; TML ENTERPRISES, PTY, LTD.,
a foreign corporation; ASIA LIVE NETWORK,
PTE, LTD., a foreign corporation,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Brett Daniels and Brett Daniels Productions, Inc. (collectively “Daniels” or
“Plaintiffs”) complain as follows against Defendants Simon Painter (“Painter”), Timothy
Lawson (“Lawson”), International Special Attractions, Ltd. (“ISA”), TML Enterprises Pty, Ltd
(“TML”), and Asia Live Network, Pte, Ltd. (“ALN”) (collectively “Defendants”):
Summary of Complaint
1.

Daniels, a professional magician, is the co-creator of “The Illusionists” -- an

internationally acclaimed and enormously successful ensemble magic show (the “Illusionists” or
the “Show”) which is currently advertised by Defendants as the “highest selling magic show in
Broadway history.”
2.

The Illusionists (and all of its subsequent variations) would not exist absent

Daniels’ creative input, hard work, and connections in the magic industry. Indeed, even the

1
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 1 of 34 Document 1

 name “The Illusionists” was conceived of by Daniels, and the majority of the Show’s performers
were hired as a direct result of Daniels’ contacts and recruitment.
3.

In exchange for Daniels co-creation of The Illusionists and his invaluable

contributions to the Show, Defendants expressly agreed to pay him 10% of all fees paid to the
performers (the “Total Act Fees”) for any Illusionists show, in any form or format, in perpetuity.
4.

However, after using Daniels’ expertise, contacts, and efforts to get the show off

the ground, and after the Show began to achieve international success, Defendants cut Daniels
out of the Show and refused to pay him his contractually guaranteed share of the Total Act Fees
from at least November of 2013 to the present. Further, Defendants continue to use Daniels’
proprietary copyrighted illusions in the Show without Daniels’ approval or consent.
5.

The Illusionists continues to be performed in various iterations throughout the

world, is scheduled to return to Broadway, and has several large-scale television deals in the
works. As the co-creator and founder of the Illusionists, Daniels is contractually and equitably
entitled to share in its success. Daniels brings this Complaint to enforce and recover his legal
and equitable rights and interests.
Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
6.

Plaintiff Brett Daniels is an individual domiciled in Waukesha, Wisconsin and is a

citizen of Wisconsin.
7.

Plaintiff Brett Daniels Productions, Inc. (“BDPI”) is a corporation incorporated

under the laws of the State of Wisconsin with its principal place of business in Waukesha,
Wisconsin.
8.

Defendant Painter is an individual domiciled in Beverly Hills, California and is a

citizen of California.

2
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 2 of 34 Document 1

 9.

Defendant Lawson is an individual domiciled in Melbourne, Australia and is a

citizen of Australia.
10.

Defendant ISA is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of

Colorado with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. At all times relevant to
this dispute, Defendant Painter was acting both in his individual capacity and in his capacity as
an executive and employee of Defendant ISA.
11.

Defendant ALN is a Singaporean corporate entity with its principal place of

business in Melbourne, Australia. Defendant ALN is wholly owned by Defendant Painter and
Defendant Lawson. At all times relevant to this dispute, Defendants Painter and Lawson were
acting both in their individual capacities and as the owners and officers of Defendant ALN.
12.

Defendant TML is an Australian corporate entity with its principal place of

business in Melbourne, Australia. Defendant TML is wholly owned by Defendant Lawson. At
all times relevant to this dispute, Defendant Lawson was acting both in his individual capacity
and as the owner and officer of Defendant TML.
13.

This matter arises out of a contract between Plaintiffs and Defendants as set forth

fully below.
14.

The amount in controversy herein is in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest,

costs, or attorney’s fees.
15.

This matter is one wholly between citizens of different states (or in the case of

Lawson, TML, and ALN, the subjects of a foreign state), and this Court has original jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a).

3
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 3 of 34 Document 1

 16.

Further, this matter contains a claim for relief for copyright infringement pursuant

to 17 U.S.C. § 501 et seq., and as such this Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1331.
17.

Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and

(3) as (i) Plaintiffs Daniels and BDPI reside in this District and have resided in this District at all
times relevant to this action; (ii) the written agreements at issue in this action were drafted,
negotiated, and carried out in this District; (iii) the payments owed to Plaintiff Daniels are (and
were always) obligated to be provided to Daniels in this District; (iv) a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claims contained herein occurred in this District; (v) all
named Defendants reside in different Districts; and (vi) all named Defendants are subject to the
Court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to this action.
General Allegations
18.

Daniels is a professional magician and illusionist with numerous accolades and

awards throughout the more than three-decade span of his career, including Las Vegas
“Magician of the Year” in 2003 and consecutive “Entertainer of the Year” awards in 2008 and
2009 from the International Magicians Society. Daniels has performed to capacity venues
throughout the world (including an unprecedented sixty-eight sold out arena shows in Shanghai,
China). He has gained public and industry recognition not only for his performances, but also
for his ability to invent and design world-class illusions.
19.

Daniels is also a world-renowned entertainment producer, having produced

several multi-million dollar large-scale magic and illusion productions throughout his career.
Daniels’ productions include international arena tours, numerous network television specials,

4
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 4 of 34 Document 1

 several long-standing Las Vegas live stage magic shows, and the “Brett Daniels Magic and
Beyond” self-produced television program aired throughout Europe.
20.

Since 2007, Daniels has conducted his business through his solely owned

corporate entity, Plaintiff Brett Daniels Productions, Inc. (“BDPI”), a corporation of which he is
the sole shareholder.
21.

Defendant Painter is a promoter and producer of various theatrical events and

productions. At all relevant times, Painter was employed by ISA as a “Creative Producer.”
Painter holds himself out as the producer of The Illusionists and each of its various spin-offs and
iterations.
22.

Defendant Lawson is also a promoter and producer of theatrical productions,

including the Illusionists.
23.

Defendant TML is a Melbourne, Australia-based company through which

Defendant Lawson produces performances occurring throughout the world. TML’s website lists
Painter as “Partner, Light Entertainment,” and advertises Lawson’s “partnership with Simon
Painter” and “[t]heir production of The Illusionists.”
24.

Defendant ISA is production house that promotes itself as “a world leader in the

production of large scale special attractions, events and theatrical productions.” ISA holds itself
out as producing the Illusionists. ISA’s website, under the “Shows” menu, contains a direct link
to “The Illusionists” website.
25.

Defendant ALN is a Singaporean business entity which holds itself out as the

company that “owns and operates the interests of producers Simon Painter and Tim Lawson” for
the Illusionists and all of its variations. ALN is also the entity through which Daniels was
previously paid for his co-creation of the Illusionists.

5
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 5 of 34 Document 1

 26.

Upon information and belief there is unity of ownership and control between

Defendants Painter and ISA, as Painter held himself out to Daniels at all relevant times as an
executive and officer of ISA able to bind both himself and ISA to the various agreements entered
into with Daniels, both Painter and ISA benefited substantially from Daniels’ co-creation and
other efforts related to the Illusionists, and ISA continued a longstanding course of conduct
submitting contractually obligated payments directly to Daniels via wire transfer at Painter’s
direction.
27.

Upon information and belief there is unity of ownership and control between

Defendants Lawson and TML, as Lawson held himself out to Daniels at all relevant times as the
sole owner, executive, and officer of TML able to bind both himself and TML to the various
agreements entered into with Daniels, and both Lawson and TML benefited substantially from
Daniels’ co-creation and other efforts related to the Illusionists.
28.

Upon information and belief there is unity of ownership and control between

Defendants Painter, Lawson, and ALN, as Painter and Lawson both held themselves out to
Daniels at all relevant times as the sole owners, executives, and officers of ALN able to bind
both themselves and ALN to the various agreements entered into with Daniels, as Painter,
Lawson, and ALN benefited substantially from Daniels’ co-creation and other efforts related to
the Illusionists, and as ALN continued a course of conduct submitting contractually obligated
payments directly to Daniels via wire transfer at the direction of Painter and Lawson.
29.

Daniels is informed and believes that in doing the acts alleged herein, each of the

Defendants was the agent, principal, employee, co-conspirator and/or alter ego of one or more of
the other Defendants, and acted with the other Defendants’ knowledge, consent and approval
and/or within the course and scope of such agency, employment or conspiracy and/or as one or

6
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 6 of 34 Document 1

 more of the other Defendants’ alter ego. As such, each of the Defendants is responsible for the
liabilities of the other Defendants, as alleged herein
Daniels Invents a Sophisticated Proprietary Appearance Illusion and Accompanying
Choreography
30.

In or about 1993, Daniels invented and designed a vehicle appearance illusion

(the “Appearance Illusion”) during which Daniels causes various vehicles (including most
prominently an antique horse and carriage) to appear out of thin air.
31.

Daniels is the owner of the proprietary rights to the concept, apparatus, and

method of operation of the Appearance Illusion, and is recognized as such by members
throughout the international magician community.
32.

Over the years since its invention, on occasion, Daniels has agreed to allow other

magicians to perform the Appearance Illusion with his express consent and for the payment of a
reasonable royalty.
33.

Daniels is also the creator and author of the copyrighted choreography and stage

direction entitled WHISPER IN THE WIND (Copyright Office Case No. 1-2827774701, the
“Work”) which often accompanies the Appearance Illusion during its presentation to a live
audience.
Daniels Co-Creates “The Illusionists” and Defendants Agree To Pay Daniels 10% of the
Total Act Fees For Any Illusionists Production in Perpetuity
34.

In 2009, Painter (who was then employed by a company called Spiritshows)

produced Daniels’ magic show “Masters of Magic” in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Following
that show, Daniels and Painter kept in touch and discussed future plans for the co-production of
subsequent live-performance magic shows.

7
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 7 of 34 Document 1

 35.

In 2010, Painter joined Defendant ISA as “Creative Producer.”

Painter still

appears on ISA’s website in that capacity.
36.

In or around April of 2011, Daniels and Painter began discussions towards

creating an original ensemble magic show to be produced by both Daniels and ISA and to be
debuted at the Sydney Opera House in Australia.
37.

Daniels came up with and presented various marketing logos and names for the

potential production, including “The Illusionists,” which became, and remains, the official name
of the Show.
38.

Daniels also began reaching out to his numerous contacts in the magic industry, in

order to raise awareness of the pending production and to begin the recruitment process for the
initial talent and performers for the Show.
39.

Shortly thereafter, Daniels and Painter agreed that, in addition to Daniels and

Painter (through ISA), Tim Lawson and his company, Defendant TML, would also produce The
Illusionists, due primarily to Lawson’s experience in Australia and his connections with the
Sydney Opera House, where the Show would first be performed.
40.

In or around July of 2011, Daniels, Painter, and Lawson met in Las Vegas to

brainstorm and finalize all necessary details for the creation and production of The Illusionists.
During this three day trip, Daniels took Painter and Lawson to several magic shows and used his
personal connections within the magic industry to introduce them to numerous magicians -- both
in person in Las Vegas and worldwide via conference calls and emails -- who would ultimately
perform in the pending Show.
41.

Over the next few months, Daniels and Defendants continued their efforts in

planning, creating, recruiting, marketing, and branding the eventual Illusionists ensemble magic

8
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 8 of 34 Document 1

 show. Daniels was primarily responsible for multiple details of the overall creation and planning
of the Show, and was personally involved in each major decision for the Show.
42.

Daniels’ connections and introductions were critical in developing the Illusionists

and attracting its various performers.

Indeed, all but one of the initial performers in the

Illusionists (most of whom remain in the Show today) were directly located, contacted, and
recruited by Daniels, including Dan Sperry (“The Anti-Conjuror”), Kevin James (“The
Inventor”), Andrew Basso (“The Escapologist”), Jeff Hobson (“The Trickster”), James Dimmare
(“The Manipulator”), and Mark Kalin (“The Gentleman,” who has now replaced Daniels as “The
Grand Illusionist” and illusion director).
43.

In August 2011, Daniels flew to Sydney, Australia in his capacity as co-creator,

co-producer, and founding partner of The Illusionists, along with Painter (ISA) and Lawson
(TML), to meet with executives from the Sydney Opera House and to present the final pitch for
the Show. Daniels, as the only magic expert present, presented the majority of the successful
pitch, which concluded with the Sydney Opera House executives enthusiastically agreeing to
present the Illusionists.
44.

Based on the success of the pitch, in September 2011, the Sydney Opera House

confirmed that the first run of the Show would be presented in early 2012. With the show
moving forward, Daniels, Painter, and Lawson agreed that they would jointly develop the Show,
and that Daniels would be expressly credited as a co-creator of the Show and its illusion director.
45.

Daniels was directly involved with and collaborated on every single element of

the Show’s final creation and plan, including but not limited to the creative aspects, technical
details, shipping logistics, marketing plans, insurance, set design, performer concerns, and all
other issues. Indeed, the only four individuals or entities with any production responsibility for

9
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 9 of 34 Document 1

 the initial run of the Show included Daniels, Painter (ISA), Lawson (TML), and the Sydney
Opera House.
46.

Also in or about September 2011, and prior to the first performance, Daniels and

Defendants orally agreed that Daniels would be compensated for his role as a co-creator of the
Show through an ongoing 10% share of the total “act fee” paid to the performers in the Show for
any performances anywhere in the world, in any incarnation the Show might take, in perpetuity
(the “Oral Agreement”).

Daniels’ interest was not immediately committed to writing, but

Defendants repeatedly confirmed that Daniels would be paid as agreed. In addition, Daniels
agreed to perform in the Show as the “Grand Illusionist” for a performer’s salary of $12,500 per
week.
47.

For the following several months, in the run-up to the January 2012 opening of

the Illusionists, Daniels contacted and finalized the deals for the numerous magicians around the
world who would join the Show, and worked to create the final Show content, music, video,
stage plans, risk assessment, imagery, and other critical artistic and logistical elements for the
Show’s production. In addition, Daniels participated in numerous photo sessions and press
interviews in his capacity as the Show’s co-creator, co-producer, and illusion director.
48.

The Illusionists opened at the Sydney Opera House in January 2012 to rave

reviews and sold out crowds. The show grossed in excess of $3 million in ticket sales in ten days
through its initial run. One of the Show’s most successful and popular acts was Daniels’
proprietary Appearance Illusion.
49.

Following the initial two-week run of the Show, Daniels was paid his performer’s

salary of $12,500 per week for his role as the “Grand Illusionist.” In addition, and in accordance
with the Oral Agreement, Daniels was paid 10% of the total act fee budget for the Show.

10
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 10 of 34 Document 1

 The Parties Commit to Writing Their Agreement to Pay Daniels 10% of The Show’s Act
Fees in Perpetuity
50.

In February 2012, following the successful initial run at the Syndey Opera House,

the Illusionists was performed for three weeks in Singapore, again to large crowds and positive
reviews. Again, Daniels was paid not only his performer salary, but also his 10% share of the
total act fees per his Oral Agreement with Defendants.
51.

With the show growing in acclaim, and with great future prospects for

international success of the Illusionists in both live and television formats, Daniels repeatedly
stated his preference to have his agreement with Defendants memorialized in writing.
52.

As a result, on February 24, 2012, Daniels wrote Painter and explained the

importance of the 10% share of the act fees: “This ‘fee’ is in essence, in exchange for my not
taking a ‘piece’ of the show, or a fee of any kind in acting as the initial illusion director—as
well as being involved in all concept creation, etc… and as such, an ongoing amount equal
to 10% of the act budget is in place.”

Daniels provided proposed contract language

memorializing all terms for Painter’s review. Painter did not object to Daniels’ written terms or
disagree with them in any manner, but stated that he needed Lawson’s blessing before he could
finalize the written contract.
53.

On March 15, 2012, Daniels again forwarded Painter his proposed contract

language:
This is an agreement between Brett Daniels Productions, Inc. and the
“producers” of “The Illusionists” aka/ “Simon Painter/ISA/Tim Lawson”
and shall include any other entities they bring into, or work through, in
presenting the theatrical production known as “The Illusionists” in any of
it’s [sic] variations. Brett Daniels Productions, Inc. shall receive, on an
ongoing basis, in perpetuity, 10% of the total “act fee budget.” The “act fee
budget” shall be defined as the total cumulative amount that the “magic
based acts” are contracted for to appear in the production. This fee, shall be
authorized by “producers” and paid by “acts” unless, in certain cases, due
11
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 11 of 34 Document 1

 to “producers” independent preference, producers choose to not burden a
particular “act” with this fee, in which case “producers” shall pay this (10%
act) additional fee directly to Brett Daniels Productions, Inc.
54.

On March 17, 2012, Defendant Painter expressly confirmed the parties’ written

agreement (the “Agreement”) stating, “All agreed with [T]im [Lawson] and I based on the
below.”
55.

Although the terms of the Agreement refer to the potential of Daniels’ fee (the

“Total Act Fees”) being paid directly by the acts themselves, the ultimate authority and
responsibility for this decision rested exclusively with Defendants rather than with the
performers. The Total Act Fees due to Daniels under the Agreement were always, and remain,
the express contractual obligation of Defendants. Defendants never once questioned or disputed
this contractual responsibility to Daniels prior to their breach described herein. Indeed, in
practice Defendants, rather than the individual acts, often paid the fee directly to Daniels per
their “independent preference” as proscribed in the Agreement.
56.

Throughout the remainder of 2012 and early 2013, The Illusionists continued with

great success in various venues throughout the world. After each performance run, Defendants
ensured that Daniels was paid his 10% of the Total Act Fees pursuant to the Agreement, as well
as his performer’s salary, without incident or objection.
Defendants Enlist Daniels’ Additional Help in Procuring Potential Television Deals for the
Illusionists
57.

As the Illusionists continued its initial growth, Daniels -- in his capacity as co-

creator -- invested significant time and energy into researching and securing potential television
opportunities for the Show, and potential capital funding for additional versions and locations of
the Show.

12
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 12 of 34 Document 1

 58.

Daniels set up numerous meetings in Hollywood, and introduced Defendant

Painter to a well-known Hollywood producer and television executive that produced several TV
specials in which Daniels had appeared as a magician.
59.

In or around September of 2011, Daniels and Defendant Painter expressly agreed

that any TV deal for The Illusionists emanating from or involving this Hollywood producer
would result in Daniels receiving a 25% share of all revenue from such production (which was
expressly reduced to a 12.5% share of all revenue from such production if Daniels appeared as
one of the featured performers in the production).
60.

On multiple subsequent occasions, including after Daniels’ instrumental efforts in

creating and producing a quality reality-show pilot for the Show while in Australia in January of
2013, Defendants agreed that Daniels would receive a 25% share of all revenue from any
television production of the Show (the “TV Agreement”).

Daniels’ contractual revenue

percentage under the TV Agreement would be in addition to the 10% Total Act Fees Daniels was
entitled to for any performance of the Illusionists (whether on stage or on television) under the
terms of the Agreement.
61.

Defendants further confirmed to Daniels in May of 2013 that there was “a very

good chance that the Illusionists TV show is going to be bought by a major network…” and that
Daniels, as the show’s co-creator and co-producer, should continue focusing on making an
Illusionists TV show a success as “the rewards are immense” and the parties should “re-energise
the working relationship we first started with and move forwards and make some money!”
Defendants Defame Daniels and Conspire to Remove Him from the Show After
Defendants’ Disastrous Handling of the Illusionists 2013 South American Tour
62.

In June and July 2013, The Illusionists performed in various venues in South

America. Although Daniels performed in these shows, Defendants unilaterally informed Daniels
13
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 13 of 34 Document 1

 that he was being replaced as the Show’s illusion director by Defendant Painter’s wife. Despite
excluding Daniels from the production aspects of the Show, Defendants continued to ensure
Daniels was paid his 10% of the Total Act Fees for the South America performances pursuant to
the terms of the Agreement (albeit several months late).
63.

The relationship between Daniels and Defendants deteriorated dramatically after

the South America shows in 2013, and Defendants’ true intentions regarding Daniels and his
future role in the Show began to materialize.
64.

Specifically, in July of 2013, Defendants insisted that Daniels and the performers

in the Show travel to Venezuela for a final set of performances after what was supposed to be the
end of the South American tour in Brazil, despite Venezuela being a non-contracted location
which was never agreed upon prior to the start of the tour. Defendants’ insistence on such
performances of the Show was unreasonable, as Venezuela was an extremely unstable
environment for the production of the Show. Indeed, Defendants Painter and Lawson were not
even present to supervise the proposed Venezuela performances, and instead left the production
as soon as the Brazil performances were complete.
65.

Defendants should have never insisted that the Show be performed in such an

unsafe and unpredictable environment, especially without proper oversight or logistical
coordination. In fact, Defendant Painter notified the entire cast and crew of the Show (via email,
as Painter was not personally there) that the location was dangerous and that everyone needed to
be “locked behind gates after sundown” to help prevent the rampant murder and kidnapping
activity in the region.
66.

Predictably, the performances of the Show in Venezuela never occurred. Instead,

the Venezuelan government seized the Show, the venue, and all of its stage equipment prior to

14
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 14 of 34 Document 1

 the Show’s first performance and was holding all such assets under armed guard. This included
Daniels’ equipment, which was the largest, most intricate, and most valuable of any other
performer in the Show.
67.

Despite numerous requests by Daniels to assist with the situation and ensure that

all cast, crew, and equipment for the Show safely and promptly left Venezuela, Defendants
plotted to send the majority of the cast and crew home, and simply left Daniels (who was
extremely ill) and his valuable equipment in Venezuela to fend for himself against the
Venezuelan authorities. Defendants did not even provide Daniels with access to food, water, or
medical care for his severe illness during his remaining time in Venezuela.
68.

After approximately five additional days, and after the Venezuelan government

finally released its seizure of Daniels’ valuable equipment, Daniels again urged Defendants to
assist in the situation and secure safe passage for Daniels out of Venezuela.

Defendants

steadfastly refused, stating that Daniels’ flight home was not Defendants’ responsibility, and that
Daniels should instead direct his concerns to “the local promoter.” Only after Daniels threatened
legal action against Defendants did Defendants finally agree to provide Daniels with a plane
ticket out of Venezuela. At that point, however, Daniels began to realize that Defendants were
likely plotting to remove him entirely from the Illusionists.
69.

To further their scheme to force Daniels out of the Show that he co-created,

Defendants falsely and maliciously accused Daniels of “threatening” Defendant Painter in Los
Angeles while Daniels was stuck in Venezuela. In an obvious ruse to delegitimize Daniels’
mounting potential (and now actual) legal claims against Defendants, and to bolster Defendants’
unjustified attempt to remove Daniels from the Show he co-created, Defendants purported to
“report the matter to the authorities,” and ceased all further communication with Daniels.

15
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 15 of 34 Document 1

 70.

Daniels’ prior legal counsel immediately responded to Defendants informing

them that their “threat” allegation was false and defamatory, warning Defendants of the serious
legal consequences of such false statements, and demanding that Defendants (i) produce copies
of any purported “death threats,” (ii) identify all individuals to whom such false information was
disseminated. Tellingly, Defendants never responded to Daniels’ counsel.
Defendants Continue Their Scheme to Remove Daniels from the Show, Misappropriate
Daniels’ Appearance Illusion, and Breach the Agreement
71.

The Venezuela incident demonstrated Defendants’ intentions to ultimately

remove Daniels from the Show, but it was not the first indication of Defendants’ improper
motives. Even months before the 2013 South American tour, and while the success of The
Illusionists continued to grow internationally, certain actions indicated that Defendants might
eventually try to push Daniels out of the production, misappropriate his invaluable efforts in
creating the Show, profit from his proprietary trade secret Appearance Illusion, and infringe
upon his proprietary Work.
72.

Through the initial months of 2013, Defendants began to delay the contractually

obligated payments to Daniels, although always ultimately paying Daniels what was due both for
Total Act Fees under the Agreement, as well as his performer salary.
73.

In May 2013, Daniels learned that, without consulting or informing Daniels,

Defendants had booked The Illusionists for a three-week run in New Zealand, and had begun to
cut off Daniels’ access to the performers in the Show, even those whom Daniels had personally
recruited.
74.

In addition, it became clear that Defendants intended to replace Daniels as a

performer in the show. Purportedly for budgeting reasons, Daniels was excluded as a performer
in the New Zealand shows. However, Defendants ultimately ensured Daniels was paid the
16
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 16 of 34 Document 1

 required 10% of the Total Act Fees for the New Zealand shows, acknowledging that Daniels was
entitled to those funds pursuant to the terms of the Agreement regardless of his participation or
lack of participation as a performer in the Show or in any other capacity.
75.

Consistent with their efforts to replace Daniels as a performer, and without

Daniels’ consent, Defendants obtained a supposedly new “turn-of-the-century train appearance
illusion” to take the place of Daniels’ proprietary Appearance Illusion, which Daniels publicized
for the Show as a “turn-of-the-century horse and carriage appearance” Illusion. In reality, the
two illusions are essentially indistinguishable. Defendants used a different performer to perform
the Appearance Illusion in the Show at the same point in the Show where Daniels had previously
performed the Appearance Illusion.
76.

Defendants also infringed upon Daniels’ proprietary Work which had

accompanied the Appearance Illusion during the Show, creating an almost identical viewing
experience for the audience of each Show.
77.

Subsequent to the 2013 South America productions of the Illusionists, Defendants

excluded Daniels from the Show entirely and without any contractual basis, both as a performer
and illusion director. In fact, Daniels was wholly excluded from the following three-week run of
the Illusionists performed in August of 2013 in Dubai, both as a performer and from all creative,
business, content, and casting aspects of these performances.
78.

When Daniels became aware of the Dubai performances of the Show and

threatened legal action if Defendnats did not comply with the Agreement, Defendants, after a
long delay, finally relented and ensured that Daniels was provided (what was purported to be) his
10% of the Total Act Fees for the Dubai performances as obligated under the Agreement.

17
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 17 of 34 Document 1

 Significant portions of the Total Act Fees for the Dubai performances were provided directly to
Daniels by Defendants, including wire-transfers directly from Defendant ALN.
79.

In late 2013, however, Daniels discovered that Defendants had been intentionally

underpaying some of the Total Act Fees owed to Daniels pursuant to the Agreement for prior
performances of the Illusionists. Specifically, Daniels was informed that certain performers in
the Show were being paid nearly double the salary previously reported to Daniels, and therefore
Daniels was receiving less than half of his guaranteed payments from Defendants for certain
performers. Even worse, Defendants were subtracting the full 10% of the increased salary from
certain performers in the Show, who believed that such withheld funds were being submitted to
Daniels when in fact they were not.
80.

When Daniels brought up this known deficiency to Defendants, Defendants paid

the requested differences directly to Daniels without protest, presumably to avoid liability for
non-payment. Because the books and records documenting payments to each performer are in
the exclusive possession, custody, and control of Defendants, Daniels does not know and without
an accounting cannot determine whether other amounts were withheld from both Daniels and
performers in the Show in like manner.
81.

By continuing to ensure Daniels was paid his contractually guaranteed percentage

of the Total Act Fees even after Daniels was removed as a performer in the Illusionists and after
Defendants Painter and Lawson had ceased communicating with Daniels altogether, Defendants
expressly acknowledged and confirmed that they remained directly responsible for all payments
to Daniels of his 10% portion of the Total Act Fees for the Show in perpetuity, even when
Daniels was not performing in the Show, present on site at the Show, or acting in any capacity
for the Show.

18
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 18 of 34 Document 1

 82.

Beginning in September 2013, The Illusionists had a 12-week run in London and

Europe. After this run, and for the very first time, Defendants refused to pay Daniels his 10%
share of the Total Act Fees as obligated under the Agreement.
83.

From approximately November of 2013 to date, Defendants have consistently

refused to pay the 10% share of the Total Act Fees owed to Daniels under the express terms of
the Agreement.
84.

Daniels has repeatedly demanded that Defendants pay the portions of the Total

Act Fees owed to him under the terms of the Agreement. To date, they have refused to do so,
and have flatly ignored Daniels’ repeated correspondence.
85.

Daniels has also demanded that Defendants provide all accounting, budget, and

revenue information for The Illusionists so that he could calculate the actual amount owed and
take appropriate action. To date, Defendants have refused to provide such information.
86.

To this day, the Illusionists continues to be performed worldwide in various

incarnations including The Illusionists 2.0 and The Illusionists 1903. Both ISA and TML
proudly list the Illusionists and/or its variations on their websites. Both Painter and Lawson are
listed as producers on the show’s pending Broadway run. The show also appears to be slated for
a U.S. tour, several international tours, and a network television production, through 2018.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Oral Contract)
87.

Daniels incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.
88.

On or about September of 2011, Daniels and Defendants entered into the Oral

Agreement whereby Defendants agreed, among other things, to pay Daniels 10% of the Total

19
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 19 of 34 Document 1

 Act Fees for all Illusionists productions, in any form, throughout the world in perpetuity, in
exchange for Daniels’ efforts in co-creating the original Illusionists show.
89.

Defendant Painter was acting in his individual capacity and his capacity as an

executive and employee of Defendant ISA when making the Oral Agreement with Daniels.
Painter confirmed and ratified this Oral Agreement by ensuring that Daniels was paid his
contractually obligated 10% of the Total Act Fees for the Illusionists until at least November of
2013.
90.

Defendant Lawson was acting in his individual capacity and his capacity as the

owner and officer of Defendant TML when making the Oral Agreement with Daniels. Painter
confirmed and ratified this Oral Agreement by ensuring that Daniels was paid his contractually
obligated 10% of the Total Act Fees for the Illusionists until at least November of 2013
91.

Defendant ISA confirmed and ratified this Oral Agreement by ensuring that

Daniels was paid his contractually obligated 10% of the Total Act Fees for the Illusionists until
at least November of 2013.
92.

Defendant TML confirmed and ratified this Oral Agreement by ensuring that

Daniels was paid his contractually obligated 10% of the Total Act Fees for the Illusionists until
at least November of 2013.
93.

Defendant ALN confirmed and ratified this Oral Agreement by ensuring that

Daniels was paid his contractually obligated 10% of the Total Act Fees for the Illusionists until
at least November of 2013.
94.

Daniels performed all of his obligations under the Oral Agreement.

95.

Even assuming the terms of the Oral Agreement were not expressly agreed upon

as outlined above (which they were), the Oral Agreement would nonetheless constitute an

20
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 20 of 34 Document 1

 implied-in-fact contract as Defendants’ continuing contractual obligations to Daniels can be
inferred from the facts and circumstances, and from Defendants’ continuous course of conduct
prior to their breach as outlined herein.
96.

Defendants breached the Oral Agreement by, in or about November of 2013,

ceasing payment to Daniels of Daniels’ 10% portion of the Total Act Fees for the Show. This
breach is continuing to date.
97.

Defendants further breached the Oral Agreement by not paying all obligated

amounts to Daniels from the inception of the Show through the current date.
98.

As a result of the breach, Daniels has suffered monetary harm in an amount to be

proven at trial.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Written Contract)
99.

Daniels incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.
100.

On or about March 17, 2013, Daniels and Defendants entered into the written

Agreement whereby Defendants agreed, among other things, to pay Daniels 10% of the act fees
for all Illusionists productions, in any form, throughout the world in perpetuity, in exchange for
Daniels efforts in co-creating the original Illusionists show.
101.

Defendant Painter was acting in his individual capacity and his capacity as an

executive and employee of Defendant ISA when he executed the Agreement with Daniels.
Painter confirmed and ratified this Agreement by ensuring that Daniels was paid his
contractually obligated 10% of the Total Act Fees for the Illusionists until at least November of
2013.

21
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 21 of 34 Document 1

 102.

Defendant Lawson was acting in his individual capacity and his capacity as the

owner and officer of Defendant TML when executing the Agreement with Daniels. Painter
confirmed and ratified this Agreement by ensuring that Daniels was paid his contractually
obligated 10% of the Total Act Fees for the Illusionists until at least November of 2013
103.

Defendant ISA confirmed and ratified this Agreement by ensuring that Daniels

was paid his contractually obligated 10% of the Total Act Fees for the Illusionists until at least
November of 2013.
104.

Defendant TML confirmed and ratified this Agreement by ensuring that Daniels

was paid his contractually obligated 10% of the Total Act Fees for the Illusionists until at least
November of 2013.
105.

Defendant ALN confirmed and ratified this Agreement by ensuring that Daniels

was paid his contractually obligated 10% of the Total Act Fees for the Illusionists until at least
November of 2013.
106.

Daniels performed all of his obligations under the Agreement.

107.

Even assuming the terms of the Agreement were not expressly agreed upon as

outlined above (which they were), the Agreement would nonetheless constitute an implied-infact contract as Defendants’ continuing contractual obligations to Daniels can be inferred from
the facts and circumstances, and from Defendants’ continuous course of conduct prior to their
breach as outlined herein.
108.

Defendants breached the Agreement by, in or about November of 2013, ceasing

payment to Daniels of Daniels’ 10% portion of the act fees for the Show.
109.

Defendants further breached the Agreement by not paying all obligated amounts

to Daniels from the inception of the Show through the current date.

22
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 22 of 34 Document 1

 110.

As a result of the breach, Daniels has suffered monetary harm in an amount to be

proven at trial.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of TV Agreement)
111.

Daniels incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.
112.

On or about September of 2011, Daniels and Defendants expressly agreed that

any TV deal for The Illusionists involving a particular Hollywood producer would result in
Daniels receiving a 25% share of all revenue from such production.
113.

On multiple subsequent occasions, Defendants further agreed that Daniels would

receive a 25% share of all revenue from any television production of the Show, regardless of
which producer or network remained involved (the “TV Agreement”).
114.

Daniels’ agreed-upon contractual revenue under the TV Agreement is obligated in

addition to the 10% Total Act Fees which Daniels was, and remains, entitled to for any
performance of the Illusionists (whether on stage, on television, or in any other format or
medium) under the terms of the Oral Agreement and the Agreement.
115.

Even assuming the terms of the TV Agreement were not expressly agreed upon as

outlined above (which they were), the TV Agreement would nonetheless constitute an impliedin-fact contract as Defendants’ continuing contractual obligations to Daniels can be inferred from
the facts and circumstances, prior to their breach as outlined herein.
116.

Defendants have breached the TV Agreement by preparing for and producing at

least one, and likely several, large-scale network television performances of the Show while
rejecting their contractual obligations to Daniels.

23
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 23 of 34 Document 1

 117.

As a result of the breach, Daniels has suffered monetary harm in an amount to be

proven at trial.
118.

Daniels is further entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief related to

this cause of action in order to prevent Defendants from producing or presenting any purported
or planned television performance of the Show until the TV Agreement with Daniels is fully
enforced and complied with.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
119.

Daniels incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.
120.

Under all applicable state and federal law, the Oral Agreement, the Agreement,

and the TV Agreement each contain an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing among all
parties.
121.

By and through their actions, omissions, and the unjustified refusal to submit all

funds due and owing to Daniels, Defendants have violated the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing against Daniels, and thereby deprived Daniels of the benefit of his bargain under
the Oral Agreement, the Agreement, and the TV Agreement.
122.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the covenant of good

faith and fair dealing, Daniels has been harmed and has sustained damages in an amount to be
proven at trial.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Unjust Enrichment)
123.

Daniels incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.
24
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 24 of 34 Document 1

 124.

Daniels conferred an economic benefit upon all Defendants by, among other

things, (i) co-creating the Show, (ii) creating and marketing the “Illusionists” name and
trademark for the Show, (iii) investing substantial time and money for the Show’s success, (iv)
procuring the majority of talent and performers for the Show, (v) planning and collaborating all
logistical and creative aspects of the Show’s initial runs, (vi) acting as the Show’s illusion
director, (vii) allowing his own signature and proprietary illusions to appear in the Show, and
(viii) developing the relationships and concepts for future television productions of the Show,
thereby enabling Defendants to receive substantial economic benefit in the Show’s initial and
continuing success.
125.

Defendants accepted and retained each of the foregoing benefits conferred by

Daniels.
126.

Defendants each knew or should have known that Daniels was guaranteed to

receive, and expected to receive, a continuing financial return from the Show for the benefits he
conferred on all Defendants.
127.

As a result of Defendants’ actions as outlined herein to exclude Daniels from

receiving his continuing financial return from the Show for the benefits he conferred on all
Defendants, Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Daniels.
128.

As a result of Defendants’ failure and refusal to provide, and continue providing,

Daniels with 10% of the Total Act Fees for each performance of the Illusionists in perpetuity,
Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Daniels.
129.

As a result of Defendants’ conversion of funds and other property legally and

equitably owned by Daniels, Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Daniels.

25
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 25 of 34 Document 1

 130.

As a result of Defendants’ benefitting from the “Illusionists” name and trademark

which Daniels’ created, and continuing to trade off of the mark’s goodwill without compensating
Daniels for such use, Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Daniels.
131.

As a result of Defendants’ past and continuing misappropriation of Daniels’

proprietary trade secrets, including the Appearance Illusion, Defendants have been unjustly
enriched at the expense of Daniels.
132.

As a result of Defendants’ past and continuing infringement of Daniels’

copyrighted choreography and stage direction Work, Defendants have been unjustly enriched at
the expense of Daniels.
133.

Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Daniels in a sum to be

proven at trial.
134.

Defendants’ conduct was willful, oppressive, fraudulent, and malicious, entitling

Daniels to an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Conversion)
135.

Daniels incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein
136.

Based on the agreements entered between Daniels and Defendants, Daniels has a

legal right to 10% of the Total Act Fees for all Illusionists productions, in any form, throughout
the world in perpetuity, in exchange for Daniels efforts in co-creating the original Illusionists
show.
137.

Defendants have wrongfully retained ownership of the funds due to Daniels by

refusing to pay Daniels.

26
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 26 of 34 Document 1

 138.

Defendants have also withheld funds from performers in the Show, purportedly to

pay Daniels a portion of the Total Act Fees, but instead of remitting such funds, Defendants’
retained funds owed to Daniels.
139.

Defendants have also unjustifiably retained personal property and equipment of

Daniels for continuing use in the Show without Daniels’ consent or approval.
140.

As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Daniels has suffered monetary harm

in an amount to be proven at trial.
141.

Defendants’ conduct was willful, oppressive, fraudulent, and malicious, entitling

Daniels to an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Copyright Infringement)
142.

Daniels incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.
143.

Daniels’ WHISPER IN THE WIND choreography and stage direction Work

constitutes copyrightable subject matter within the meaning of Section 102(a)(1) of The
Copyright Act of 1976 (“The Copyright Act”).
144.

WHISPER IN THE WIND is fixed in a tangible medium of expression from

which it can be perceived. Daniels has taken all reasonable steps necessary to secure a copyright
for this Work, including applying for United States copyright registrations from the United States
Copyright Office.
145.

Daniels is the owner of all rights, title and interest in and to WHISPER IN THE

WIND, and has done nothing to abandon those rights or place the Work in the public domain.
146.

Without the approval or consent of Daniels, Defendants willfully infringed – and

continue to willfully infringe – Daniels’ copyrighted Work by copying, reproducing, duplicating
27
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 27 of 34 Document 1

 and using the Work in the Illusionists Show for Defendants’ own commercial purposes with full
knowledge that such acts were an infringement of Daniels’ exclusive intellectual property rights.
147.

Defendants’ actions violate Daniels’ exclusive rights under section 106 of The

Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106, and constitute willful and intentional infringement of
WHISPER IN THE WIND.
148.

Defendants have realized unjust profits, gains and advantages as a proximate

result of their ongoing infringement.
149.

As a direct and proximate result of such copyright infringement, Daniels has

suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary loss and irreparable injury to his business,
reputation, and goodwill.
150.

Daniels has complied in all respects with the statutory requirements for the

creation and enforcement of WHISPER IN THE WIND; therefore Daniels is entitled to an award
of statutory damages for Defendants’ infringement, or in the alternative, Plaintiff’s actual
damages and Defendants’ profits.
151.

Daniels is further entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief related to

this cause of action in order to prevent Defendants from producing or presenting any future
performance of the Show while continuing to infringe upon Daniels’ proprietary Work.
152.

Defendants’ conduct has made it necessary for Daniels to engage the services of

legal counsel to file this lawsuit and therefore, Daniels is entitled to an award of reasonable
attorneys and costs incurred in connection with this action.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Misappropriation of Trade Secrets)
153.

Daniels incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.
28
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 28 of 34 Document 1

 154.

Daniels’ Appearance Illusion is a device, method, technique or process created

using Daniels’ specialized knowledge of illusion design.
155.

The Appearance Illusion has independent economic value because its design and

methods are not generally known to others in the magic community or the public and are not
readily ascertainable by proper means. The Appearance Illusion is valuable to Daniels because
he sells tickets to performances where he performs the Appearance Illusion that cannot be seen
elsewhere.
156.

Since creating the Appearance Illusion, Daniels has taken reasonable efforts to

maintain its proprietary status and its secrecy, including (i) never disclosing the methods of the
Appearance Illusion to the public, (ii) constantly policing the Appearance Illusion and initiating
legal action against multiple other magicians who have attempted to steal or misappropriate the
Appearance Illusion, and (iii) entering into exclusive license agreements with other magicians
that contain contractual safeguards such as non-exclusive and non-transferable contract terms,
allowing the production of one unit of the Appearance Illusion for a single performance run.
157.

Defendants misappropriated Daniels’ Appearance Illusion by manufacturing or

purchasing and using a nearly identical illusion using sources or persons that Defendants knew or
had reason to know (i) had acquired the Appearance Illusion by improper means or did not have
the right to possess or disclose the Appearance Illusion, or (ii) owed a duty to Daniels to
maintain its secrecy or limit its use.
158.

Defendants have and will continue to wrongfully use Daniels’ trade secrets unless

enjoined. Defendants’ wrongful conduct in misappropriating Daniels’ Appearance Illusion
unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of this Court, will cause great and irreparable
injury to Daniels’ business in that the use of an unauthorized version of Daniels’ Appearance

29
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 29 of 34 Document 1

 Illusion dilutes the value of the Apperance Illusion and reduces Daniels’ own ability to generate
income from an otherwise unique Appearance Illusion. Defendants, by their conduct to date,
have demonstrated that they cannot be counted on to avoid disclosing and utilizing Daniels’ trade
secret Appearance Illusion.
159.

As a result of Defendants wrongful conduct, Daniels has suffered and continues to

suffer monetary harm in an amount to be proven at trial.
160.

Daniels is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendants’

aforementioned acts were willful, oppressive, fraudulent and malicious in that Defendants
misappropriated Daniels’ trade secrets with the deliberate intent to injure Daniels’ business and
improve their own position in the industry. Daniels is therefore entitled to punitive damages.
161.

Daniels is further entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief related to

this cause of action in order to prevent Defendants from producing or presenting any future
performance of the Show while continuing to misappropriate Daniels’ trade secrets.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Accounting)
162.

Daniels incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.
163.

Under the terms of the Oral Agreement, the Agreement, and the TV Agreement, a

significant balance remains due and owing from Defendants to Daniels.
164.

Defendants have failed to properly account for and pay the money owed to

Daniels under the terms of these agreements.
165.

Defendants have also consistently refused to submit sufficient data and financial

information regarding the payments owed to Daniels, the Total Act Fees for the Show, and other
information pertinent to the Show.
30
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 30 of 34 Document 1

 166.

The exact amount of the money due from Defendants to Daniels is unknown and

growing, and as such, can only be ascertained through a court-ordered accounting.
167.

Daniels seeks an order from this Court directing Defendants to provide Daniels

with an open accounting, resulting in full payment of all amounts due and owing under the terms
of the various agreements at issue, plus applicable interest.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
168.

Daniels incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.
169.

As outlined herein, Daniels was, at all times relevant to this action, the co-creator,

co-producer and co-founder of the Illusionists with Defendants.
170.

Daniels and Defendants each contributed property and/or services to the

Illusionists, and the parties jointly controlled and managed several elements of the Illusionists’
creative design, planning, hiring, rollout, and continuing operations.
171.

Daniels and Defendants were therefore each partners and fiduciaries in a joint

venture as they joined together to plan, create, initiate, and carry on a business venture (the
Illusionists) for profit.
172.

By breaching the Agreement, excluding Daniels from past and future productions

of the Illusionists, misappropriating Daniels’ proprietary Appearance Illusion, infringing upon
Daniels’ copyrighted Work, entering into television deals without including Daniels, and the
other wrongful conduct described herein, Defendants have usurped corporate opportunities for
the Illusionists that belong in part to Daniels, and have breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty to
Daniels.

31
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 31 of 34 Document 1

 173.

Daniels has been damaged by Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duty in an

amount to be proven at trial.
174.

Daniels is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendants’

aforementioned acts were willful, oppressive, fraudulent and malicious in that Defendants
breached their duty to Daniels and conspired to remove him from the Show with the deliberate
intent to injure Daniels’ business and improve their own profitability. Daniels is therefore
entitled to punitive damages.
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Declaratory Relief)
175.

Daniels incorporates the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.
176.

An actual controversy exists between Daniels and Defendants as to whether

Daniels is entitled to 10% of the Total Act Fees for all Illusionists productions, in any form,
throughout the world in perpetuity, and it is within the jurisdiction of this Court, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, to render a declaratory judgment as to
the parties’ respective rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Daniels requests that this Court order as follows:
A.

An award of money damages in excess of $75,000 and sufficient to compensate

Daniels for all forms of economic loss occasioned by Defendants’ wrongful conduct including,
without limitation, incidental damages, consequential damages, and other costs incident to
Defendants’ conduct;

32
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 32 of 34 Document 1

 B.

Punitive damages for Defendants’ willful, oppressive, fraudulent, and malicious

actions as described herein;
C.

Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief;

D.

A declaration that the Agreement remains in full force and effect and that Daniels

is entitled to 10% of the act fees for all Illusionists productions, in any form, throughout the
world in perpetuity;
E.

Daniels’ costs of suit;

F.

Reimbursement to Daniels of all necessary and reasonable attorneys’ fees and

costs incurred; and
G.

All such other and further relief that this Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: November 9, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
By:

/s Gregory E. Ostfeld
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
Gregory E. Ostfeld
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 456-8400
Facsimile: (312) 456-8435
ostfeldg@gtlaw.com
Tyler R. Andrews
(application for admission pending)
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92612-4410
Telephone: (949) 732-6500
Facsimile: (949) 732-6501
andrewst@gtlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BRETT DANIELS and BRETT DANIELS
PRODUCTIONS, INC.

33
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 33 of 34 Document 1

 JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiffs Brett Daniels and Brett Daniels
Productions, Inc. demand a jury trial on all claims so triable.
Dated: November 9, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
By:

/s Gregory E. Ostfeld
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
Gregory E. Ostfeld
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 456-8400
Facsimile: (312) 456-8435
ostfeldg@gtlaw.com
Tyler R. Andrews
(application for admission pending)
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92612-4410
Telephone: (949) 732-6500
Facsimile: (949) 732-6501
andrewst@gtlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BRETT DANIELS and BRETT DANIELS
PRODUCTIONS, INC.

34
Case 2:15-cv-01334-PP Filed 11/09/15 Page 34 of 34 Document 1