2014 11 13 1020 ITN Hinojosa Draft Complaint ... - Gil Medinagilmedina.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2014-11... · GLORIA HINOJOSA (“HINOJOSA”) resides in this District, defendant

II

/

1

2

Attorney for PlaintiffsITN FLIX, LLC and GIL MEDINA

NOV 132014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA9

10 ITN FLIX, LLC, a Utah limited11

liability company; and GILMEDINA, an individual;

12

13

Plaintiffs,

v.

14 GLORIA HINOJOSA, an individual;15

AMSTEL, EISENSTADT, FRAZIER &HINOJOSA TALENT AGENCY, a

16California corporation; ROBERTRODRIGUEZ, an individual;MACHETE KILLS, LLC, a Texas

17 limited liability company; EL18 CHINGON, INC., a Texas corporation;

TROUBLEMAKER STUDIOS, L.P., a19

Texas limited fmrtnershi]?; QUICKDRAW PRODUCTIONS, CLC, a Texas

20 limited liability compa[ly; MACHETE'SCHOP SHOP, INC., a Texas

21 corporation;

2223

24

25

262728

Defendants.

cesy !~-8 7 9 7 0 D uJ TZZCOMPLAINT FOR:

(1) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCEWITH CONTRACT;

(2) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCEWITH ECONOMIC RELATIONS;

(3) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCEWITH PROSPECTIVEECONOMIC ADVANTAGE;

(4) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCEWITH ECONOMIC RELATIONS;

(5) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCEWITH PROSPECTIVEECONOMIC ADVANTAGE;

(6) UNJUST ENRICHMENT;

(7) VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACTSECTION 43(a);

(8) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIABUS. & PROF. CODE SECTION17200, et seq.; AND

(9)NEGLIGENCE

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT

- 1 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs ITN FLIX, LLC (“ITN”) and GIL MEDINA (“MEDINA”) (MEDINA

and ITN collectively, “PLAINTIFFS”), on their own behalves, by and through their

attorneys of record, hereby allege as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the claims set forth

in this Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and on the grounds that there is

complete diversity of citizenship between PLAINTIFFS and all defendants and the

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants in that defendants

reside in the State of California and in this District, and/or are regularly doing business

within this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of

herein occurred in the State of California and this District and defendant RODRIGUEZ

has specifically and expressly consented to jurisdiction in this district.

3. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Central District

of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) and (c) because a substantial part of the

events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district, because defendant

GLORIA HINOJOSA (“HINOJOSA”) resides in this District, defendant AMSEL,

EISENSTADT, FRAZIER & HINOJOSA TALENT AGENCY (“AEFH”) has its

principal place of business in this District, defendants EL CHINGON, INC. and

MACHETE’S CHOP SHOP, INC. are corporations that reside within this district

within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), and defendant RODRIGUEZ has

specifically and expressly consented to venue in this district.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff ITN is and at all times relevant hereto was a limited liability

company organized under the laws of the State of Utah and with its principal place of

business in Salt Lake City, Utah. ITN is and at all times relevant hereto was an

- 2 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

independent production company, in the business of producing, promoting and

exploiting entertainment products, including without limitation films and games.

Among other things, ITN is the successor-in-interest to 8th Sister Films, LLC, a Utah

limited liability company, and to ITN, LLC, also a Utah limited liability company.

5. Plaintiff GIL MEDINA is and at all times relevant hereto was a citizen of

the State of Utah, residing in Davis County and/or Salt Lake County, Utah and is and at

all relevant times has been a citizen of the United States. Among other things,

MEDINA was and is an independent filmmaker, with credits as a producer, writer and

director, in addition to being a principal and managing member of ITN and its

predecessors-in-interest.

6. References to PLAINTIFFS herein refer to and include PLAINTIFFS’

predecessors-in-interest.

7. Defendant GLORIA HINOJOSA is an individual. HINOJOSA is a citizen

of the State of California, and resides in the County of Los Angeles, and is and at all

times has been a citizen of the United States. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe

and thereon allege that HINOJOSA is a talent agent.

8. Defendant AMSEL, EISENSTADT, FRAZIER & HINOJOSA TALENT

AGENCY is a California corporation with its principal place of business in the State of

California, County of Los Angeles. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and on that

basis allege that HINOJOSA is and at all times relevant hereto was a shareholder and

principal of AEFH or its predecessors and that in doing all of the conduct alleged

herein, HINOJOSA was acting for her own behalf and also on behalf of and with the

knowledge of AEFH. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that

AEFH is the successor-in-interest to Amsel, Eisenstadt & Frazier: A Talent & Literary

Agency, Inc. References herein to AEFH include AEFH’s predecessors.

9. Defendant ROBERT RODRIGUEZ (“RODRIGUEZ”) is and at all times

relevant hereto was a citizen of the State of Texas, residing in Austin, Texas, and is and

at all relevant times was a citizen of the United States. PLAINTIFFS are informed and

- 3 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

believe and thereon allege that RODRIGUEZ is a principal and officer and/or director,

managing member or general partner, or otherwise substantially controls, each and

every one of the Texas corporations, Texas limited liability companies and the Texas

limited partnership identified in the immediately succeeding paragraphs below.

PLAINTIFFS are further informed and believe and thereon allege that in engaging in

the wrongful conduct set forth herein, RODRIGUEZ was acting on his own behalf, and

also with respect to at least some of his wrongful conduct, on behalf of the Texas

entities identified below.

10. Defendant MACHETE KILLS, LLC (“MACHETE KILLS”) is a Texas

limited liability company with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas.

MACHETE KILLS is a film production company which regularly conducts business in

this district and is and was involved with the production and financing of the feature

film “Machete Kills.”

11. Defendant EL CHINGON, INC. (“EL CHINGON”) is a Texas corporation

with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas. EL CHINGON is a film financing

and/or production company which regularly conducts business in this district and is and

was involved with the production and financing of the feature film “Machete Kills.”

12. Defendant TROUBLEMAKER STUDIOS, L.P. (“TROUBLEMAKER”)

is a Texas limited partnership with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas.

TROUBLEMAKER is, inter alia, a film production company which regularly conducts

business in this district and is and was involved with the production and financing of

the “Machete” film franchise starring Danny Trejo.

13. Defendant QUICK DRAW PRODUCTIONS, LLC (“QUICK DRAW”) is

a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas.

QUICK DRAW is, inter alia, a film production company which regularly conducts

business in this district and is and was involved with the production and financing of

the “Machete” film franchise starring Danny Trejo.

///

- 4 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14. Defendant MACHETE’S CHOP SHOP, INC. (“CHOP SHOP”) is a Texas

corporation with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas. PLAINTIFFS are

informed and believe and thereon allege that CHOP SHOP is involved with the turning

to profit of the “Machete” film franchise starring Danny Trejo, including without

limitation through the merchandise licensing of Trejo’s celebrity and persona. CHOP

SHOP regularly conducts business in this district.

15. Defendants MACHETE KILLS, EL CHINGON, TROUBLEMAKER,

QUICK DRAW and CHOP SHOP are sometimes referred to herein collectively as the

RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS.

16. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that, with

respect to at least some of the conduct alleged herein, each defendant was acting as the

agent of the other defendants, within the course and scope of that agency. To that

extent, each defendant is vicariously liable to PLAINTIFFS for the conduct of their co-

defendant agents, as well as directly liable to PLAINTIFFS.


respect to at least some of the wrongful conduct alleged herein, each defendant

conspired with each other defendant to engage in said wrongful conduct and with the

intent or knowledge that said conduct would damage PLAINTIFFS. With knowledge

of the improper nature of the conduct, each defendant took actions in furtherance of the

conspiracy and provided substantial aid and support in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Each defendant is therefore liable to PLAINTIFFS for the acts, omissions and conduct

of each other defendant, to that extent.


respect to at least some of the wrongful conduct alleged herein, each defendant aided

and abetted each other defendant in committing said wrongful conduct. Each defendant

is therefore so liable for the acts, omissions and conduct of each other defendant.

///

///

- 5 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs Form A Relationship with Danny Trejo and Begin To Build a Film

Franchise Around Him

19. In or about 2004, MEDINA met actor Danny Trejo while Trejo was in

Utah performing acting services in “The Crow: Wicked Prayer.” MEDINA and Trejo

soon became friends. At that time and continuing into 2005, Trejo was a character

actor, with credits in film, television and other entertainment properties -- but he was

not a star seen by the industry as capable of carrying a film or other project in the lead

role. By 2005, Trejo had worked on multiple occasions with defendant RODRIGUEZ

on film projects; however, the vast majority of Trejo’s credits by that time were on

projects not involving RODRIGUEZ. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon

allege that RODRIGUEZ had no ongoing contractual relationship with Trejo to appear

in RODRIGUEZ’s films, or otherwise to work with RODRIGUEZ on any ongoing or

exclusive basis. By 2005, while Trejo, with his striking, rugged visage and background

as a convicted felon, had become a recognizable player in character and other

supporting roles, he had never been cast in or marketed as the lead actor in a scripted

feature film or film franchise: his potential as a lead action star was as yet

unrecognized, including by RODRIGUEZ. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe

and thereon allege that, whatever connection HINOJOSA had by that time to Trejo,

HINOJOSA had failed to find or consummate opportunities for Trejo to transcend his

status as a character actor and become the star of an action feature film franchise. And

by 2005, Trejo had entered his sixties. He was running out of time to become an action

hero lead, if that was ever going to happen for him.

20. By 2005, PLAINTIFFS had a vision that Trejo could serve as the lead

actor and anchor of a vigilante action feature film franchise centered around his

distinctive look, style, inherent and authentic toughness, charisma and other special

traits. In short, PLAINTIFFS saw by 2005 that Trejo could be much more than he had

///

- 6 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

been given the opportunity to be in the entertainment industry up until that time -- if

someone would place a bigger bet on Trejo and build a franchise around him.

21. In or about 2005, MEDINA approached Trejo and presented Trejo with an

opportunity that, on information and belief, RODRIGUEZ and HINOJOSA never had

presented: the chance for Trejo to be the lead in an action feature film franchise built

around a vigilante character to be portrayed by Trejo in multiple films, with

PLAINTIFFS providing creative talent, financing, and entertainment business acumen

and other resources to drive forward such a Trejo-centered entertainment franchise, and

from which Trejo would receive a substantial share of the financial proceeds.

22. Trejo was excited and enthusiastic about the project. MEDINA wrote a

script and PLAINTIFFS provided financing and other resources. Trejo used personal

connections to secure a cast with recognizable credits and otherwise lent his energies

and acting services to the project. By the Fall of 2005, PLAINTIFFS had produced a

rough cut of a vigilante action feature film with Trejo in the starring role. The film had

the working title “Jack’s Law”, later changed to “Vengeance” aka “Danny Trejo’s

Vengeance” (including as later re-shot and re-edited and otherwise modified in

different versions, the “VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM”).

23. On or about November 3, 2005, PLAINTIFFS and Trejo delivered a copy

of the script and a DVD of the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM to RODRIGUEZ, and

proposed that RODRIGUEZ take on the project and build a vigilante action feature film

franchise around Trejo. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and on that basis allege

that in or about late 2005, RODRIGUEZ examined the script and DVD of the

VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM. In or about late 2005, RODRIGUEZ (either directly or

through a representative) communicated to PLAINTIFFS and/or Trejo that

RODRIGUEZ was not interested in such a project.

24. Rejected by RODRIGUEZ, PLAINTIFFS and Trejo decided to keep going

and create an entire Trejo-centered vigilante action film franchise themselves, with the

original working title “Jack’s Law,” and later sometimes referred to by PLAINTIFFS

- 7 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and Trejo as the “Vengeance” franchise (“VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM FRANCHISE

PROJECT”).

25. In or about 2005 and 2006, PLAINTIFFS and Trejo proceeded to come to

a meeting of the minds and entered into a binding contractual and economic

relationship. The agreement and understanding between PLAINTIFFS and Trejo was

set out in a series of oral conversations and also in at least two written documents, one

dated April 25, 2006 and another dated July 22, 2006. The thrust of the agreement and

understanding between PLAINTIFFS and Trejo was at least this:

Trejo committed to be the starring or lead actor in a series of five action

feature films for a vigilante franchise that PLAINTIFFS would develop,

produce, finance, market, promote and otherwise attempt to turn to profit;

PLAINTIFFS agreed to pay Trejo both a substantial monetary advance

overall, and also guaranteed per-film payments and substantial contingent

compensation, based both on the performance of each film, and the turning

to profit of PLAINTIFFS’ licensed promotion and exploitation of Trejo’s

celebrity, including as PLAINTIFFS and Trejo would build it together

through the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM FRANCHISE PROJECT;

Trejo licensed to PLAINTIFFS the right to exploit commercially Trejo’s

name, image, likeness, signature, and voice, with the license framed as and

intended to be exclusive worldwide;

Trejo agreed to pay PLAINTIFFS a royalty of 5% of the proceeds of any

commercial exploitation of any of the immediately above rights licensed to

PLAINTIFFS by Trejo;

Trejo agreed actively to market and promote the films;

Trejo also agreed “not to play any vigilante characters that may hurt

‘Jack’s Law’ films/properties or any films that may be similar to ‘Jack’s

Law’ to the public”; and

The entire franchise project, including completion of five films, was

- 8 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

expected to take several years, and Trejo committed to the above

responsibilities and obligations for a term that extended until at least into

2013.

26. PLAINTIFFS performed their side of the Trejo bargain, paying Trejo

substantial financial sums and investing substantial resources to develop, produce and

promote a Trejo-centered vigilante franchise, including producing, financing and

continuing to re-shoot, re-edit and otherwise improve the first of the five films:

“Vengeance” (aka “Jack’s Law” and also aka “Danny Trejo’s Vengeance”) – which

indeed featured Trejo in his first lead role. Ever.

27. A theater-ready version of the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM was completed

by early 2006, and had limited theatrical exhibitions that year in a few small markets.

As importantly as anything else, by 2006 the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM existed as a

showcase – and first example – of what was possible with Trejo in a starring role as a

vigilante action star. And PLAINTIFFS held the exclusive contractual rights to any

such franchise starring Trejo through at least into 2013.

Fusion-IO

28. PLAINTIFFS have a longstanding relationship with Utah-based

technology company Fusion-IO. As part of that relationship, PLAINTIFFS and Fusion-

IO’s then Chief Marketing Officer, Rick White (“White”), had worked together.

29. In or about 2009 and continuing through and until at least August 8, 2012,

White, PLAINTIFFS and Trejo entered into one or more contracts and economic

relationships pursuant to which Trejo appeared in promotional campaigns for Fusion-

IO. Trejo appeared in marketing and promotional spots for Fusion-IO at least as late as

August 8, 2012, and paid PLAINTIFFS the requisite 5% royalty for such work,

including for the August 2012 work.

///

///

- 9 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants Recognize the Potential of Plaintiffs’ Vision and Conspire to Destroy

Plaintiffs’ Trejo Franchise to Build Their Own and/or Negligently Disregard

Plaintiffs’ Rights

30. Including through communications with PLAINTIFFS or persons acting

on PLAINTIFFS’ behalf, defendant HINOJOSA knew by in or about 2006 that Trejo

and PLAINTIFFS had entered into the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM FRANCHISE

PROJECT and, later, the Fusion-IO agreements and relationships with PLAINTIFFS.

HINOJOSA knew that PLAINTIFFS had an ongoing contractual and economic

relationship with Trejo, including a binding commitment by Trejo to work with

PLAINTIFFS to create, promote and turn to profit a five-film vigilante action franchise

– and, among other commitments, “not to play any vigilante characters that may hurt

the ‘Jack’s Law’ films/properties or any films that may be similar to ‘Jack’s Law’ to the

public.”

31. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that either

HINOJOSA was fully aware of the contractual and economic relationship between

PLAINTIFFS and Trejo and its terms, including exclusivity, and HINOJOSA and

AEFH commissioned Trejo’s earnings from said relationship, or, in the alternative, that

HINOJOSA and Trejo actively disputed whether HINOJOSA and AEFH were entitled

to commissions from monies flowing from the relationship between PLAINTIFFS and

Trejo, such that the relationship between PLAINTIFFS and Trejo was a subject of

awareness and tension between HINOJOSA and Trejo.

32. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that sometime

in the time frame between 2007 and 2009, RODRIGUEZ became interested in

developing, producing, directing and otherwise exploiting a vigilante action film

franchise and entertainment property centered around Trejo in the lead role.

PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that RODRIGUEZ and/or

representatives of RODRIGUEZ communicated with HINOJOSA and/or AEFH about

such a project in this time frame, and that either in the course of such communications

- 10 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

or otherwise, RODRIGUEZ became aware by no later than 2008 or 2009 that Trejo had

entered into the contractual and economic relationship with PLAINTIFFS, such that,

including pursuant to custom and practice in the industry, no vigilante feature film

project with Trejo in the lead role could be developed, produced or exploited without

involving or otherwise negotiating and coming to an agreement with PLAINTIFFS.

33. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that

RODRIGUEZ, out of arrogance and malice, believed that he was above dealing with

PLAINTIFFS, strongly desired not to deal with PLAINTIFFS, and believed that he

could and would use his powerful status in the industry to steamroll over PLAINTIFFS’

rights and would destroy PLAINTIFFS if they attempted to get in the way of

RODRIGUEZ building his own Trejo-centered vigilante action film franchise – without

PLAINTIFFS.

34. In the alternative, PLAINTIFFS allege that RODRIGUEZ and/or the

RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS, or their representatives, were aware by no

later than about 2008 or 2009 of facts that put them on sufficient notice to investigate

the relationship between PLAINTIFFS and Trejo, such that RODRIGUEZ and/or the

RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS would have learned of the

VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM FRANCHISE PROJECT agreements and relationships if

they had exercised ordinary care, and would have and should have known that the

relationship between PLAINTIFFS and Trejo needed to be addressed before

RODRIGUEZ or the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS could move forward

with any vigilante project with Trejo in the lead role.

35. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that beginning

possibly as early as 2007, RODRIGUEZ and HINOJOSA, either directly or through

representatives, engaged in one or more communications with each other regarding the

relationship between Trejo and PLAINTIFFS, the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM

FRANCHISE PROJECT, and the possibility of building a vigilante action franchise

around Trejo – without PLAINTIFFS.

- 11 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

36. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that through

these communications, RODRIGUEZ and HINOJOSA agreed and conspired to take the

opportunity of a Trejo vigilante action franchise for RODRIGUEZ, without dealing

with or even contacting PLAINTIFFS, to undermine and destroy the relationship

between Trejo and PLAINTIFFS, to undermine, damage and destroy PLAINTIFFS’

reputation and standing in the entertainment industry, and otherwise to make it

impossible for the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM FRANCHISE PROJECT to succeed.

PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that RODRIGUEZ and

HINOJOSA knew and understood that such conduct would be wrongful and would

cause damage to PLAINTIFFS. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon

allege that RODRIGUEZ and HINOJOSA nonetheless went forward and each of them

committed one or more overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, as further detailed

below, and indeed that the conspiracy is ongoing and that RODRIGUEZ and

HINOJOSA continue even now to commit overt acts in furtherance of their scheme.

37. In the alternative, PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon

allege that, in their communications regarding a Trejo-centered vigilante franchise,

RODRIGUEZ and HINOJOSA and/or either of them were on notice of more than

sufficient facts regarding a relationship between PLAINTIFFS and Trejo, including

without limitation HINOJOSA’s specific knowledge of the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM

FRANCHISE project agreement and relationship, and RODRIGUEZ’s knowledge at a

minimum, including from the 2005 script and DVD delivered by PLAINTIFFS and

RODRIGUEZ’s consideration and rejection of it, such that both RODRIGUEZ and

HINOJOSA should have discussed the Trejo-PLAINTIFFS relationship and, if they had

exercised reasonable care and diligence, would have and should have known and

understood that RODRIGUEZ could not make a vigilante film franchise starring Trejo

without addressing the contracts and relationship between PLAINTIFFS and Trejo, or

else would be in violation of PLAINTIFFS’ rights.

///

- 12 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

38. PLAINTIFFS’ original version of the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM failed to

obtain any substantial distribution or release, beyond the very small theatrical releases

in late 2006, but PLAINTIFFS were undeterred and continued to work on and commit

resources to the project and the Trejo-PLAINTIFFS relationship continued actively,

with the knowledge of Trejo, and on information and belief, with the knowledge of

HINOJOSA, until at least as late as August 2012.

39. In or about 2007, RODRIGUEZ directed and produced a limited, low-risk,

one-toe-in-the-water experiment with Trejo as a vigilante action hero lead: around his

“Planet Terror” film released as part of the Grindhouse double feature with Quentin

Tarantino, RODRIGUEZ included a short, fake trailer of a then-nonexistent film called

“Machete,” purportedly featuring Trejo as a vigilante action hero lead -- clearly similar

to the concept of PLAINTIFFS’ “Vengeance” franchise. PLAINTIFFS are informed

and believe and thereon allege that HINOJOSA actively participated in striking the

deals between RODRIGUEZ and Trejo for the 2007 “Machete” trailer, with knowledge

of the contractual commitment that Trejo had to PLAINTIFFS and Trejo’s relationship

with PLAINTIFFS. HINOJOSA further knew that for Trejo to take any steps even to

experiment with another vigilante franchise after he had started such a franchise with

PLAINTIFFS and had committed to them in that endeavor, and taken monies from

PLAINTIFFS in connection with the franchise (which monies, on information and

belief HINOJOSA either commissioned or claimed a right to commission), and after

PLAINTIFFS had expended substantial resources in reliance on the agreement or

agreements with Trejo, would be antithetical to the agreement and relationship between

PLAINTIFFS and Trejo. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege

that either RODRIGUEZ had substantially the same knowledge and awareness as

HINOJOSA in this regard and that RODRIGUEZ intentionally chose not to deal with

PLAINTIFFS or address the situation, or, in the alternative, that RODRIGUEZ and/or

the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS were aware of sufficient facts such that

they would have discovered the relationship between PLAINTIFFS and Trejo had they

- 13 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

exercised ordinary diligence, and/or HINOJOSA was negligent in not disclosing such

facts to RODRIGUEZ and/or the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS.

40. By 2009, including due to the lack of the fully committed support of Trejo,

possibly caused in substantial part by RODRIGUEZ and HINOJOSA, PLAINTIFFS

still had been unable to achieve a more meaningful release of the first

VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM. Trejo continued to associate regularly with PLAINTIFFS

and MEDINA in particular, and continued to accept monies and other consideration

from PLAINTIFFS. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that

Trejo and HINOJOSA both knew that PLAINTIFFS continued to put substantial

resources into the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM FRANCHISE PROJECT, in reliance on

the agreement or agreements with Trejo.

41. In 2009, induced by RODRIGUEZ and HINOJOSA, or in the alternative

due to HINOJOSA’s knowledge and the negligence of HINOJOSA and/or

RODRIGUEZ and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS, and in clear breach of

the agreement with PLAINTIFFS, Trejo agreed to star in and commenced filming

“Machete,” a full-length theatrical motion picture featuring Trejo in the lead role as a

vigilante, directed and produced by RODRIGUEZ, and with Trejo’s participation

actively brokered by HINOJOSA.

42. “Machete” was released in 2010 and was commercially and critically

successful. With PLAINTIFFS’ vision that Trejo could be a vigilante lead further

confirmed and undeterred by defendants’ wrongdoing, PLAINTIFFS continued their

efforts to keep the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM FRANCHISE PROJECT alive and to

build it. Meanwhile, defendants continued their wrongful conspiracy to destroy

PLAINTIFFS’ relationship with Trejo and the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM

FRANCHISE PROJECT, or in the alternative continued their negligent conduct,

including by making plans for a sequel to “Machete,” entitled “Machete Kills,” without

addressing the prior and exclusive relationship between Trejo and PLAINTIFFS.

Among other things, PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that all

- 14 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

defendants were involved in wrongly financing “Machete Kills” without bringing

PLAINTIFFS’ relationships and rights associated with Trejo to light to investors and

potential investors.

Rodriguez and the Rodriguez Entity Defendants Finance “Machete Kills” Without

Disclosing the Relationship between Plaintiffs and Trejo to Investors, In Violation of

Federal and State Securities Laws and/or Contractual Representations and

Warranties

43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that in or about May

2012, RODRIGUEZ and some or all of the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS

entered into a series of financing agreements whereby a group of entities controlled by

or otherwise connected with Sergei Bespalov and Marina Bespalov, individuals

residing in Encino, California, invested monies to finance the development, production

and other exploitation of “Machete Kills.” Some of the Bespalov entities include the

word “Aldamisa” in their corporate or other entity names. PLAINTIFFS sometimes

refer herein to the Bespalov-related “Machete Kills” investors as the “ALDAMISA

INVESTORS,” and the agreements between RODRIGUEZ, the RODRIGUEZ

ENTITY DEFENDANTS and the ALDAMISA INVESTORS as the “ALDAMISA

INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS.”

44. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that the

ALDAMISA INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS are securities within the meaning of,

and subject to, federal and state securities laws, and/or that RODRIGUEZ and/or the

RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS otherwise made representations and

warranties to the investors that could not validly be made given the facts within the

knowledge or discoverability, with reasonable diligence, of RODRIGUEZ or the

RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS, regarding the prior and exclusive relationship

between PLAINTIFFS and Trejo.

///

- 15 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

45. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that, in order to

obtain monies and other resources from the ALDAMISA INVESTORS, RODRIGUEZ

and some or all of the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS failed to disclose to the

ALDAMISA INVESTORS the relationship between PLAINTIFFS and Trejo regarding

the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM FRANCHISE PROJECT, including both Trejo’s

exclusive commitment not to work on competing vigilante film projects, PLAINTIFFS’

exclusive rights to exploit Trejo’s celebrity at least in connection with such projects,

and PLAINTIFFS’ entitlement to a percentage of proceeds from exploitation of Trejo’s

celebrity, while RODRIGUEZ and/or the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS

were under a legal and/or contractual duty to make such disclosures. PLAINTIFFS are

informed and believe and thereon allege that in this regard, RODRIGUEZ and

HINOJOSA both arrogantly believed that they had successfully destroyed and crushed

PLAINTIFFS through prior wrongful conduct. In the alternative, PLAINTIFFS are

informed and believe and thereon allege that defendants were negligent in failing to

make the requisite disclosures to the ALDAMISA INVESTORS.

46. PLAINTIFFS are further informed and believe and thereon allege that

RODRIGUEZ and some or all of the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS entered

into similar investment and financing agreements with some or all of the ALDAMISA

INVESTORS regarding other film projects, including “Sin City: A Dame to Kill For”

aka “Sin City 2.” PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that these

other investment and financing agreements were likewise securities within the meaning

of and subject to federal and state securities laws, and thus subject to strict regulation

and disclosure requirements by RODRIGUEZ and some or all of the RODRIGUEZ

ENTITY DEFENDANTS, and/or were the subject of contractual representations and

warranties regarding prior rights and claims. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe

and thereon allege that RODRIGUEZ and some or all of the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY

DEFENDANTS failed to make all required disclosures in connection with these

financing and investment agreements and/or otherwise failed to comply with the

- 16 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

applicable securities laws and/or falsely and/or negligently made contractual

representations and warranties to investors, and that RODRIGUEZ and the

RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS have a pattern and business practice of raising

financing for entertainment projects by failing to comply with applicable securities

laws, and/or failing to exercise reasonable diligence in making representations and

warranties, including without limitation by failing to make all required disclosures to

investors, and that among other things this has the effect of allowing RODRIGUEZ

wrongfully to obtain financing without acquiring or clearing all necessary rights in

projects.

Plaintiffs Connect with Steve and Janet Wozniak, React Games and Build a New

Marketing, Promotion and Release Plan for “Vengeance”, including the Mobile

Application “Vengeance: Woz with a Coz”

47. In or about 2012, through their relationship with Fusion-IO and White,

PLAINTIFFS established a relationship with Steve Wozniak, the famous inventor and

co-founder of Apple Computer, and Steve’s wife, Janet Wozniak. Steve Wozniak

works as, or worked as, Chief Scientist for Fusion-IO, since in or about 2008.

48. In or about 2012, PLAINTIFFS entered into a series of discussions and

agreements with the Wozniaks and React Games, LLC (“React Games”) pursuant to

which the Wozniaks would appear in one or more new scenes that would be included in

a re-edited and otherwise improved version of the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM, and also

in a mobile game application to be built by React Games and designed in large part to

market and promote the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM FRANCHISE PROJECT (in

addition to generating revenue in its own right). As part of the arrangement,

PLAINTIFFS committed to providing financial and other resources to the mobile app

effort, under a set of conditions and terms set forth in a binding contractual agreement

with React Games.

///

- 17 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

49. In or about the Fall of 2012, the Wozniaks recorded their portion of the

mobile app game and otherwise made contributions to it, and it indeed was completed

and named “Vengeance: Woz with a Coz” (the “App Game”), and its content and game

play tied in to the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM FRANCHISE.

50. Among other aspects, the App Game included a built-in platform for

potential sponsorship and product placement portals within the App Game itself,

allowing third party businesses to purchase advertising space within the App Game – a

business model predicated and dependent upon success and promotion of the App

Game that would also help promote the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM. Among other

aspects of the deal with React Games, PLAINTIFFS would receive 100% of all

advertising and cross-promotional inventory in the App Game. However, at base, the

App Game and the relationship with the Wozniaks was designed and intended to be a

marketing and promotional tool designed to advance the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM

with an at least partially organic, viral digital marketing campaign.

51. Partially as a result of the App Game, PLAINTIFFS were able to negotiate

potential agreements with theatrical exhibitors and other distributors for a meaningful

commercial release of the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM, to take place in early 2013, with

the App Game to be released first on or about November 22, 2012.

52. As a result of these developments, relationships and agreements, as of

early November 2012, PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that

PLAINTIFFS had a realistic expectation of earning millions of dollars in revenues

imminently from both the App Game itself and from a meaningful commercial release

of the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM, to commence in early 2013.

53. In communicating with potential exhibitors and distributors, PLAINTIFFS

expressly pitched the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM as a competitive alternative to

“Machete Kills” – the Burger King to RODRIGUEZ’S and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY

DEFENDANTS’ McDonald’s.

///

- 18 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

54. Trejo continued to communicate to PLAINTIFFS that he supported the

VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM FRANCHISE PROJECT at least as late as 2012, and

indeed continued to work with PLAINTIFFS and Fusion-IO, and to pay PLAINTIFFS

their percentage of proceeds for such work, as late as August 2012. However, Trejo

also communicated to PLAINTIFFS that RODRIGUEZ was putting tremendous

pressure on Trejo, both directly and through HINOJOSA, not to fulfill Trejo’s

contractual obligations to PLAINTIFFS, including that Trejo should refuse to and fail

to fulfill his obligations to market and promote the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM and

VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM FRANCHISE PROJECT.

Defendants Intentionally Interfere with and Destroy Plaintiffs’ Relationship with the

Wozniaks and Plaintiffs’ Marketing and Release Strategy for the App Game and

Vengeance Film


RODRIGUEZ and HINOJOSA became aware of PLAINTIFFS’ release plans for the

App Game and VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM during 2012, and, as part of their

continuing and wrongful conspiracy to prevent PLAINTIFFS from realizing their vision

of a Trejo-centered vigilante franchise, RODRIGUEZ and HINOJOSA further colluded

and conspired to destroy PLAINTIFFS’ relationship with the Wozniaks and

PLAINTIFFS’ marketing and release strategy.

56. In the alternative, PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon

allege that in or about 2012, HINOJOSA came to believe that she had been negligent in

failing fully to discuss with RODRIGUEZ the relationship between PLAINTIFFS and

Trejo, and that as a result, HINOJOSA had put RODRIGUEZ and the RODRIGUEZ

ENTITY DEFENDANTS at risk of substantial liability to the ALDAMISA

INVESTORS, and that tensions and conflict had indeed started to arise between

RODRIGUEZ, the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS, and the ALDAMISA

INVESTORS, including without limitation regarding RODRIGUEZ and/or the

- 19 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS’ disclosures prior to and in connection with

financing of “Machete Kills.” RODRIGUEZ is a powerful industry player and, on

information and belief, for HINOJOSA to have put RODRIGUEZ and/or the

RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS would have been and was a problem for both

HINOJOSA and AEFH, independent of any relationship they had with Trejo.

57. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that, on a date

in November 2012 no earlier than November 16, 2012, and of which PLAINTIFFS did

not become aware until no earlier than November 18, 2012, HINOJOSA and/or one or

more other purported persons acting for HINOJOSA and/or RODRIGUEZ contacted

Steve and/or Janet Wozniak and intimidated and threatened the Wozniaks to cease any

support of the App Game, VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM, or the VIGILANTE/TREJO

FILM FRANCHISE PROJECT. Such intimidation and threats included making a

series of intentionally false statements to the Wozniaks concerning PLAINTIFFS, with

the intention of damaging and destroying PLAINTIFFS’ relationships with the

Wozniaks and their other relationships and agreements involved with the App Game,

VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM and the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM FRANCHISE

PROJECT. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that among

other false statements, HINOJOSA told the Wozniaks that PLAINTIFFS had no

contract or other business relationship with Trejo, and had not worked with Trejo for

ten years, and that MEDINA in particular was a “fraud” and “con man” and was taking

monies for himself and not putting them into any project involving Trejo.

PLAINTIFFS are further informed and believe and thereon allege in the alternative

and/or in addition, that in communicating with the Wozniaks, HINOJOSA engaged in

misleading omissions or failures to speak, resulting in the intended implication by

HINOJOSA and actual inference by the Wozniaks, that PLAINTIFFS’ relationship

with Trejo was unauthorized and unknown by HINOJOSA, and/or that there was no

relationship between PLAINTIFFS and Trejo, when in fact HINOJOSA had been aware

of and has been commissioning the monies from the relationship for many years and/or

- 20 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

claiming a right to such commissions. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and

thereon allege that HINOJOSA made these statements and/or omissions with the

knowledge that the statements were false, and/or that the omissions would create a false

impression in the Wozniaks, and indeed at the time that she made these statements or

omissions, HINOJOSA knew that not only did PLAINTIFFS have a contractual and

economic relationship with PLAINTIFFS, but that Trejo had been working with and

paying PLAINTIFFS as recently as August 2012.


among other reasons, HINOJOSA made the false statements and/or calculated

omissions to exert pressure and wrongful influence on the Wozniaks because, although

HINOJOSA (or a person acting on HINOJOSA’s behalf) also vaguely stated to the

Wozniaks that if the App Game went forward that the Wozniaks might be sued by “an

A list producer,” HINOJOSA knew that neither RODRIGUEZ nor HINOJOSA nor any

other defendant or entity associated with them intended to enter into any contract with

PLAINTIFFS or to file any lawsuit or pursue any litigation against PLAINTIFFS or

anyone connected to PLAINTIFFS or the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM FRANCHISE

PROJECT -- including because there were no valid claims against PLAINTIFFS, but

also because to enter into any such contract or to file any such litigation would

inevitably require RODRIGUEZ and/or the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS to

disclose to the ALDAMISA INVESTORS, or the ALDAMISA INVESTORS would

otherwise become aware, that RODRIGUEZ and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY

DEFENDANTS had taken the ALDAMISA INVESTORS’ money without disclosing

or without fully disclosing all facts related to PLAINTIFFS, Trejo, and the

VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM FRANCHISE PROJECT, either as a result of intentional

and/or negligent conduct by HINOJOSA, RODRIGUEZ, and/or the RODRIGUEZ

ENTITY DEFENDANTS, but that in either event would expose RODRIGUEZ and the

RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS to substantial liability and also damage

RODRIGUEZ’s standing with the investment community and ability to finance films.

- 21 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


HINOJOSA’s communications to the Wozniaks (or the communications to the

Wozniaks by persons acting on HINOJOSA’s behalf), were not authorized by Trejo and

that Trejo did not know about the communications in advance, nor would he have

authorized the communications with the Wozniaks had HINOJOSA asked Trejo in

advance. In the alternative, PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege

that, if Trejo had authorized contact by HINOJOSA or someone acting on

HINOJOSA’s behalf with the Wozniaks, Trejo did not authorize and would not have

authorized HINOJOSA to make the false statements or omissions that she made

regarding PLAINTIFFS and MEDINA in particular, and indeed that Trejo would have

directed HINOJOSA not to do so.


HINOJOSA made the false statements or omissions and engaged in other wrongful

conduct set forth above not for Trejo, but for herself, for AEFH, and for RODRIGUEZ

and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS or some of them, and for the purpose

of wrongfully eliminating the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM from any competitive release

and marketing position with “Machete Kills,” which RODRIGUEZ planned for release

in the second half of 2013, and also in furtherance of RODRIGUEZ and the

RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS’ concealment of their violations of securities

laws and other wrongful conduct, whether negligent or intentional, toward the

ALDAMISA INVESTORS.

61. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that, due to

HINOJOSA’s communications to the Wozniaks (or the communications to the

Wozniaks by persons acting on HINOJOSA’s behalf), the Wozniaks withdrew active

marketing and promotional support for the App Game, on a date that was no earlier

than November 18, 2012. Despite the Wozniaks’ lack of support thereafter, the App

Game was in fact released and prominently features the Wozniaks’ personas, and

remains available on iTunes even to this day. None of the defendants have ever filed

- 22 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

any litigation regarding it, even approximately two years after release, further indicative

that they never had any intent to do so.

62. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the

RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS or some of them further were aware of

PLAINTIFFS and PLAINTIFFS’ relationship with Trejo when one or more of the

RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS in or about 2012, granted a license to

PLAINTIFFS to use a machete symbol in connection with Trejo’s image in the App

Game and otherwise (whether or not PLAINTIFFS ever required any such license).

PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that RODRIGUEZ and the

RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS, were thus further under a duty to inform the

ALDAMISA INVESTORS of this development and PLAINTIFFS’ rights or claims,

but intentionally or negligently failed to do so, actively or negligently concealing the

situation in order to avoid securities laws and other liability.

63. Defendants’ efforts were nonetheless unfortunately successful and

PLAINTIFFS’ marketing and release plans for the App Game and

VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM and VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM FRANCHISE PROJECT

were in fact damaged and interfered with as a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct.

Beyond the Wozniaks’ withdrawal of active marketing and promotional support for the

App Game, PLAINTIFFS’ plans to build a social network and online digital viral

marketing and promotional effort for the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM FRANCHISE

were not able to move forward fully, and PLAINTIFFS were unable to release the

VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM in early 2013 as planned, and PLAINTIFFS are informed

and believe and thereon allege that they lost millions of dollars as a result, including but

not limited to amounts that PLAINTIFFS expended to prepare for and implement their

marketing and release plans, and money spent developing, producing and otherwise

preparing to exploit the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM and the VIGILANTE/TREJO

FILM FRANCHISE PROJECT, in addition to expected revenues and profits therefrom.

///

- 23 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

64. RODRIGUEZ and some or all of the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY

DEFENDANTS went forward and released “Machete Kills” in late 2013, having

wrongfully eliminated or damaged competition from PLAINTIFFS. PLAINTIFFS are

informed and believe and thereon allege that RODRIGUEZ and some or all of the

RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS profited thereby in the millions of dollars, and

that HINOJOSA and AEFH likewise wrongfully profited at PLAINTIFFS’ expense.

65. Any and all claims and rights previously held by any predecessors of ITN

and MEDINA have been validly transferred to or are otherwise now held by

PLAINTIFFS.

66. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that defendants

continue to commit overt acts in furtherance of their conspiracy against PLAINTIFFS,

and that PLAINTIFFS have a reasonable probability of being able to establish such

after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.

67. PLAINTIFFS are entitled to relief from defendants, including pursuant to

the following specific claims.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Intentional Interference with Contract

(California Common Law)

(By PLAINTIFFS against RODRIGUEZ and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY

DEFENDANTS)

68. PLAINTIFFS reallege and reincorporate by reference each and every

allegation contained in the paragraphs above, as though fully set forth herein.

69. PLAINTIFFS had valid and existing contractual relationships, including

without limitation with Trejo and React Games.


RODRIGUEZ and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS knew of the existence

of PLAINTIFFS’ contractual relationships.

- 24 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


RODRIGUEZ and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS engaged in conduct

intended to induce a breach of the contracts or to disrupt the performance of the

contracts.


RODRIGUEZ’s and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS’ conduct prevented

performance and/or proximately caused a breach or disruption of the contractual

relationships that made performance more difficult.

73. PLAINTIFFS suffered resulting damages from RODRIGUEZ’s and the

RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS’ conduct.

74. RODRIGUEZ’s and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS’ conduct

was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFFS harm.


RODRIGUEZ’s and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS’ conduct was willful,

malicious, oppressive and/or fraudulent such that RODRIGUEZ and the RODRIGUEZ

ENTITY DEFENDANTS are liable to PLAINTIFFS for punitive damages, in addition

to actual and compensatory damages.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Intentional Interference with Economic Relations

(Utah Common Law)


DEFENDANTS)




RODRIGUEZ and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS intentionally interfered

with PLAINTIFFS’ actual and/or prospective economic relationships, including

- 25 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

without limitation PLAINTIFFS’ relationships with Trejo, the Wozniaks, and potential

distributors and exhibitors of the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM.


RODRIGUEZ and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS engaged in said

interference for an improper purpose and/or by improper means.


RODRIGUEZ’s and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS’ conduct caused

injury to PLAINTIFFS.


RODRIGUEZ’s conduct was willful, malicious, oppressive and/or intentionally

fraudulent and/or manifested a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and disregard

of, the rights of others, such that RODRIGUEZ and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY

DEFENDANTS are liable to PLAINTIFFS for punitive damages, in addition to actual

and compensatory damages.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage



DEFENDANTS)



82. PLAINTIFFS had existing and prospective economic relationships with a

probability of future economic benefit, including without limitation with Trejo, the

Wozniaks, and potential exhibitors and distributors of the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM.


RODRIGUEZ and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS knew of and intended

to interfere with PLAINTIFFS’ existing and prospective economic relationships.

- 26 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


RODRIGUEZ and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS engaged in conduct

amounting to injurious interference with PLAINTIFFS’ existing and prospective

economic relationships.


RODRIGUEZ’s and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS’ interfering conduct

was wrongful separate from the interference itself, and outside the boundaries of fair

competition.


RODRIGUEZ’s and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS’ conduct proximately

caused damage to PLAINTIFFS.

87. RODRIGUEZ’s and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS’ conduct

was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF harm.


RODRIGUEZ’s and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS’ conduct was willful,

malicious, oppressive and/or fraudulent such that RODRIGUEZ the RODRIGUEZ

ENTITY DEFENDANTS are liable to PLAINTIFFS for punitive damages, in addition

to actual and compensatory damages.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Intentional Interference with Economic Relations

(Utah Common Law)

(By PLAINTIFFS against HINOJOSA and AEFH)




HINOJOSA and AEFH intentionally interfered with PLAINTIFFS’ actual and/or

prospective economic relationships, including without limitation PLAINTIFFS’

- 27 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

relationships with the Wozniaks, and potential distributors and exhibitors of the

VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM.


HINOJOSA and AEFH engaged in said interference for an improper purpose and/or by

improper means.


HINOJOSA and AEFH’s conduct caused injury to PLAINTIFFS.


HINOJOSA’s and AEFH’s conduct was willful, malicious, oppressive and/or

intentionally fraudulent and/or manifested a knowing and reckless indifference toward,

and disregard of, the rights of others, such that HINOJOSA and AEFH are liable to

PLAINTIFFS for punitive damages, in addition to actual and compensatory damages.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage


(By PLAINTIFFS against HINOJOSA and AEFH)



95. PLAINTIFFS had existing and prospective economic relationships with a

probability of future economic benefit, including without limitation with the Wozniaks,

and potential exhibitors and distributors of the VIGILANTE/TREJO FILM.


HINOJOSA and AEFH knew of and intended to interfere with PLAINTIFFS’

prospective economic advantage.


HINOJOSA and AEFH engaged in conduct amounting to injurious interference with

PLAINTIFFS’ existing and prospective economic relationships.

- 28 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


HINOJOSA and AEFH’s interfering conduct was wrongful separate from the

interference itself, and outside the boundaries of fair competition.


HINOJOSA and AEFH’s conduct proximately caused damage to PLAINTIFFS.


HINOJOSA and AEFH’s conduct was willful, malicious, oppressive and/or fraudulent

such that HINOJOSA and AEFH are liable to PLAINTIFFS for punitive damages, in

addition to actual and compensatory damages.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Unjust Enrichment


(By PLAINTIFFS against all Defendants)



102. Defendants have received benefits and unjustly retained them at the

expense of PLAINTIFFS.

103. PLAINTIFFS are entitled to relief, including without limitation a

constructive trust on the benefits received by defendants, and/or restitution from

defendants.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Lanham Act Section 43(a)




105. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that all

- 29 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants made false and misleading statements, or failed to speak when under a legal

duty to do so, in connection with promoting Trejo and “Machete Kills” in violation of

PLAINTIFFS’ rights. Among other conduct, defendants represented to third parties

that rights related to Trejo’s involvement in and with “Machete Kills” and other

projects involving Trejo as a vigilante were unencumbered and freely licensable

through Defendants, despite the fact that Defendants had actual knowledge that

PLAINTIFFS had a prior claim and rights in such Trejo projects and proceeds from

them. In the alternative and/or in addition, Defendants failed to speak to third parties

regarding Trejo’s relationship to PLAINTIFFS when under a legal duty to do so.


Defendants’ false and misleading representations were carried through the stream of

commerce throughout the nation, and least in and across California, Texas and Utah.

107. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that the false

and misleading statements made by Defendants caused confusion in the marketplace as

to the source and rights in Trejo vigilante action hero projects and licensing related to

or exploiting Trejo’s celebrity and persona as, at a minimum, a vigilante action hero

and made third parties mistakenly believe that PLAINTIFFS had no connection with or

involvement with Trejo and did not need to be involved in projects involving him, or

otherwise failed to fully disclose and/or misrepresented the relationship between

PLAINTIFFS and Trejo.

108. PLAINTIFFS suffered actual damages as a result, in an amount to be

proven at trial and defendants’ conduct caused a likelihood of confusion and actual

confusion with actual and potential customers for the relevant rights and with

consumers.

///

///

///

///

- 30 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. (By PLAINTIFFS against RODRIGUEZ and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY

DEFENDANTS)



110. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that RODRIGUEZ

and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS engaged in unlawful, unfair or

fraudulent business acts or practices in violation of California Business & Professions

Code sections 17200, et. seq.

111. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that RODRIGUEZ

and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS have been unjustly enriched as a

result.

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Negligence





113. Under the facts and circumstances here, all Defendants owed a duty or

duties of care toward PLAINTIFFS, including without limitation to inquire with

PLAINTIFFS or PLAINTIFFS’ representatives about the nature and meaning of

PLAINTIFFS’ contractual and economic relationship with PLAINTIFFS, and/o to

make disclosures to others regarding PLAINTIFFS’ rights.

114. Defendants failed to exercise due care with respect to the above duties to

PLAINTIFFS.

///

- 31 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

115. PLAINTIFFS have been damaged as a proximate result of Defendants’

failure.

116. Defendants’ failures were and are a substantial factor in causing

PLAINTIFFS’ harm.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for the following relief:

On the FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF for Intentional Interference with Contract

against RODRIGUEZ and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY DEFENDANTS:

1. Actual and compensatory damages in an amount according to proof at

trial, but exceeding $75,000;

2. Punitive damages;

3. Costs of suit;

4. Such other relief as is equitable and just and/or that the Court may grant.

On the SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF for Intentional Interference with

Economic Relations against RODRIGUEZ and the RODRIGUEZ ENTITY

DEFENDANTS:




3. Costs of suit;


On the THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF for Intentional Interference with

Prospective Economic Advantage against RODRIGUEZ and the RODRIGUEZ

ENTITY DEFENDANTS:

///

- 32 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




3. Costs of suit;


On the FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF for Intentional Interference with

Economic Relations against HINOJOSA and AEFH:




3. Costs of suit;


On the FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF for Intentional Interference with

Prospective Economic Advantage against HINOJOSA and AEFH:




3. Costs of suit;


On the SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF for Unjust Enrichment against all

defendants:

1. A constructive trust;

2. Restitution;

3. Costs of suit;


- 33 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On the SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF for Violation of the Lanham Act

section 43(a) against all defendants:

1. Injunctive relief;

2. Actual and compensatory damages;

3. A constructive trust;

4. Restitution;

5. Attorneys’ Fees;

6. Costs of suit;


On the EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF for Violation of California Business &

Professions Code sections 17200, et seq. against RODRIGUEZ and the RODRIGUEZ

ENTITY DEFENDANTS:

1. Injunctive relief;

2. Restitution;

3. Costs of suit;

4. Attorneys’ fees;


///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

- 34 - COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On the NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF for Negligence against all Defendants:

1. Actual and compensatory damages;

2. Costs of suit;


DATED: November 13, 2014 ANDERSON GENERAL & ENTERTAINMENT LAW PC

By

Edward M. Anderson Attorney for Plaintiffs ITN FLIX, LLC and GIL MEDINA

- 1 - DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs ITN FLIX, LLC and GIL MEDINA, by and through their attorneys,

hereby demand a trial by jury of all matters and issues triable to a jury.

DATED: November 13, 2014 ANDERSON GENERAL & ENTERTAINMENT LAW PC

By

Edward M. Anderson Attorney for Plaintiffs ITN FLIX, LLC and GIL MEDINA

Documents

2014 11 13 1020 ITN Hinojosa Draft Complaint ... - Gil Medinagilmedina.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2014-11... · GLORIA HINOJOSA (“HINOJOSA”) resides in this District, defendant