JUDGt 6CHOFIELD

JS 44C/SDNY
REV. 4/2014

CIVILCOVER SHEET

The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of

pleadings orotherpapers as required bylaw, except as provided bylocal rules ofcourt. This form, approved bythe
Judicial Conference ofthe United States inSeptember1974,is required for useof the Clerk of Court forthe purposeof
initiating the civil docket sheet.

CV is

PLAINTIFFS

DEFEND

CARLA B. BOONE, MEMBER ON BEHALF OFHOLLA'BACK RECORDS,

:c LLP
IID
CODISP(
CODISPOTI
&ASSOCJATES^

ENTERTAINMENT, & MANAGEMENT LLC

MANCINELLI & ASSOCIATES, LLP

ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, ANDTELEPHONE NUMBER

ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)

>"^

PRO-SE; CARLA B. BOONE, C/O KEVINW. NEWMAN, BUSINESS

MANAGER, P.O.BOX 970,TYRONE,GA 30290,

CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE ABRIEF STATEMENT OFCAUSE!
(DO NOTCITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTESUNLESS DIVERSITY)

18 U.S.C. SEC 1001 (1) (2);18 U.S.C.SEC 371 ;42 U.S.C.. SEC, 1983, FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY, DENIALpF^EjPgOCESS^
Has this action, case, or proceeding, or one essentially the same been previously filed in SDNY atany time? N(EreslUudge Previously Assigned
If yes,wasthis case Vol.

Invol. Q Dismissed. No

IS THIS AN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CASE?

No 0

Yes fj If yes,give date

&Case No.

Yes
NATURE OF SUIT

(PLACE AN [x] IN ONE BOXONLY)

ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES

TORTS

PERSONAL INJURY

PERSONAL INJURY

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER STATUTES

[ ] 422 APPEAL

m}400STATE
REAPPORTIONMENT

[ ] 367 HEALTHCARE/
[ ] no
[]120
[ 1130
[ 1140
[ 1150

INSURANCE
MARINE
MILLER ACT

[ ] 315 AIRPLANE PRODUCT

INJURY/PRODUCT LIABILITY

LIABILITY

NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENT

[ ] 320 ASSAULT, LIBEL &

RECOVERY OF

[ ] 330 FEDERAL

SLANDER

OVERPAYMENT &
ENFORCEMENT

I 1151
[ 1152

EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY

OF JUDGMENT
MEDICARE ACT
RECOVERY OF

[ ] 340 MARINE
[ J 345 MARINE PRODUCT

DEFAULTED

[ ] 350 MOTOR VEHICLE

[ ] 355 MOTOR VEHICLE

STUDENT LOANS

LIABILITY

(EXCL VETERANS)
N153

[ 1160

[ ] 365 PERSONAL INJURY

PRODUCT LIABILITY

[ ] 368 ASBESTOS PERSONAL

[ ] 360 OTHER PERSONAL

OF VETERAN'S
BENEFITS
STOCKHOLDERS

[ J 362 PERSONAL INJURY -

INJURY
MED MALPRACTICE

FRANCHISE

I ] 370 OTHER FRAUD

[ ] 371 TRUTH IN LENDING

[ ] 385 PROPERTY DAMAGE

[ ]220
[ ]230

LAND

CONDEMNATION
FORECLOSURE
RENT LEASE &
EJECTMENT

[ ]240
[ ]245

TORTS TO LAND

[ ]290

ALL OTHER
REAL PROPERTY

[ ] 710 FAIR LABOR

STANDARDS ACT

TORT PRODUCT
LIABILITY

ACCOMMODATIONS

[ 1445 AMERICANS WITH

DISABILITIES EMPLOYMENT

[ ] 460 DEPORTATION
[ ) 470 RACKETEER INFLU
ENCED & CORRUPT
ORGANIZATION ACT

r 1 830 PATENT
140 TRADEMARK

(RICO)
[ ]480 CONSUMER CREDIT
[ ) 490 CABLE/SATELLITE TV

SOCIAL SECURITY

[ ] 850 SECURITIES/

VACATE SENTENCE

[ ] 530 HABEAS CORPUS

[ ] 535 DEATH PENALTY
[ ] 540 MANDAMUS & OTHER

(
[
[
[
[

]861
] 862
) 863
] 864
] 865

HIA(1395ff)
BLACK LUNG (923)
DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
SSID TITLE XVI
RSI (405(g))

EXCHANGE

[ ] 890 OTHER STATUTORY

ACTIONS

[ ] 891 AGRICULTURAL ACTS

[ ] 740 RAILWAY LABOR ACT

[ ) 751 FAMILY MEDICAL
LEAVE ACT (FMLA)
[ ]790 OTHER LABOR
LITIGATION

[ ] 791 EMPL RET INC

SECURITY ACT

(Non-Prisoner)

[ ]441 VOTING
[ ] 442 EMPLOYMENT
[ ] 443 HOUSING/

^3 BANKS & BANKING

[ j450COMMERCE

RELATIONS

28 USC 2255

REAL PROPERTY

[J 210

LABOR

PROPERTY DAMAGE

[ ] 463 ALIEN DETAINEE

[ ] 510 MOTIONS TO

OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS

"10 ANTITRUST

COMMODITIES/

[ ] 380 OTHER PERSONAL

[ ] 720 LABOR/MGMT

OWL RIGHTS

28 USC 157

[ ] 820 COPYRIGHTS

PERSONAL PROPERTY

PRODUCT LIABILITY

ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES

[ ] 423 WITHDRAWAL

PROPERTY RIGHTS

PRISONER PETITIONS

LIABILITY

1 1196

21 USC 881

INJURY PRODUCT
LIABILITY

SUITS

CONTRACT
PRODUCT

SEIZURE OF PROPERTY

28 USC 158

[ ] 690 OTHER

PRODUCT LIABILITY

RECOVERY OF
OVERPAYMENT

OTHER
CONTRACT

[ ]195

3 375 FALSE CLAIMS

[ I 310 AIRPLANE

PHARMACEUTICAL PERSONAL r , 625 DRUG RELATED

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

( 1870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintiff or

Defendant)

[ ] 893 ENVIRONMENTAL

[ ] 871 IRS-THIRD PARTY

[ ] 895 FREEDOM OF

MATTERS

INFORMATION ACT

26 USC 7609

[ ] 896 ARBITRATION
[ ) 899 ADMINISTRATIVE

IMMIGRATION

PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS

[ ]462 NATURALIZATION
[ ] 550 CIVIL RIGHTS
[ ] 555 PRISON CONDITION
[ ] 560 CIVIL DETAINEE

APPLICATION

( ]465 OTHER IMMIGRATION

PROCEDURE ACT/REVIEW OR
APPEAL OF AGENCY DECISION

[ ] 950 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
STATE STATUTES

ACTIONS

CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT

( ] 446 AMERICANS WITH

DISABILITIES -OTHER

[ ]448 EDUCATION

Checkif demanded in complaint:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

DO YOU CLAJM THIS CASE IS RELATED TO A CIVIL CASE NOW PENDING IN S.D.N.Y.?

UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND $_

OTHER

JUDGE

DOCKET NUMBER

Check YES onlyifdemandedin complaint

JURY DEMAND: S YES LNO

NOTE: You must also submit at the time of filing the Statement of Relatedness form (Form IH-32).

(PLACEAN x INONEBOXONLY)

M 1 Original

ORIGIN

2 Removed from

Proceeding

II 3 Remanded D 4 Reinstated or

StateCourt

'

from

a. all parties represented

5 Transferred from Q 6 Multidistrict

Reopened

(Specify District)

I~~l 7 Appeal to District

Judge from
Magistrate Judge
Judgment

Litigation

Appellate
Court

I | b. At least one
party is pro se.

(PLACEAN x IN ONEBOXONLY)

Q 1 U.S. PLAINTIFF

BASIS OF JURISDICTION

2 U.S. DEFENDANT

3 FEDERAL QUESTION

IFDIVERSITY, INDICATE

[x]4 DIVERSITY

CITIZENSHIP BELOW.

(U.S. NOT A PARTY)

CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)

(Place an [X] in one box for Plaintiff and one box for Defendant)
CITIZEN OF THIS STATE

PTF

DEF

[ ]1

M 1

CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE \% "

PTF DEF

[ ]3[ ]3

CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF A
FOREIGN COUNTRY

[ ]2

INCORPORATED and PRINCIPAL PLACE

PTF

DEF

V] 5

[ ]5

[16

[ ]6

OF BUSINESS IN ANOTHER STATE

INCORPORATED or PRINCIPAL PLACE

OF BUSINESS IN THIS STATE

41

FOREIGN NATION

PLAINTIFF(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES)

CARLA B. BOONE

C/O KEVIN W. NEWMAN

P. O. BOX 970

TYRONE, GA 30290

(FAYETTE)
DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES)

CODISPOTI & MANCINELLI AND ASSOCIATES LLP, 111 JOHN STREET, SUITE 800 NY NY 10018

(NY)

DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS UNKNOWN

REPRESENTATION IS HEREBY MADE THAT, AT THIS TIME, I HAVE BEEN UNABLE, WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE, TO ASCERTAIN
RESTOENCE ADDRESSES OF THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS:

Check one:

THIS ACTION SHOULD BE ASSIGNED TO: WHHfe PLAINS

(DO NOT check either box if this a PRISONER PETITION/PRISONE^jftrVIL RIGHTS
COMPLAINT.)
>"

DATE
RECEIPT #

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

I^^y" 2-

Magistrate Judge is to bejd^ssignated

ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN THIS DISTRICT

[] NO
[ ] YES (DATE ADMITTED Mo.
Attorney Bar Code #

2^
by the

-S?

H MANHATTAN

Lo
Clerk

'dflfce Cogrt
4

Magistrate Judge

is so Designated.

Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court by

Deputy Clerk, DATED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (NEW YORK SOUTHERN)

Clear Form

Save

Print

Yr.

Carla B.

Boone,

Pro SE

JUDGE SCHOFVELD

C/O Kevin W. Newman, Business Manager

HOLLA'BACK RECORDS,
P.

0.

ENT...LLC

BOX 970

TYRONE, GA

30290

E:mail kwnewman36@aol.com

Telephone:

(404)

15 CV 1391

232-9852
UNITED

STATES DISTRICT

COURT

J- *-* v

-*-

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CASE

CARLA B.

BOONE

(MEMBER)

NO.

ON BEHALF OF

COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD,

CONSPIRACY AND

HOLLA'BACK RECORDS,

TO DECLARE

ENTERTAINMENT... LLC,

DISMISSALS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

'_j

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

r~

SYSTEMIC COPYRIGHT

INFRINGEMENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT *

Plaintiff,
v.

ot

BRUNO F.CODISPOTI & ASSOCIATES,

STEVEN C.

MANCINELLI & ASSOCIATES,

DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff, Carla B. Boone, member of Holla'back Records,

Ent.

&

Management, LLC hereby alleges and files this complaint against Defendants
listed above and demands a trial by jury and seeks relief as follows:

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

I.

1. This is a fraud,

NATURE

OF CASE

conspiracy and due process violations case

wherein Plaintiff, as a layperson, was ignorant nor advised of the

systemic, unjust,

illegal, unethical and unfair Pro-Defendant

biased,* statistically substantiated**, history of Summary Judgment

dismissals in this circuit prior to or during her copyright
infringement claim against John Jackson pka Fabolous

("Fabolous"),

Pharrell Williams and his partner Chad Hugo ("The Neptunes") et. al.

for Copyright and originally Trademark Infringement. Such systemic

dismissals of copyright infringement claims have routinely denied
Plaintiff (and virtually anyone filing similar copyright
infringement claims against major corporations/superstars in this
circuit),their Seventh Amendment,

Constitutional right to an

unbiased jury trial of their peers; instead being tried by opinions

of judges contrary to specific, mandated Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure-Summary Judgment rules and regulations. The unlawful,

deliberate,

intentional, misrepresentations/actions of all

Defendants, with full knowledge of the ultimate results, benefitted

all Defendants at the professional, emotional and financial expense

of Plaintiff. Many deliberate actions of "Codispoti" and

"Mancinelli" were relied on by Plaintiff, clearly oppressive to
Plaintiff's case,

not in Plaintiff's best interest and assisted

previous Defendants "Fabolous" and "The Neptunes" and their counsel

in accomplishing the inevitable dismissal of Plaintiff's original

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

claims and avoiding liability for other causes of actions.

Such

fraud and conspiracy was discovered during review of Original

Complaint and detailed bills/documents from Defendants Codispoti and

Mancinelli on February 11, 2015 and March 1, 2013 resulting from
Contractual Retainer Agreement for Representation of Holla'back
Records,

Boone v. Jaackson et.

al... (EXHIBIT A)

and subsequent to

completion of the extensive researching/marketing of the documentary

"Injustice for All...Summary Mis Judgment."
2.From Sponge Bob Square Pants,

to) The Matrix,

The Biggest Loser,

Drumline,

Finding Nemo,

Butthead,

The Equalizer,

the House,

to and including (but not limited

Robots,

Monster In Law,

Life,

The Apprentice,

The Da Vinci Code,

Don't Mess with the Zohan,

Bevis &

Bringing Down

Arli$$, Groundhog Day, My Name is Earl, Sweet Home

Alabama (a total of over 50+ multi-million/billion dollar projects

in the last 25 years),

all of which were alleged to have been stolen

(federal copyright infringement claims bought in federal courts in

NY and CA and the lower courts within those circuits,

against the

major networks/studios).
Yet,

each and every one of the above multi-million/billion dollar

projects, and virtually all in the last 25 years,

was dismissed on

Summary Judgment motions; essentially stating that NONE of those 50+

cases

(in NY and CA and the lower Courts within those Circuits)*, in

the last 25 years, could have won.

Such systemic dismissals have

denied tax-paying citizens their Constitutional,

Seventh Amendment

right to due process before an unbiased tribunal of their peers.

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

By denying such citizens, including Plaintiff, their right to due

process, the very courts placed in a position to serve its citizens
have essentially done exactly the opposite. Plaintiff alleges that
the

courts have aided and abetted in the

creation of a

virtual

monopoly within the movie, film, music/entertainment industry by

essentially stipulating that NONE of these cases could have won
(there were no material-important-fact issues in any of these
cases); thus a trial,

in every one of those cases, would have,

essentially, been a waste of the court's time; since essentially

1960, yet statistically validated in NY & CA for last 25 years.
3. Is it reasonable,

conceivable and least of all possible that over

96% of these cases could not have won if permitted to be presented

before an unbiased jury of the Plaintiffs' peers as opposed to being

tried by the subjective "Opinions" of Judges seated on these
benches?

4.

Plaintiff contends that actions,

intentional revisions of the

original complaint and conduct of Defendants Codispodti and

Mancinelli (as original agents for Plaintiff)

direct violation of their roles,

detailed below,

are in

responsibilities and Model Rules of

Professional Conduct in addition to substantive and procedural law.

Additionally,

the Courts dismissal was in direct conflict with the

specific directives of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (56)

(c)

governing Summary Judgment which specifically stipulates that

Summary Judgment is a disfavored remedy.

The statistics stipulated

above clearly indicate systemic Pro Defendant favor,

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

for at least

the last 25 years,

in direct contradiction of such clear and

specific Summary Judgment rules,

directives, regulations and

guidelines.

5. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have knowingly participated/

engaged in deliberate,

covert,

wrongdoings and practices and

additionally, intentionally, documented/omitted false/misleading

representations and engaged in unethical and illegal practices and
abuses of legal authority,

conspiracy and fraud, to the benefit of

Defendants and the detriment of Plaintiff by conspiring and

fraudulently misrepresenting material facts to Plaintiff and the

courts with the ultimate objective of continuing their unprecedented

and previously unchallenged illegal, unjust and unethical Summary

Judgment di smi s s als.

6. The statistically validated research (Item 2.) above by another

officer of the court, esteemed Beverly Hills Attorney Steven T.

Lowe,** documenting the blatant and one-sided, systemic,

"Pro

Defendant biased" dismissals have engulfed itself within the federal

judicial system for at a minimum, the last 25 years. Such practices

have denied Plaintiff (and other tax-paying citizens) their

Constitutional, Seventh Amendment right to an unbiased jury trial of

their peers when they sue major corporations/superstars for
infringing upon their rights to literally billions of dollars in
Intellectual Property causing denial of due process,
their small business,

foreclosures on homes,

destruction of

destruction of

families, suicidal thoughts, mental and physical issues when these

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

cases are,

illegally dismissed despite material fact issues present

in the majority of these cases. Such fraudulent actions upon the

court have defiled the court when these copyright cases are filed

against major networks/studios/corporations and have systemically

prevented the judicial system from adjudicating these cases in a
fair, unbiased and impartial manner.

7. Further,

Plaintiff alleges that the systemic, Pro-Defendant

biased dismissals have completely and totally ignored any and all
specific,

clear and concise Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

in

addition to High Court's mandate (Exhibit B): "Copyright Cases Must

Go to Jury."

In this ruling,

the court said.,

"the Constitution

guarantees the right to a jury trial in all types of copyright

infringement lawsuits....

The decision bars entertainment companies

and other copyright holders from picking a trial by judge over a

trial by jury."

Plaintiff alleges that major conglomerates/entertainment companies

have been encouraged,

aided and systemically abetted in their

illegal, unjust and systemic dismissal of these cases by the

systemic and unprecedented actions of these very courts and many

attorneys of Artists suing these conglomerates such as Defendants
noted above. Such systemic,

unconstitutional,

unethical and biased

"trials by judge" have been documented and serve as one of the bases

for Plaintiff s fraud and conspiracy charges hereby alleged against

Defendants which assisted previous defendants John Jackson aka

Fabolous,

Pharrell Williams, Chad Hugo et. Al in getting the

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

original complaint for Trademark and Copyright Infringement unjustly

dismissed.

8. Based upon what Plaintiff believes are illegal actions as well as

the education,
such results,

training and experience of each of the Defendants,

consistently obtained in this circuit when major

corporations are sued for copyright infringement, was,

Defendants (including to Plaintiff's counsel)

known to all

and unknown to

Plaintiff leading to the fruitless and costly pursuit of a Jury

Trial which, based on policies and practices of this court,

were

improbable at best and virtually impossible in reality.

II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This court is vested with jurisdiction of this case pursuant to

18

U.S.C.

1001

(1)

and

(2),

18 U.S.C 371,

42 U.S.C 1983 and 28

U.S.C 32 as controversy exceeds value of $75,000.

10. This court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
1331

and

1338.

11. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U. S. C 1391.

III.

12.

THE

PARTIES

PLAINTIFF Carla B.

Boone

("Boone")

is a resident of the State of

Georgia and is a member of Holla'back Records,

Management,

Entertainment and

South LLC a Georgia Limited Liability Company (on behalf

of which such lawsuit is filed)

originally formed and operated in

New York with offices at 1007 President Street, Suite 1, Brooklyn,

New York

11225.

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

13.

Plaintiff Boone/Holla'back Records are in the business of

producing, promoting, recording/managing/consulting musical artists,

including but not limited to musical and recording artists in the
hip hop and rap genre.

14. In 1998 and prior to the establishment of Holla'back Records as

a limited liability company in the state of New York,

Boone

conducted business as a sole proprietor under the name Holla'Back

Records.

15. In May 2001,

Boone established Holla'back Records as an

independent recording label.

16. Plaintiff Boone is the owner of the copyrighted song that was

previously subject of the original infringement claim in addition to

the Federal Trademark of her company's name.
commence that action,

Thus standing to

at that time, was proper pursuant to 17 U.S.C

501(b) .
Defendants Codispoti and Associates LLP.

17. For approximately 10 years 3 months,

Codispoti and Mancinelli

were originally formed and operated as a Limited Liability

Partnership.

18. Their original and principal place of business,

months,

19.

was 111 John Street,

Since early 2009

2009 respectively)

New York,

JURY

TRIAL

2008 and January 8,

(in addition to previous counsel for

original Defendants in Boone vs.

Jackson et. Al.,

DEMANDED

New York.

(specifically December 24,

Defendants

for 10 years

(Cynthia Arato,

Esq.) each now conveniently owns their individual Domestic Business

Corporation/Domestic Limited Liability Companies/private practices.
20. Each Domestic Business Partnership of Defendant (Codispoti and
Associates and Mancinelli and Associates)

still maintains the exact

same physical residence of 111 John Street, New York, NY despite

dissolving their partnership and each individually seeking separate
Business Corporations.
Defendants Mancinelli and Associates,

LLP.

21. For approximately 10 years 3 months, Codispoti and Mancinelli

were originally formed and operated as a Limited Liability
Partnership.

22. Their original and principal place of business, for 10 years

months,

was 111 John Street, New York,

New York.

Since early 2009 (specifically December 24, 2008 and January 8,

2009 respectively) Defendants (in addition to previous counsel for
original Defendants in Boone vs. Jackson et. Al.,

(Cynthia Arato,

Esq.) each now conveniently owns their individual Domestic Business

Corporation/Domestic Limited Liability Companies/private practices.

FACTS:(FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION):

FRAUD

23. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the General

Allegations stated in Paragraphs 1 through 22 alleged herein above

and makes them part hereof as though set forth in length.
24. At the time the original copyright infringement lawsuit was
filed,

Defendants Codispoti and Mancinelli owned a Limited

Liability Partnership and promoted themselves to the public as

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

skilled and experienced attorneys specializing in copyright and

trademark infringement.

25. Defendants Codispoti and Mancinelli prepared a detailed and

specific Retainer Agreement Terms and Conditions on July 2, 2003
(Exhibit A). This retainer agreement specifically stated in "Item
2" Attorney's Fees that Plaintiff agrees to pay Attorney an "hourly
rate"

for all

services

rendered... a

total retainer of

$7500..agreeing to replenish retainer when deposits are reduced to

$2500 or less... "

26. Plaintiff retained Defendants Codispoti and Mancinelli to file

Copyright and Trademark infringement charges against rap superstars
and Defendants Fabolous

Hugo (The Neptunes)

(Desert Storm,
Records,
Group,

(John D.

Jackson),

Pharrell Williams & Chad

and their recording/distribution companies

Elektra Entertainment Group,

Blackwood Music Publishing,

Inc.

Inc.,

Desert Storm

and WEA (Warner Music

Inc.

27. Plaintiff signed such specific Retainer agreement and paid an

initial lump sum of $7500 and agreed to replenish such as deposit

reduced to $2500 or less.

Plaintiff made all payments to Defendants

promptly when each payment was due.

28. Despite significant material fact issues and subsequent to what

Plaintiff believes was an illegal, unethical and inappropriate

dismissal of the copyright infringement claim,

Boone was advised by

Defendants to "go on with your life."

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

10

29.

She was then required to file a Pro Se Appeal since Defendants

were going to charge an additional $30,000 (after paying an

approximate total of $100,000 and knowing that Plaintiff had reached
her cap on affordability of attorney fees).

30. This advice to go on with her life was, curiously, proffered

despite Defendants specifically detailing and agreeing to
significant legal errors which were made in the District Courts'

original opinion dismissing the case.

31. The Court of Appeals subsequently agreed that numerous legal

errors were made yet, had to continue the systemic dismissals of

these cases despite material fact issues clearly existing and their

very, documented and detailed admission of the legal errors made by

Judge George Daniels.

32. Such admitted legal errors by the Appeals Court should have,

immediately, justifiably warranted remand to the district, yet,

instead, the Appeals Court affirmed an admitted, legally flawed,
original opinion and affirmed Defendants' Summary Judgment motion.
33. Subsequent to such shocking dismissal, Plaintiff researched and

divulged numerous allegations of similar Summary Judgment

dismissals, illicit attorney misconduct and other judicial
questionable actions/dismissals when Independent/Artists file
copyright infringement claims against major corporations/national
superstars etc.

34.

Plaintiff became well versed in copyright infringement law in

addition to the Summary Judgment process specifically.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED -

35. One of several pieces divulged by Plaintiff was research done by

an esteemed Beverly Hills Attorney with over 25 years of litigation

experience and 5 years with Super Lawyer Status, Steven T. Lowe,

who

wrote several articles prophesying the "Death of Copyright."

Attorney Lowe stipulated and statistically verified that,
last 25 years,

in New York (the Court Plaintiff originally filed her

copyright suit)
circuits),
trial.

in the

and California,

and the lower courts within those

such Copyright Infringement cases virtually never go to

In fact, Attorney Lowe's initial findings stipulated that

46/48 cases (96%) in a 20 year period never went to trial and in the
next 5 years,
36.

"In his

the networks/studios were the victors each time.

dissent

to the Ninth Circuit's

v. Samsung Electronics America,

famously remarked that,

1993

decision in White

now-Chief Justice Alex Kozinski

"for better or worse,

we are the Court of

Appeals for the Hollywood Circuit." This oft-quoted observation

neatly encapsulates the problem that author-plaintiff s face in

litigating against studios for the misappropriation of their

creative works; the law simply has become too friendly to Hollywood

interests, often at the expense of doctrinal clarity and equitable

balance."

37. As Defendants Warner, Electra & Atlantic (WEA aka The Big
Three)were one of if not the most prominent, major music players in
the Hollywood realm or perhaps worldwide,

Mancinelli,

Defendants Codispoti and

throughout their many years in this profession,

including but not limited to their specific research and experience,

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

12

knew and should have communicated that the only guarantee that
existed both then and now was the impossibility of reaching a "Jury
Trial" as they so clearly demanded on behalf of Plaintiff in the
original and Amended complaints (Exhibit C).

38. Additionally,

despite Defendants Codispoti and Mancinelli

clearly notating that research had been done very early in

litigation (complete research regarding: rap and hip-hop copyright

infringement actions in Second Circuit 11/04/03 in addition to
"Research regarding copyright infringement actions in the Second

Circuit, proof and damages"12/19/03 and 2/26/03-Exhibit D) which

would have clearly divulged this reality (assuming arguendo that
such "experts" were unaware of such),

Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants intentionally, knowingly concealed, misrepresented,

withheld/omitted these material specific and essential facts from
Plaintiff who falsely was led to believe that a Jury Trial would
occur.

39. In fact, Plaintiff was led to belief that she had "a good
chance" of defeating this unavoidable Summary Judgment dismissal

even as late as 1/23/05 by e:mail (Exhibit E) despite such early

research (in addition to their experience in this field) clearly

suggesting that the majority of these cases are either virtually

always dismissed on Summary Judgment Motions or the major
corporations are unanimously the victors in this circuit; a fact

never divulged to Plaintiff subsequent to such research and prior to

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

13

defrauding Plaintiff out of at least $100,000 in attorney/expert

fees.

40.

Plaintiff in boxed Defendant Mancinelli

in LinkdN on March 1

2013 (Exhibit F) (the initial point that such intentional fraud was
revealed to Plaintiff)

and inquired as to why such information and

research stipulated in item 6 had not been divulged to client.

Defendant Mancinelli stated that I needed to speak with Defendant
Codispoti as "you were really his client."

41. Plaintiff immediately called Defendant Codispoti and discussed

Attorney Lowe's research.

Defendant Codispoti stated that these

stats did not take into account any settlements made to Plaintiffs
during this approximate 25 year period. Plaintiff asked Defendant
Codispoti not to insult her intelligence as there would be little to

no reason for any major network/studio to settle with essentially

100% odds of beating the case on Summary Judgment Motions.

42. Plaintiff requested that Defendant forward the specific Summary

Judgment research done on her specific case on to her attention.

43. Defendant initially stated that case was old and attempted to
deny such request.

Defendant was advised that he was required to maintain files for 7

years and only 6 had passed.
44.

Defendant has yet to forward such information to Plaintiff's

attention.

45. Additional nuanced and detailed legal information unavailable to

laymen such as Plaintiff and only divulged to Plaintiff during her

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

14

research in preparation for release and distribution of the

documentary "Injustice for All...Summary MisJudgment" divulged the
fact that Summary Judgment would have been strictly prohibited in
cases where a breach of implied in fact contract occurred.

46. Defendants omitted Lightyear Entertainment, the Trademark

Infringement Claims and the Lanham Act causes of actions from

original drafts/Complaints.
47. Plaintiff believes that Defendants intentionally,

knowingly,

purposefully and wrongfully filed an "Amended" Complaint-(Exhibit C)

which Plaintiff alleges purposely excluded LightYear Entertainment
in addition to the Trademark Infringement and Lanham Act claims; a
critical Defendant and causes of action in the original filing.

48. LightYear gained direct access to Plaintiff's Independent

release,

proclaimed the song as a "hit" and discussed the

possibility of Plaintiff receiving $500,000 for the "hit" song

Holla'back as communicated to Plaintiff during her meetings with the
A&R Executive,

Greg Riles,

Later that afternoon,

his Assistant Moses Edwards during lunch.

Plaintiff was introduced to the President,

Arnie Holland, who commented that Plaintiff had some "great stuff."
49.Based on the expertise and experience of Defendants and the
entire communication to them regarding the specific meeting
Plaintiff had with these original Defendants

(as noted on 11/4/03

and research which linked Da White Boy with Fabolous-Exhibit D (2)

Lightyear)

in addition to a letter,

JURY

TRIAL

Defendants requested from an

DEMANDED

15

independent party, Tamara Ramsey, who accompanied Plaintiff to said

original meeting with Lightyear Entertainment (Exhibit G).
50.

Plaintiff believes that Defendants had absolutely no reason to

Amend the original complaint and omit this critical Defendant, in

addition to the Trademark and Lanham claims from original complaint
unless there was some illicit reason for their doing so.

51. It is Plaintiffs understanding that if such breach of implied

contract clause against LightYear and the Trademark infringement
claim remained in the original claim and not intentionally annexed
from the original complaint,

along with the Federal Trademark

Infringement claim and Lanham Act claims,

Plaintiff would have

defeated the Summary Judgment Motion at least for Lightyear and the
Trademark Infringement claims against remaining Defendants for
infringing on the Holla'back Federal Trademark.

52. Further,

the Defendants'

infringement of the rap utterance of

the Trademarked rap word "Hollaback" repeatedly uttered by

Defendants could not have been part of such dismissal as it was a

separate and specific cause of action and claim.

53. Eliminating such Cause of Action from original Complaint has

cost Plaintiff millions in potential Trademark infringement fees as
the statue of limitation has now expired and the majority of
earnings due to the infringement has fallen outside of the Statute
of Limitations.

54. Finally,

despite an hourly retainer arrangement,

Defendant

Mancinelli called Plaintiff to advise her that the Summary Judgment

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

16

motion had been filed and requested a lump sum payment,

to the replenishment of the retainer,

55.

as opposed

of $17,500.

This lump sum payment was requested so that Defendants could

"take their time" and work on the Summary Judgment Motion response.
56.

Plaintiff was told that there "won't" be any additional fees as

the Defendants "could not" file a

Sanctions Motion for the timetable

for doing so had expired.

57. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsely,

fraudulently and

knowingly defrauded Plaintiff out of that additional lump sum

payment of $17,500(an additional 150% over the original retainer),

as Plaintiff alleges that they knew that Summary Judgment was
eminent.

58.
this

Defendants were advised that we had reached our cap on fees for
lawsuit.

59. However,

Defendants called shortly after receipt of that

significant lump sum payment and requested an additional $17,500 to

reply to the Sanctions motion.
60. Plaintiff believes that this was an attempt to extort an

additional $17,500 for a Sanctions motion that Defendants clearly

and specifically communicated, when requesting the initial $17,500,
"could not" be

filed.

61. Yet, Defendant Mancinelli responded he never said they "would

not" file the Sanctions motion and demanded such payment which
Plaintiff emphatically refused to pay.

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

17

62.

Such refusal to,

what Plaintiff believes,

further extort

Plaintiff led to written exchanges where Defendants threatened to

withdraw from suit due to Plaintiffs adamant denial to pay an

additional, significant, lump-sum payment (despite substantial fees

already paid to them for filing a lawsuit which was knowingly never
going to a jury trial as originally expected and demanded by
Plaintiff).

(Exhibits H).

SECOND CAUSE

OF ACTION:

CONSPIRACY

63. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the General

Allegations stated in Paragraphs 1 through 62 alleged herein above
and makes them part hereof as though set forth in length.
64. Attorneys for previous defendants "Fabolous" and "The Neptunes"
et. Al,

Manatt,

Phelps & Phillips,

LLP clearly stipulate,

via their

website of "Our strong presence in America's most important business

markets enables us to address and exceed client expectations. Our

largest offices are strategically located in Los Angeles, New York,

Palo Alto,

San Francisco,

Orange County and Washington,

D.C.

Our

offices in Sacramento and Albany - the capitals of California and

New York - provide connections to government decision makers and to
solutions that are unavailable from our competitors. Our access,

influence and reach are enhanced by our subsidiary, Manatt Jones

Global Strategies, LLC, which develops and implements programs to

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

expand client businesses and promote effective competition on a

global basis."
65. Defendants' clear and deliberate need to reiterate,

duplicate

specifically reference and reinforce the point relating to their

reach and influence in "the capitals of

California and New York"

(the two states statistically validated where copyright infringement

claims against these corporations, in those exact same circuits and
lower courts within those specific circuits, have virtually NEVER

reached a jury trial in the last 25 years),

again validates

Plaintiff's claims of conspiracy as well as Defendants'

arrogance

and sound reasoning behind their blatant, bold, misleading and

intentional/numerous misrepresentations,

on the Court's records,

made in the original copyright infringement claim Boone v. Jackson

et.

al.

66. Plaintiff alleges that actions of Defendants stipulated above

demonstrate

that

such admitted reach extended to Defendants

"Mancinelli" and "Codispoti" and that such influence ( clearly

unavailable

to

Plaintiff and others

other tax-paying,

of their

status

and stature and

law-abiding Citizens like Plaintiff,

has allowed

these corporations the right to operate as a virtual monopoly as

they can never be challenged leading to Plaintiff's unethical and
unjust claims of conspiracy and fraud.

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

19

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:

DENAIL OF DUE PROCESS

67. As additionally documented in the Supreme Court Amicus Brief for

Petrella vs.

MGM Studios

(case remanded to the District Court),

the

California Society of Entertainment Lawyers ("CSEL"), along with

Attorney Steven T. Lowe clearly stipulated the following facts,
accepted by the Supreme Court in its remand of the Petrella case to
the District Court. Such remand requires this court to review the

claims listed by Plaintiff with respect to the fraud and conspiracy

claims against all Defendants:
The Supreme Court accepted the following arguments regarding
Defendants;

that they are:

a)creating and deriving new defenses outside of scope where none

previously existed for ultimate dismissal of copyright claims

against conglomerates b) allowing Defendants to "steal with
impunity..." c) the "invention" of new standards of substantial
"dissimilarity" as opposed to "similarity" tests; standards opposite
of the FRCP 56

(c ) d) Judges designating themselves as "self

appointed fact finders, phasing out Experts and Jurors established

principles e) ignoring the directive of FRCP 56
of 2 opposing experts'

(c ) that opposition

testimony which create reasonable

contradictions of one another which creates

a material

issue of fact

that a jury is required to resolve f) dismissing conflicting

expertise of witnesses and analyzing works themselves g) Judges

doing own analysis doing own comparisons regardless of how testimony

comports with doctrine h) "...when Judges are able to substitute their

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

20

opinion for experts or juries on issues of material fact, all other

witnesses become effectively unnecessary."
68. Common law states that "a modern procedure is constitutional if

the substance of the English common law jury trial is satisfied."

69. The statistically validated dismissals of each virtually

and

every Copyright Infringement case against major corporations (along

with the Supreme Courts specific mandate that all copyright cases
must go to Jury-Exhibit H) is enough proof that the letter and

spirit of the Seventh Amendment has continuously and flagrantly been

violated and has denied Plaintiff and other citizens their right to

due process under the Constitution

70.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants actions,

original record,

on the courts

were intentionally done to achieve the expected and

traditional Summary Judgment dismissal of Plaintiffs claims.

71. The Seventh Amendment protects its citizens from local self
rule.

72.

Plaintiff relied upon and expected that the representation "Jury

Trial Demanded" would have,

indeed, materialized;

yet was never a

true reality and a virtual impossibility.

73. The research previously done by Defendants "Codispoti" and
"Mancinelli" and the results of such research, proves that
Defendants actions aided and abetted Defendants John Jackson pka
Fabolous,

Pharrell Williams and Chad Hugo (The Neptunes)

et al and

were unlawful, malicious and misleading and wasted Plaintiff's

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

21

family's resources pursuing a Jury trial when all Defendants knew

from day one that none was either possible nor probable.
74. Plaintiff further alleges that, Knowing from the time they were

hired, that Plaintiff had a cap on the maximum amounts allocated for
this lawsuit, Defendants "Codispoti" and "Mancinelli" knowingly

conspired against Plaintiff s by continuing to overcharge and remind

them of such caps (J2 & J3) , engaging in the war of attrition with
other Defendants by attempting to make Plaintiff, suddenly believe,

after paying over $80,000 to Defendants, that, suddenly, her lawsuit

would be deemed "frivolous" as documented.

Plaintiff discussed her

concerns/reservations regarding these threats of sanctions/tactics

in Exhibit Hl-10.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Each of the acts only divulged as recently as March 2015 (and

discussed with Defendants)

and only filed at this time due to

Defendants long-term disability (as well known by Defendants) which

has prohibited an earlier filing,

were malicious,

fraudulent and

oppressive justifying an award of punitive damages and criminal

charges, in addition to restrictions/revocation of their licenses so
that Defendants will never engage in such conduct in the future and
to discourage and prevent other Attorneys in this capacity from

engaging in similar conduct in the future.

provide this court detailed,

Plaintiff intends to

shocking and specific examples of

conflicts of interest in numerous Summary Judgment dismissals,

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

22

clearly demonstrate each and every valid allegation of attorney and

judicial, willful, intentional and deliberate misconduct and
misrepresentations listed in 80 (a-h) above in multiple copyright
infringement cases filed against these major conglomerates divulged
as a result of her research for the documentary Injustice for
All...Summary Mis Judgment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court grant the following

relief:

For the $5,000,000 original minimum settlement amount, per

Defendant, in addition to the $20,000,000 Plaintiff would have

earned from the Trademark Infringement Claim purposely deleted from

the Original Complaint.

Thus, as a proximate result of Defendants'

fraud, deceit, conspiracy and the facts herein alleged, Plaintiff

has been damaged in the sum of $30,000,000.

a) In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted with

oppression, fraud, malice and Plaintiff is also entitled to

punitive damages in the additional amount of 10,000,000 for pain

and suffering and emotional distress

b) For the sum of $100,000 for legal fees unjustly collected in this
fruitless pursuit of a Jury Trial
c) Interest thereon at the legal rate from and after 2003
d) For criminal charges/imprisonment to be filed against Defendants
and revocation/suspensions of their licenses for such illegal and
illicit behaviors in addition to Oother and further relief as the

court may deem just and proper.

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED -

23

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury for all issues in this action
triable of right by jury.

Dated this 24th day of February, 2015

Respectfully/ submitted
By:
Carla B.
Pro Se

Boone,member

on behalf of

Holla'back Records,

& Management,
c/o Kevin W.
P.

0.

Box

Ent.

LLC.
Newman

970

Tyrone, Georgia 30290

Phone:

Professors

(404)

232-9852

John Bronsteen, Why Summary Judgment Unconstitutional & Suja A. Thomas,

Against Summary Judgment

Attorney

Steven T. Lowe,

Death of Copyright Nov. 2010 and The Sequel

JURY

TRIAL

DEMANDED

24

EXHIBIT A

Law Offices of

Codispoti &Mancinelli, llp

111 John Street, Suite 800

New York, new York i 0038-3002

Telephone: (212) 962-6525

attorns:
StevenMakckeuj

FACSIMILE: (212) 962-6791

New York &NewJersey Bars

ofCounsel-

Bruno F.Codispoti

Br,,,.r .

New York Rar

Recistered PatentAttorney

Olec R.Sabel

NewYork &NewJerseyBars

RETAINER AGREEMENT FOR THE RFPRtfWivrr at,a.

OFHOlLABACKRECORBSENrSSSrLLC
BY CODISPOTI &MANCIN1LLI, LLP
' '
anaU Boo^^t^^^^*^,LLC,Carta ^

compostuon entitled -Holla Back" CWmJ^ZZ T"*8 1V'"**>4 *emusical

^ of$5,deposit
000 faof$7,500.
,e^seJJ^^i^
^ad*"WKtor
ItisaZS,,?. ?.^to^
^^^OO
for expenses for,

irustaccount and Attorneymay AatS^[^ def0Sit^ *WdAttZ^OLA

-*merdeposits arexednoBd,oSSW"1*te**<depots)ST
2-

AfiQfflQisFees

PartnersAsSoates __

$i75.00^our
$l25.00/hour

Paralegals__

$ 25

Law Offices of

Codispoti &Mancinelu, llp

Retainer AgreementHolla' Back Records Entertainment &Talent, LLC.

June 30, 2003

Page-3

appropriate parties as per the above fee schedule or applicable fee option, with unpaid

disbursements and expenses being paid first

(ii) PLEASE TAKE NOTE: it is agreed mat all Recovery payments made as
part ofstructured payout shall be made payable to "Codispoti &Mancinelli, LLP

IOLA Account" from which Attorney shall disburse the funds to Clients less any '
fees/costs owed to Attorney. Clients agree that Attorney shall be entitled to half(50%)

ofeach such periodic payments in astructured payout until Attorney's fees have been

paid mfin, at which time Clients shall receive 100% ofsuch periodic payments.

3.

Associatic)nwithrms>iltants. TheAttomeymay athis sole discretionmayretain

approval The fees for such associated attorney oxconstant shaB constitute
an e^en^ cost fas
"^ an expense cost (as

opposed to alegal services fee) against Chents'account

5-

WltfadrawalArerminaff^ nf Afl^y
(a)

Withdrawal bv Aftnmpy

wiiioweA^^^rr^it^i^^rSy^rTm^
Contingency Fee.

^ ^ 7hereate-A*^'^fiftitany entitlementto the

HourfyR^^A^^S^r^roTJ^^^^^^
M&e RecmraymClients' Matter

wMcneverisgreaKr Itisaamltfa,. An^^fu/'

i^ovay,pa^2(eXn)sn^^,^OT,nSeL **"",f**"***m*any

Law Offices of

Codispoti &Mancinelli,llp

Retainer AgreementHolla' BackRecords Entertainment&Talent, LLC.

June 30,2003
Page-4

(b) Termination by Ojmft

Clientsretains me right to dismiss Attorney at any time
wrth orwilhout cause. Any funds remaining in Clients' retamerdeposited wim Attorney shall be

r^rnded, less any fees due Attorney and any expenses thatlemain unpaid However, in the event

Chents;tetr^Attomey without reasonable f^, Attorney shallbe entitledto, and Clients shall
5 3total 5lfor SemceS reQdered to ^ * Attorney's Normal Hourly Rates or Attorney's the sole
optic*, onefifth (20%) ofthenetfee Recoveryin Clients' Matter, wMchLisg^ S^i

fcatAt^eyshaflbed^edaM

^su^ouentoounsel. mmeeventofanystruckpayoutonanyReTe^a^h^
6

Attojney^Lie^

TheOients agreethat theAttorney shall have both achared Hen ^ a

8' P'Scontin^anrc ofClaim hy n^ Af^

.
prepared butwill not be filed win me Co^^' ,^^fag^toa^ ^onwiflbelMy

-tbemwritmg^chfii^
^-^^^oa^orlm^T^^ZtT^^the eventClients decideto
NormalHourlyRates,
lessamouS
ah^Ste^S^^to^Attorneyatthe
disbursements.
^Pamrn me Inferred Fee arrangement, plus costs and
9"

general Consideration mr\ ^m- PLEAoF Mrmj _.

many factors outside Attorney's contit^mav^Z2

Chts mdersrand that mere are

asmeamountoftimeandeflL^^
admowl^gethat:^)Attorney^^MiaM
rherefbre, Clients
w^beobta^oris^

will take to conclude Clients' Mattersl^^^

longitwill take to concludeiK^^^J^1^^A^^hasnotpredictedS

above; (d) this Agreement does not mom^Ts^v' ^ d&^tos md d^Pti^ ^ form

orthe enforcementofa^yjudgmen^rS

Law Offices of

Codispoti & Mancinelli, llp

RetainerAgreementHolla' Back RecordsEntertainment & Talent,LLC.
June 30,2003
s-5

THEREFORE, the Clients' signature below amstitutes a fill acknowledgment of the

terms ofthis Agreement and theClient's authorization fortheAttorney to actonbehalfof Clients in this
matter. Theparties agreethat this Agreement constitutes theirentireunderstandings agreements, and
supersedes all prioragreements, contracts, arrangements, understandings and communications
ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO BY:

HOLLA'BACK RECORDS

ENTERTAINMENT &V

CODISPOTI & MANCTNELLL LLP

Ms. Carla Boone, President

BRUNO F. CODISPOTI, ESQ.

1007 President Street, Ste. 1

Brooklyn, NY 11225

Phone: 718-788-4103

Date:

E.I.N.:

Date: -f/o^/dS
CARLABOONE, individually
O <>>*-.

Date: 1 ^/a^
g> JPfv^, Lf>.
JOSIAH BOONE,individually

S.S. No.: M
Date:

- n

7/^Ms

P:\D0cumeat5\RTNR\H0lla Back4jfl

- OH')'!

EXHIBIT B

iiign \^juo.i. ^\jjjyngij.i vaav^o iviuat \j\j i\j juiy ixign i^uiui. v^jp^ilgm seises iviusi vju xu...

BECAUSE
THEY'RE
YOUR RIGHTS.

BUSINESS

rage l u u

GET THEM
ALL HERE

CLASS I BANKING

AS

Gimsrmxm^ Srr^ iusirjess5

Home

Finance Resource Center

Starting a Business

2011 AilBusiness AllStar Franchises

Operating Your Business

Sales & Marketing

Franchises for Sale

Finance

Shop Legal Forms

Human Resources

Small Busini

Technology

Bus

High Court: Copyright Cases Must Go To Jury High Court:

Copyright Cases Must Go To Jury / Col Tvfs $9 Million Win
Is Tossed Out
By Brooks Boliek

Publication: The Hollywood Reporter

Date:Wednesday, April 1 1998
Presented by

EPSON* ^Print

Like

Share:

More

The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out an $8.8 million judgment won by Sony Corp.'s Columbia Pictures
Television Inc. because the award was decided without a jury.

In a unanimous ruling, the court said the Constitution guarantees the right to a jurytrial in all types of copyrightinfringement lawsuits. The decision bars entertainmentcompanies and other copyright holdersfrom picking a trial
by judge over a trial by jury.
"There is overwhelming evidence that the consistent
practice at common law was for juries to award
Ads By Google

damages," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the

high court's opinion. "More specifically, this was the

consistent practice in copyright cases."

Medical Malpractice
Experienced Attorneys Fighting For Your
Rights. Call Morgan & Morgan.
vvww.AtlantalnjuryLawyers.com

Entertainment companies typically choose to have

copyright trials without a jury because they feel that

juries have difficulty interpreting copyright law and

tend to find big companies less sympathetic than

Don't Get Forced. Get CRM that Fits.

;RM that work;

Watch Now

hrJp://www.allbusmess.com/services/motion-pictures/4927358-1.html

2/5/2011

EXHIBIT C

Bruno F. Codispoti (BC4568)

Steven Mancinelli (SM-0208)
CODBPOTI & MANONBLU, U*
111John Street, Suite 800
New York, NY 10038
Phone! 212-962-6525
Fax:212-962-6791

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CaseNo.:03Civ8661(GBD)
CARLA B.BOONE,
Plaintiff

AMENDED

COMPLAINT

PHakBEIXL. WILLIAMS, CHARLES E.

^fmmTRAEOTERTATNMENT

Hon- George B. Daniels U.S.DJ.

jtjryTbialDemanded

WAEHERMUSIC
INC,

Itefendaats.

nWS-CAMAB.BOOHBCB--Wte^v*^***1"*"**
allege8'oomp.

aai^seeksbereintoxecpver

seq.,fcr^aichpl

33^68audio i3omi

2 j****.**"**-""-*"-""**
a^:dmg.tatH^pl^^^^^^k., v, 1000 -Rbs No PA2-388-656 and for 1te sound

Copm^tedWork Uarmedlweto as ExhibUB.

^MMrtteeot^tomatederive**.- "*- *

,--^.* ^d^CopraghtedWoAandanydedvattvewoAlierBoi.

actor* rigbttt market, distribute, and sdl Copyngnw.

n

JCRISDICTIONANDVlJNrail

, ^ooDrtia.^c.^^^teato!,mSUmtto28U
1331 and 1338.

7. Ven^iSproperm1hisdiSlrictrader28U.S.C:l39l.

AniaidedCompWnt

Boone v.John Jadaan, etci.

m.

thepartdbs

Plftitiff Cari* Boone

8. PtoMOriaB. Boone C'Boone^^

member ofHOLLA' BACKRECORDS &ELSTERTAINMENT, LLC CHolla'BackRecords"),

a New Yorklinited liability coj^^

Brooklyn, NewYork 11225.

9. PlaintiffBoone and HoUa'Back Records are in the bnsmess ofproducing and

recordingmusical artists, particularlymusical and re^^
10. m^Sandpriortotoestablishmerf^^

company, Booneconducted business as asoleproprietorunder the name ofHolla'Back

Records.

11. InMay2001, Boone establishedHoUa'BackRecords as anindependentrecording

labeL

12. PlaintiffBooneistoownerofmec^^

irrffingement, as allegedherein. Accordingly, Boonehas standingto commencemis action,

pursuant to 17U.S.C. 501(b).
TWandant John Jdon. professionally known as "Fabolous'!

13.Upon information and belief; defendant JohnD. JaxikMn, professionallyknown as

'Tabolous" ("Fabolous-), is aresident ofthe State ofNew York, residinginBrooklyn,NY.
14. Fabolous is apopularmusical performing and recordmg artist mto

genre. Fabolous' recordings have been successfWy sold sbce hk

15. Fabolous\recordings are, at all times aueged herein, issuedunderto
ofdefendant Desert Storm Recordings, Inc. liroughElektraEntertainment Group, Inc.

16. Fabolous isone ofto co-authors, together wi& defendants Pharrell L. Williams and
Charles E.Hugo, ofthewfrtngirigr song "Young'N (Holla' Back)" at issue herein ("to

Infringing Song"), as radicated in to liner notes ofto recording containing to Infringing Song
and inthe song registry ofto American Society ofComposers, Authors and Publishers .
("ASCAP").

17. The ASCAP song registry also lists to mfringing song under various alternative
titles, including: "YoungN (Holla Back)," " Young N HollaBack," " Young N,""Yoimging
HollaBack,"and "HollaBack Youngm."

18. Upon information and belief, defendant Fabolous isalso to founder and owner of
to music publisher J.Brasco Publishing, Inc., also known as "D. Brasco" ("Brasco"), aNew

York corporation, winchisapublisher oftolnfringing Song, as indicated inthe ASCAP song

registry. The New YorkDepartment ofState lists Brasco's agentfor service ofprocess as c/o
Woods &Middleton, LLP, 60 East 42nd Street, New York, NY 10165.

Defendant Pharrell L. Williams

19. Upon informationand belief, defendant PHARRELL L. WILLIAMS ("Williams") is

a resident ofto State ofNew York and is a popular musical producer into hiphopor rap

genre, recording and producing hip hop music and artists with defendant Charles E. Hugo under
to professional name of The Neptunes.

20. Defendant Williams is oneofto co-authors, together withdefendants Fabolous and

Charles E. Hugo, ofto Infringing Song atissue herein, as indicated in to ASCAP song registry.
21. Upon infonnation and belief, defendant Williams isalso to owner ofand does
business as amusic publisher under the name ofWaters ofNazarelh Publicising, with offices at
Amended Complaint
Boone v. JohnJadaon, etal

c/oEMBlackwoodMusic, 810 Seven*Avenue, NewYork,NY 10019, as indicatedinto

registry ofBroadcast Music, Inc. ("BMF).
TWfliMiiHrt flmrfes E. Hugo

22. UponMormationandbelief, defendantCHARIESE. HUGO (^ugo'O is aresident

ofto State ofNew York and is apopular musical producer in to hip hop or rap genre,

recording and producinghip hop music and artists whladefendairtWilliams under to

professional name ofThe Neptunes.
23. Defendant Hugo isone ofto co-auto^

Williams, ofto Infringing Song at issue herem, as mdicatedm

24. UponmforinationandbeUef,defendantHugoisalsoto
asamusicpublisheruntetonameofCha^

Pubh^hing, 810 SeventhAvenue,NewYoric,NY 10019, as indicated intoASCAP song

registry.

TWendant J. Br> PnMtehmffl Tnc. a/k/a D. Brasco

25. UpminformaticmandbeHef,^

publisher J. BrascoPublishing, Inc., a/k/a*D. Brasco" C^asco"), aNewYorkcorporation,

wMchisapublisheroftolnftmg^
1!boVa'
YorkDepartment ofStatelistsBrasco's agentfor service ofprocess as c/o Woods &Middleton,
LLP, 60 East 42ni Street, New York, NY 10165.

Amended Complaint
BooneV.JohnJadaon.fi aL

iwfr^frtia.kiriiT'rW<ffflrrtfi""ro-IttC-

FNC (^to^Uaoorp^onauftorMton^^bu^mtbeSt^ofNowYork,
Plaza, New York, NY10O19.

^nrusical ardsta inking,araongotr^ca,^r^arnstsintbeMphopor

Wgenre, as wellas marketingand dislnbnfingmusicalrecordings.

industry.

^DefendantHektmmarketsanddistii^

mcludingFabolous' recording ofto mfringmg Song atissueherein.

Ttefandant F1^ m**wodMusic, Inc.

30 EMIBlacWMnsic^CWIBiackwood^aC^^
newYork,NY 10019.

Music, inctodtagtte Infringing Song atissuehereto.

AmendedComplaint

Boone u Jckn Jaduan, etaL

DefendantEMT Anrfl Music foe

32. EMI AprilMusic, Inc. ("EMI April") is aConnecticut corporation, duly authorizedto
do business into State ofNew York, with offices locate at 81OSevenmAvenue, new York,
NY 10019.

33. Upon informationand belief, defendant EMI Aprfl is topubHsher ofdefendant

Hugo's musical compositions and songs throughHugo's d^/aasOiaseaJadMuac,mcluding
to Infringing Song atissue herein.

Defendant Warner Music Group, Inc.

34. Uponinformation and belief, defendant Warner Music Group, fee. ("Warner") is a
Delaware corporation authorized to do busmess and regulariy trails^
with offices at75 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10019.

35. Warner is and was, all time allegedberein, substantiallyinvolved in to music

recording industry under its own direction and, upon information ^

affiliated companies, e.g., defendant Elektra, and distributes recorded music through affiliated
distribution companies, e.g. defendant WEA Inc., includingto recordings ofFabolous and
Fabolous' rajording ofto Infringing Song.

Deferent nesert Storm Recordings,Ins.

36. Uponinfonnationand belief, defendantDESERT STORMRECORDINGS, INC.

fDesextStann^isaN^
Management, 494 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10001.

Amended Complaint
Boonev. JohnJadatmetcL

37. Uponinfonnauon andbelie^ Defm^

a^includingdefendantFabote

38.Uponmfor*auon^
m^ Warner andWEAandfur^

artists, mcludingtorec<>rdings ofdefendantFabolous andtolnfringing Song.

39. DefendantWEAINC. ("WEA") is aDelawate cordonduly reg^

New York Secretary ofState in 1996,wimprincipal executi^^
New York, 10019.

40. Uponinformation and belief, defendant WEA is affile

and Elektra.

41.UponinformationandbeUef,defeuda^
distributor ofmusicalrecordingsfo^

defendantFabolous andFabolous' recording ofto Infringing Song.

TV.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Plaintiff's QriofariWork

42. In 1998, BooneestablishedHolla'Backas an independentrecording labeL

43. In January 1999, Boone, as publisher for HoUa'BackRecords, entered into an
exdusrvesongv^co^^

("Wells"). Professional, WelWSnarmuse to

Amended Complaint

Boatay.JohnJadaon,etal

CTiaj^fortofrduo. The granttodsft* contractexpresslyassign^

allrightsariii)^

composed by Trajik.

44. In or about January 1999, Trajik (namely. Wells and Smith)wrote to Copywrited
Work. Booneproducedtorecord^

resulted into version ofto Copyrighted WorktotBoone commercial

di^tapecassetteandvinylLP throughtoHoUa'BackRecords labd laterin 1999 CTrajik

CD"). TMscommerdaUyreleasedversionoftoCopyrigh^
withtoU.S. CopyrightOffice as perto SRregistration certificate am
45. Trajik's musical conu^^

Work) featured a"hook"tot consistedoftorepetitioninto song's chorus ofamusical

phrasingoftolyric"holla'back" (hence, totitle oftosong). The "hook" is tomost
identify pbra^^

element and is often associated with the song's title.

ttAfandants' Contacts With fhCopyrighted Work

46. InoraboutMatch 1999, BoonemetwithTyDashinhis office mto Sony building

inNewYorkaty. Boone wentto TyDashbecause he representedhimselfas anindep
music promoter.

47. At to aforementionedmeeting, Boone presents

mdudedtotapyrigbted^^

Dashtonproposeda

promotionalpackagetoBoone. However, no agrementultmiatdy developedregard

Trajik CD orto Copyrighted Work.
Amended Complaint

Boone v.John Jackson, et aL

48. Upon im^rnafion and beh>f,TyDa^

to founders and ChiefExecutive Officer ofRocafella Records, Inc. Upon irdbrmation and
belief, Rocafella Records isaffiliated with defendant Desert Storm.
49. Desert Stormisalso to recording label ofto defendant Fabolous.

50. Thereafter, Boone disteibuted and attemptedto se to Trajfc

via towebsite ofThe Orchard, amusic promoter, and through small, independent local stores in

New York City, e.g., Beat StreetRecords in Brooklyn, Upstairs Records, Inc. in Brooklyn, and
DowntownRecords in Manhattan.

51. Inorabout October 1999, Boca's <*tertainment

("Collins''), beganto contactvariousrecording companies in an attemptto obtainadistribution

(jontra^forTmjik'srecordir^oftoCo^

One ofto companies that Collins

contacted was Atlantic Records, which upon informationand beliefis an affiliated company of
defendants Warner and WEA

52. Jn or aboutNovember 1999, Boone also submittedto Copyrighted Workto to

Gavin Report, which forwards songs to radio stations for air play. The list ofradio stations
coveredbytoGavin Report mdudes tofrso-caU super rap list, wHchinclu^ commercial
radio stations into New York City metropolitan area, as well as college radio stations.

53.InoraboutDecember 1999, Micbad Carren ("Catr^

Los

Angeles office called andspoke with Booneto request acopy ofthe Trajik CD ofto
Copyrighted Work. Boone sent Carrenacopy ofto Trajik CD by Federal Express tot same
day.

54. Despite Carren's initial interestinto Trajik CD, tore was no contractforthcorning
from Atlantic Records or Warner.
Amended Complaint
Boone * JohnJadaon, et aL

55. A*u*Ml)*&W^'>***<***l*C*a*>'*U*,,m

CopyrightedWo*. J^^dBc^matfteC^gl^^couWteahitaong. However,

aoftjagfate developedbetweenBooneandUgWyearBrtertetar^mconr^on^mthe
TlajikCD. Ijgl^Erfertairanenft*^^
defendants Warner andWEA

p^^nfs' infringing Conduct

56. Inor aboutSeptember2001, defendants Desert Storm andElektrareleased CD

album, entitledGhettoFabolous, ofdefendantFabolous' various musical/rap compositions and

performedbyFabolous. Fabolous' Ghetto FabolousalbumincludedFabolous' song"Young'n

(Holla'Badc)" (to'Infringing Son^^
and Hugo.

57. Fabolous'recbrdlngoftobfring^
secant sdesof^^
sales ofover 1,000,000 copies.

58. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs cental

toleast,woddhaveaffordedDesertStorm^

Fabolous, Williams andHugo), wim access to Bc^

59.TbeInfringing Songfeatu^^

repetitionoftolyric"holla'back." Thephrasingandmusicalityoftohookinbomto
CopyrightedWork andto Infringing Song are strilringly similar.
Amended Complaint

Boone n JohnJatskson, etal

60.TtesubstaiLMsiBn1ar^
Work wassuohmatupcatordea^

andHolla'Back Records received numerous calls from persons ^

success ofto song. Apparentiy.niauyofmesecaUersconf^

recordedto original Copyrighted Workwritten by Trajik.

61. Plaintiffprotestedtohifrmgementofthe CopyrightedWork. On or about April 9,

2002, plaintiffs former counsel, Jeffrey JacobsonC'Jacobson") oftofirm ofJacobson&Colfin,

P.C., sent acease and desist demand letter to

annexedhereto as Exhibit C. Jacobsonfollowed up this letter withfurtor demand letters on

July30,2002,August 13,2002, August 30,2002, October7,2002, and October 17,2002.

62. On October22,2002, Michad J. Pollack CPoUacT), Vice President ofdefendant

mtofinaUyrespon^

U^

letter, Pollack admits the commercial roMonsMp ofdefendant Mto

and Desert Storm inconnection with to Infringing Song.
63. &aletterdatedNovember4,2002,ac^

Jacobson advisedPollacktotplaintiffhad consdtedwim aqualifiedmusicologist, whose

prolirrinary assessmentmdicatedthattolufrmgingSongandto
substantially similar and are comprised ofaMghproportion ofsimile
64. In aletterto Pollack dated April 9,2003, Jacobson enckjsedacopyoftoreport,
dated March 20,2003, ofmusicologist Judim FM
Inc. Ftottcondudedinherreportthatto^

Infringing Song and plahitiffs CopyrightedWork ard^mero was avaUd claim of

intringement againstthe Infringing Song.
Amended Complaint

Boonev. John Jackson, et al

65.Po1lackaclawledgedrec^

fa

this letter, Pollack adnuHs tot defendant EM^

Infringing Song.

66. SincePollack's April 14,2003 letter, defendants have had no further communication
with plaintiffor plaintiffs counsel

COUNT I

3omM

COPYRIGHT TNimiNGEMENT -17 U.S.C S106 and8501

67. Plairrtiffherebyreaueg^^

foregoing paragraphs 1-66.

68. As to copyright owner ofto Copyrighted Work, plaintiffBoone enjoys to

exclusive right to (1) reduce to tapyri^

to Copyrighted Work, (3) distribute copies ofto Copyrighted work, and (4) display or
broadcast or performthe Copyrighted Work. 17 U.S.C. 106.

69. The fciftinging Song is substantially similarto plamliffs origir^ Copyrighted Work
and therefore infringes to copyrightthereof, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 501.
70. The defendants had access to to Copyrighted Woric priorto to production,

irmufecture, distribution, broadcast and sale ofFabolous' Ghetto Fabolous CD, which contains
to Infringing Song andwhich directlycompetes withplaintiffsoriginal Copyrighted Work.
71.Assdformmtoaforementionedfa^toconclusionis
^accesstoand havesubstantia

copyrightregistxationinviolationoftoCopyrightAct. 17U.S.C. 101, et seq., for which

defendants arejointlyand severally liable.
Amended Complaint
Boone v. JohnJadason, etal

72. Attoleast,defendants are contn^utoryi^

formeproduction, distribution, saleand/or disseminationoftofcfringing Songunderviolation

ofplaintiffsexclusive rights underto Copyright Act
73. Uponirrfornmtionandte

aware oftoexistenceofplaintiffscopyrightinthe CopyrightedWork and, therefore,

defendants are will&l infringers ofplaintiffsCopyright Work.
74. Defendants'hn^emerfb^

caniiotbed^tenninedwito
madron, defendantshave profitedbytoir
infringement oftoCopyrighted Workto todetrimentofplamtiffi for w^^
liableto plaintiff

75. Defendants' infringementhas caused andwfflcontiroieto causeirrepa^

plamtiffudessrestramedbyto

Plauitifishaveno adequateremedy at lawfor

defendants' infringement
PRAYERFORRELIEF

WHEREFORE, pbintiffpraystotto Court grantto following relief:

(a)

Declare mat defendante have infring

(b) Pursuantto 17U.S.C. 502, permanently enjoindefendants, togetherwithtoir

officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and afl persons macti^
participation with them:

(1)

FrommfidngingtoCopyrightedWorkorotor

or exdusivelyKcensedby plaintiffin anyn>anner, andfrom copying, malar*, mark^

selling, distributing and otherwise generating income from music^
AmendedComplaint
Boons v. John Jadaon, etaL

(e)

Puimiantto 17 U.S.C. 505, order defm

reasonable attorneys fees; and

(f)

.3iantplamtiffsuchotoraM

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffhereby demands trial byjuryfor all issues inmis actiontriable ofrightbyjury.

Dated: September30,2004

Rjespectfully submitted,
Codispoti & Manonblli, llp

Bruno F.

StevenMancinelli(SM-0208)
111 John Street, Suite 800
New York, NY 10038

Phone:(212)962-6525
Fax:(212)962-6791
Attorneysfar Plaintffi,
Carla B. Boone

Amended Complaint

Boonev.JohnJadaon.etal

EXHIBIT D

_o~,

complaint for service on defendants.

Telephone conference with CB regarding articles.

Organization of file. Directed preparation of summons and

complaint for service.

Court appearance regarding filing ofcomplaint; Copy and prepare

ortions litigation strategy, Judith Fmnell, etc.

Review offiled complaint. Telephone conference with Austm

Fedder ofNY Daily News regarding lawsuit; Telephone
conference with CB regarding filing ofcomplaint, settlement

copy oftheComplaint.

Recordings and Rocafella Records. Finahzation ofComplarnt for

filing; conference with BFC regarding same,
Mad! copy ofletter to Judge George B. Darnels together W1th a

Further research into Ty Dash, Damon Dash, Desert Storm

withCB regarding same.

conference with SM regarding complaint; telephone conference

Revfew and revision ofcomplaint; research regarding parties;

'cases

BFC Review and respond to email from CB regarding access.

BFC Review and respond to email from CB regarding access.

from Lightyear to Pharrell Williams and/or Charles Hugo.

and sTa egy ofthe case and investigated possible access contacts

with BFC to discuss latest info from Carla regarding Moses

Edwards and "Da White Boy"; discussed developing the theory

Blanco'whom Fabolous expressly thanks on his album. Meeting

to his new repping ofrapper "Da White Boy" a/k/a Johnny

SM TeTphlconfe^
her meeting with Moses Edwards and Greg Rrles ofLightyear
Entertainment and thatthe contact went through^Mo^Edwards

reeardine discovery and trial strategy.

Entertainment and amendment ofcomplaint; imtial ducusaon

regarding PWand possible connection to Lightyear

-r-~

^>>RS pjprv, yarding USDJ Daniels prior decisions in copyright

ifrineernerjlcases
,

witrfSM regarding recent information from LB

<g>BFC Conference
regarding "da White Boy" and Moses Edwards; Research

11/4/2003 BFC

SM

PG

BFC

11/3/2003 TJL

SM

10/31/2003 BFC

Telephone conference with Carla Boone regarding edits to the

Complaint; also advised that she should be prepared for
potentially substantial costs ifthere is no settlement early ,n the
case- Carla assured that she and her husband are prepared for the
costs ofthe case. Revision ofthe Complaint for filing.
Preparation ofthe Summons and Civil Cover Sheet for the court

JackRecords & Entertainment, LLC

10/29/2003 SM

LawOffices of

CODISPOTI & MANCINELLI, LLP

3

ti^y* C""

0.20

0.10 No Charge

1.40

0.50

0.20 No Charge

0.30

1.80

1.00

0.10

3.60

2.60

4.20

Hours

Page

&^,

low Offices of

"*

' """"

'

BFC

1/8/2004 BFC

BFC

SM

BFC

1/7/2004 SM

Conference with BFC regarding Carta's contact with professor

SM

Conference with SM regarding his discussion with copyright

infringement valuation expert and litigation strategy.

Preparation of issues for trial.

qualifications formusicologist.

regarding musicological assessment ofcase and determination of

infringement cases.

Research regarding standards for musicologists in copyright

b
Conference with SM regarding preparation for telephone
conference with CB and GR.
Telephone conference with client and Dr. Ramsey
Conference with SM, CB, Dr. Guthrie Ramsey and Rachel

sent email letter toDr. Guthrie Ramsey.

and musicologist Dr. Ramsey and related matters. Drafted and

initial background research

Telephone conference with SM regarding musicologist Guthrie

Ramsey and litigation strategy regarding musicologist; conduct

can make contact and obtain hiscurriculum vitae

imitial assessment indicated that the salient parts are "identical"

Asked Carla to send me Dr. Ramsey's email address so that we

regarding comparison ofthe Fabolous and Trajik songs: Ramsey's

Telephone conference with Calra Boone and her niece XaviereXaviere contacted ethno-musicologisl Dr. Guthri Ramsey

Circuit, proofanddamages

Research regarding copyright infringement actions in Second

Review and respond to email from CB regarding musicologist

andI ifunfavorable will force us to re-examine the case Carla

authorized us to proceed with another musicologist Notes

wX,
a? eX?f
3t triaUiffavorable
further advised
thatbolster
a<"**our
expert
would beTbeneficial
because
it would
case

songs and to consider Wilbur's report adry-run for the "battle of

Wilburs musicology report; advised that Wilbur's report was not

favorable; discussed that we should have athird expert assess tbe

TelephoEeTonlerence with Carla who' called for update on Sandy-

mfringemenfactioiis inSecond Circuit

Telephone conference with BFC with musicologist

Corrmletejesearch regarding: rap and hip-hop copyright

ISr
Cnfen" with SW ^Barding opinion in connection
vw hmusic analyse; Conference with SM regarding same

SmT gSeCnd GrCUit CaSS M***** hP ***

Research regarding Copyright infringment damages guides

BFC

1/6/2004 SM

* 2/26/20Q3JRS

2/23/2003 BFC

12/22/2003 SM

RS

SM

* 12/19/2003 BFC

12/16/2003 RS
12/17/2003 RS

CODISPOTI &MANCINELLI, LLP

Back Records &Entertainment, LLC

0.50
0.20

0.80

1.10

0.20

1.50

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.30

0.20

0.30

0.60

0.60

1.00

0.50

0.40

Hours

EXHIBIT E

Page 1 of 1

Subj:

Re: REVISED FORM SR

Date:
From:
To:

1/23/2005 1:54:36 PM Eastern Standard Time

bfcesq@.mindsprinq.com
BHolaback@aol.com

CC:

GarudaMan@aol.com

Carta,

Attached is our outline for the briefin opposition to the motion. Also attached is the Santrayall
case which is favorable to our position.

We have been working very diligently with regard to the research, review of documents and

analysis of your case. We have even hired a law graduate (awaiting admission) towork with
us exclusively on your case. He is doing the basic research as well as organisation ofthefile

which has allowed Steven and myselfto work on the main issues for the opposition.

We spoke with Dr. Ramsey on Friday and he is very excited about getting his chance to prove
his points to the defendants in his affidavit/declaration. We expect to have his first draft ofthe
affidavit by Wed.

At that time we will complete our Statement of Facts and the first draft of the affidavits (we will

likely need your affidavit which wewill prepare andforward to you for your approval), as well
as the first draft of the memorandum of law.

Please make sure you are available to us on Wed. and Thurs to review and discuss the above
in anticipation of our Friday, 1/28 deadline to submit the opposition.

In conclusion, we remain very confident in our ability todefeatthede^^

summary judgment/and any klile 11 m"tiAH 9RlimMgrfT We also remain confident that we

WlirOWain a favorable urhrnate^ outcorn'e tor Vou iov prBmfint| triaj or ntherwiseV

We look forward to contirille Working together toward the achievement oryour goals. After the
decision of the motion for summary judgment, we will discuss the status and the future of this
case as well as our relationship. Both Steven &I wish to continue to represent you and
believe that we can find common ground.
Regards.
Bruno

P.S. Did you know that Pharrell did a remix of "Sympathy forthe Devil" in 2002/3? Iwas
surfing the net on Friday night to find more tidbits about him and itcame out. I actually saw the
video online at real.com. This is an interesting development since Fabolous did say that

Pharrell brought him the song and took the wooo wooo from that song. I am interested in
discovering the nature of the license from the publisher to the Neptunes.
Bruno F. Codispoti, Esq.
Codispoti & Mancinelli, LLP
111 John Street, Ste. 800

New York, NY 10038-3002

212-962-6525
212-962-6791 -

fax

bfcesqSmindsprinq.com

h-ttp; //www. codman-llp.com/

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:

The information contained in this electronic message, as well

Wednesday, January 26,2005 America Online: BHolaback

EXHIBIT F

1/15/2015

Inbox I Linkedln

Search inbox..

Home

Profile

Connections

Jobs

Interests

I"

Business Services

+JL

Try Premium for free

Is Your Business Listed? - List your business across the Internet. Enter business address to start now

Inbox
Bf New

*\ Reply

Messages

Invitations
Sent

I Trash

More "'

< Prev

Next>

Trash

Get a free month of Linkedln Premium with:

To: Steven Mancinelli

ft A

March 1,2013 11:56 AM

days of details on Who's viewed Your

Profile and how they found you

OC InMails per month to icontact members
outside your nelwork

Upon researching my bills and the files returned to my attention, I fail to come

across specific documents/information which was used to research my

Stephen mancinA

FREE

Prior Litigation Information

Hello Bruno & Steven..I hope all is well.

Archive

Linkedln Premium63

O C

copyright case which is needed at this time.

times (he reach with access

i
to full
profiles of everyone in your network

Upgrade Free

Have you returned my entire file?.

Specifically, I am lookingfor the 11/4/03 and 12/07/07 stats and findings

regarding the research done re: Judge Daniels' priordecisions in copyright
cases and complete research in copyright cases in 2nd circuit and any

Ads You May Be Interested In

GA Tech Full-time MBA

additional information not returned to my attention.

Nationally Ranked for Best

Classroom Experience. Attend

I look forward to receipt of this information and will provide this request in

3/07 Info Session!

writing shortly.
Are You A President?

Apply for Free to Worldwide

Who's Who and get Recognized.

Carla B. Boone

Successful Women Network

Apply to the Worldwide Who's

Who network for Successful
Women.

Help Center About

Careers Advertising

Linkedln Corporation 2015

UserAgreement

Talent Solutions
Privacy Policy

Sales Solutions

Small Business

Community Guidelines

Wrps://www.linkedin.coTi/inbox/#detail?iternld=S396923215 70&trk=COMM Nl

Mobile

Cookie Policy

Language

Copyright Policy

Upgrade YourAccount
Send Feedback

1/1

EXHIBIT G

Lynda "Tamara" Ramsey

81-10 Rockaway Beach Blvd. #5D
Rockaway Beach, NY 11693
718-318-0962

January 25,2004

Codispoti & Mancinelli

111 John Street, Suite 800
New York, NY 10038

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing this letter to give my account of a meeting held in late December 1999 with
representatives at Lightyear Entertainment.

Approximately 10 days priorto the Christmas holiday, I accompanied CarlaBoone of

Holla'back Records to a meeting at Lightyear Entertainment's offices, located in the
Empire State Building.
At that time, I was managing Bobby Brown's sister, Carol Brown aka Coupe B and was
shopping for a record deal on her behalf.
Upon arriving at Lightyear, Carla and I met with Moses Edwards, Lightyear's A&R

representative. Moses listened to both demos; my artist, Coupe B, and Carta's artists,
Trajik & the Black Casba. Moses was very interested in Carla's artists Trajik. He made
the comment that he wished she had come to him a few months earlier due to the fact that

they, Lightyear, had exhausted their budget already. I also vaguely recall Moses
mentioning that, although their budget was exhausted, that he may want to use the project
for a new artist that was coming out and that he would speak some guys that he knew to
see if they would be interested if Lightyear was not. However, he stated that he would
bring her project into his boss, Greg Riles, to get his feedback.
Moses left the room and, several minutes later, Greg Riles emerged. Greg was extremely
excited about the project; particularly the song by Trajik, "Holla'back", which he
repeatedly stated to Carla and me several times - "this song is a hit."
We had lunch with Moses that afternoon and returned back to Lightyear's office at which
time Carla and I were introduced to the owner of the company Arnie Holland. Arnie told
Carla that she had "great stuff." A follow-up meeting was then set up for January 5,
2000.

As I understand, that meeting never took place due to the fact that Carla was involved in
a major car accident on the way to this meeting.

I am available for any additional questions you may have regarding this issue.

Lynda "Tamara" Ramsey

EXfflBIT H

Page 1 of 1

Steven has advised me that, despite our prior conference where we were advised that defendants could not
make Sanctions Motion, they indeed made such motion yesterday.

Further, Steven also insinuated, that despite receiptof the full paymentof $17,500 inadvance forthe motion

work, heexpects some additional compensation for thesanctions motion and, perhaps weshould consider pulling
out of suit with 21 day safe harbour.

This is very disconcerting for the following reasons:

1. Ifthiswas a frivoulous suit why would we continue fighting period; the $17,500 should never have been
requested nor paid, nor should any amounts have been spent period; therefore, the full amount should be
returned. The damage to our label's name and reputation would be irreparable.

2. If it is not a frivoulous lawsuit which iswhat has been advised, forcing us toabandon thesuit, despite my
reluctance to do so, simply because an additional 10-15k as d'isengenuous as these frivoulous motions.

Our original discussion, re# ofhour for each motion, entailed 100 for Motion to Dismiss and and additional maybe
50 for Sanctions Motion.

Thefolloow up e:mail sent byus, prior to receipt ofany motion, stipulated that sinceyou would nottake more of
case on contingency and since we must manage ou rg were allocating the same 100 hours to do allwork
associated with these motions. This is when we expected both the Sanctions Motion and the Motion to Dismiss.

Yet, oncethe Dismiss motion was received, we had conference during which prepayment ofentire fee was
requested and paid in a timely fashion.

We have fulfilled our part of agreeement.

Friday, January 14,2005 America Online: BHolaback

A0L.COM | Message View

Is love in

JB

&<

CD

Page 1 of 1

Subj:

Boone v. Jackson

Date:

10/15/2004 12:58:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From:

GarudaMan

To:

BHolaback

Cc:

bfcesq@mindspring.com

your stars?

RflHV

Carla,

FOBWAD D

Cynthia Arato called yesterday to discuss scheduling on defendants' proposed

motion for summary judgment. She also reaffirmed that they intend to make an
additional motion for sanctions under Federal Rule 11 on the grounds that
complaint is completely without any reasonable basis. While Bruno and I
completely disagree with Cynthia's claim that the case is frivolous and without
any reasonable basis, nonetheless her position indicates that there might well be
substantially more work involved and therefore more cost for you. We will have
to oppose not only the proposed summary judgment motion but the sanctions
motion as well. Since you and Joe have expressed some concern about the costs
of the continuing litigation, I want to give you a heads-up on what may very well
1 Of 21

fttPEf AIL

ADD

ADDRMS

NEXT ^

t>

i .-ft*

E_] Include original text in reply.

http://webmail.aol.com/msgview.adp?folder=U2F2ZWQ=&uid=9892847

10/16/2004

A0L.COM | Message View

Page 1 of 1

Subj: Re: Boone v. Jackson

Date: 10/16/2004 9:29:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time

(s>

From:

BHolaback

To:

GarudaMan

Firstly, we were never advised that Cynthia had ever stated that she was
considering filing for sanctions; therefore, this is news to us.

Secondly, these sanctions would not just be against us; yet could be against the
firm also. Further, I am not too concerned with us being sanctioned as all we did

&

was rely on the advice of 2 lawfirms and an additional 2 musicologists to support

our believe that our copyright had been violated.

(9

G>

Yet, correct us if we're wrong, you are looking for us to pay for an open ended
amount of "extensive, additional research" to prevent your firm from potentially
being charged sanctions for filing a frivoulous suit?

Steven: You continue to profess your confidences in this case; yet we are unsure as
to how confident you guys really are at this point.
After all, the majority of the expenses are ours; yet a substantial windfall could
befall all of us if we continue to pursue this case vigorously.

In fact, what would prevent and unscrupulous attorney (i.e. our previous counsel)

(^\

from continuing to charge their client an open ended hourly wage to research what
could amount to their fees for such frivolous claim?

We certainly don't place you guys in this category; yet average JOe's (excuse the
pun) continue to be left holding the bag in these situations.

\S> We are also unsure as to whether it is in any of our best interest to, continuously
be reminded of the costs involved in this case; we both should be willing to
sacrifice for the end result intended (the $6M judgement).

&

We cannot agree to any additional, extensive research on this case without

additional discussions.

Specifically, it may be in all of our best intersts to discuss other

financial/contingency arrangements to ensure that we can see this thing through.

jA Obviously, Cynthia's objective is to exhaust our financial resources by needlessly

vand recklessly dragging this litigation out.

Can we, as a team, come up with a better scenario to see this

thing all the way

through?

How much do we really believe in this

case?

Or is the safe harbour provision our way out?

The only approval you have from us is, what was requested originally, an immediate
conference scheduling with Judge Daniel's to discuss these unwarrnted delay tactics
and solely based on deposition testimony highlighting similaries exposed by their
and our experts.
We would also like to know when the conference would be scheduled as we would like
to

attend.

hi^://webniail.aol.com/frnsgview.adp?folder=TlVUQk9Yfeuid=9896661

10/16/2004