DAVID Z.

RIBAKOFF (SBN 162925)

Email: dribakojJ@enensteinlaw. com
COURTNEY M. HAVENS (SBN 301116)

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Email: ckavens@enensteinlaw.com
ENENSTEIN RIBAKOFF LAVINA & PHAM

12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600

Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone:(310)899-2070

SEP 03 2015
r, Executive Officer/Clerk

Fax: (310)496-1930
Attorneys for Plaintiff

^^

,., Deputy

Judi Lara

Drew Newman

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

10
11

DREW NEWMAN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

12
v.

CASE NO.

COMPLAINT FOR:
1. BREACH OF PARTNERSHIP

13
14
15

JASON TOLLIVER, an individual; and

DOES 1 through 20 inclusive,

AGREEMENT
2. BREACH OF THE IMPLIED

COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND

FAIR DEALING

Defendants.

3. PARTNERSHIP DISSOLUTION
16

4. ACCOUNTING
5. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

17

6. DECLARATORY RELIEF

18

19
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
20
21
m

22

3>

X>

m S
*~* rn

rn

l~
m

23

o
o
o
o
I> X
I- X
to t> o-i m

If)

24

Z. X

rn

o
m

m
*

o
CO
m

t
%a

25

*. o
u
v>

en x..

X
en

<A

r~i

27

o
HJ

Js.

*v Vt fV w
o
en
o
o

28

o
o

in

COMPLAINT

o
o

o
o

o
o

nj

>7en

en

26

CD
O
cn

e.

Plaintiff Drew Newman, an individual, ("Plaintiff) hereby complains and alleges as

follows:
PARTIES

1.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant Jason

Tolliver ("Tolliver") is an individual, and at all times herein mentioned was a resident of Los

Angeles County, California.

2.

The true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 20,

inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names.

Plaintiffwill amend this Complaint when their true names and capacities are ascertained. Plaintiff

10

. 11
12

is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously-named Defendants is

responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and is liable on the claims
hereinafter set forth.

3.

13

Defendants and each of them, including DOES 1 through 20, are collectively

14

referred to herein as "Defendants." References hereafter made to any one Defendant shall be

15

deemed to refer to and include each of the other Defendants, as well as the fictitiously-named

16

Defendants sued as DOES I through 20, unless the context indicates otherwise.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

17

4.

18

Plaintiff, Tolliver, and Grayson Kessenich ("Kessenich") formed Ives the Band

19

(the "Band") in 2005. The Band has described itself as an "adventure rock" band and was

20

inspired by California's beach culture.

21

5.

Tolliver was the lead singer for the Band.

22

6.

On or about June 2007, Plaintiff, Tolliver, and Kessenich signed a handwritten

23

partnership agreement to govern the Band. At that time, there were six members of the band, but

24

three signatories of the partnership agreement.

CO

7.

25

The partnership agreement resulted in Plaintiff, Tolliver, and Kessenich being able

w
'-..

26

to open a checking account at Bank of America. This account was used to write checks for the

27

partnership.

28

///

to

H1

KTi

1
COMPLAINT

8.

From 2007 onward, all business was conducted under the name of the Band,

"IVES" and Plaintiff and Tolliveragreed that everything created by the Band belonged to the

Band. While tliere was no written agreement, Plaintiffand Tolliver both understood that the Band

was a common cause, and that they were acting in goodfaith. Plaintiffand Tolliver both referred

to the Band as a partnership.

9.

Members in the Band who were not partners of the Band were described as

contractors of the Band. Royalties were split equally between members in the Band, including

members who were contractors of the Band.

10
11

12
13
14
15

16
17

18
19
20

21
22

23

10.

Checks were made to the Band in the name of the Band, "Ives," and expenses

were incurred under the name of the Band and paid from the Band's checking account.

11.

As of approximately 2008, Kessenich left the Band, and has not been an active

member of the Band since. Kessinich is no longer a partner in the Band.

12.

In 2008, Plaintiff created a Facebook page for the Band. Bryce Newman managed

the Band's Facebook page.

13.

In 2009, the members of the Band at the time released an album titled "The

Incredible Story of Mr. Birch."

14.

As of 2010, the members of the Band were Plaintiff, Tolliver, Bryce Newman, and

Kyle Moore.

15.

As of 2010, Plaintiff and Tolliver were the only members of the partnership. Bryce

Newman and Kyle Moore were both contractors.

16.

As of 2010, Plaintiff and Tolliver were the only persons with their names on the

Band's checking account.

17.

In 2010, Bryce Newman created a Twitter account for the Band. Since 2010,

U/

24
25

26

27

28
in

Bryce Newman has managed the Twitter account for the Band.
18.

From 2010 through 2012, the Band was managed by Todd Bradley ("Bradley").

Bradley's contract was with the Band. Plaintiff negotiated the contract with Bradley for the Band.
19.

As of 2013, Plaintiff and Tolliver were the only persons on the checking account.

Plaintiff and Tolliver were the only members of the partnership.

2
COMPLAINT

20.

In the Fall of 2013, the Band began recording an album (the "Album"). This

Album used songs the Band members had been working on since 2013. The Band members at

this time were Plaintiff, Tolliver, Bryce Newman, and Kyle Moore.

21.

The Album is at yet unreleased and is titled "The Fighters (a.k.a. Rio Grande)."

22.

The Album was produced by Ken Riley ("Riley").

23.

The Band had an agreement with Riley in order to get the Album recorded. In

exchange for the value of the recording time, the Band would perform shows and do a radio

interview.

24.

The agreement between the Band and Riley was an oral agreement.

10

25.

If the Band cannot perform the shows in the oral agreement, Plaintiffis informed

11

and believes that the partnership is potentially exposed to claims for the cost of the recording time

12

as a partnership expense.

13
14
15

26.

As the Band cannot perform the shows, the Partnership is potentially exposed to

claims as a result of its breach of contract.

27.

On March 3, 2014, the Band signed a "Work-For-Hire Agreement" with Bob Rosa

16

for "professional engineering (mixing) services." This contract was made between Bob Rosa for

17

Bob Rosa Productions, Inc. and IVES.

18
19

28.

The March 3, 2014 "Work-For-Hire Agreement" acknowledged that the Band "is

and shall be deemed the author and/or exclusive owner" of the Masters.

20

29.

In May 2014, Kyle Moore exited from the band.

21

30.

In May 21, 2014, the Band sent an email to Kyle Moore regarding his exit from

22

the band. That email was sent from the email address ivesmusic@gmail.com and was signed by

23

Bryce Newman, Plaintiff, and Tolliver. In that email, under the heading of "Song Rights" the

24

band members stated "The partners of Ives did indeed agree at the beginning of the writing

25

process of Rio Grande to grant an equal split of the remaining credit (left after any additional

26

writers) between the active participants of the band at that point. In addition, the partnersof Ives

27

also awarded you the same benefits to the songs appearing on The Incredible Story of Mr Birch

28

after the album was completed. All songs on both of these albums have already been registered at
3

the pertinent performing rights organizations with the appropriate writers and publishers

percentages."

31. On May 30, 2014, Kyle Moore signed a Separation Agreement sent to him by

Plaintiff and Tolliver. This agreement laid out the terms of Kyle Moore's separation from the

Band and was entered into "by between Kyle Moore ("Contractor") and Ives The Band

("Partnership") as owned by Drew Newman and Jason Tolliver." Page 4 of the Separation

Agreement identified the BMI Percentages for the songs on both "Rio Grande" and "The

Incredible Story of Mr. Birch."

In 2014, the Band renovated its website. The Band moved the website to a new

10

hosting platform, Squarespace. Plaintiff put the website together for the Band. Plaintiff arranged

11

for a photographer to take pictures of the Band for the website.

12

33.

The Band's "one sheet" from 2014 indicates that the Band "is currently

13

independently operated." The contact for the band is listed as Plaintiff. The Band's website is

14

listed as www.ivestheband.com.

15

34.

On or about December 9, 2014, Tolliver dissociated from the Band.

16

35.

Tolliver has not performed any obligations of the Band since his dissociation in

17

18

December 2014.

36.

In December 2014, when Tolliver dissociated from the Band, he left a variety of

19

equipment belonging to the Band in the trailer the Band used. That trailer belonged to Plaintiff

20

and was at Plaintiffs home.

21
22
I i i

32.

23
24

I.'!

25

37.

Between December 2014, and March 18, 2015, Tolliver did not communicate with

Plaintiff.

38.

On March 18, 2015, Tolliver's counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff claiming the

equipment left in the trailer was his personal property and demanding its return.

39.

Given Tolliver's position as the lead singer of the Band, the Band is currently

26

unable to perform its obligations under the oral agreement with Riley. As a direct result of

27

Tolliver's dissociation from the Band, the partnership is potentially exposed to claims for the cost

28

of recording fees.

in

4
COMPLAINT

40.

expenses.

41.

3
4

The Band owes Plaintiffs wife, Sarah Newman, approximately $7,649.28 for

The Band owes Plaintiff at least $2,000 for expenses. Plaintiff incurred these

expenses to further the Band.

42.

Thepartnership assets consist of a number of physical items such as microphones,

microphone input modules, boom stands, cables, cases, headphones, and other items used for the

Band. The partnership assets also include compact disks of the Band's albums, mugs, t-shirts,

and hats.

43.

The partnership assets include intellectual property rights, including but not

10

limited to the rights to the albums released by the Band, The Incredible Story of Mr. Birch and

11

The Fighters (a.k.a. Rio Grande) (collectively, "Intellectual Property").

44.

12

13

On July 20, 2015,Tolliver's counsel sent Plaintiffa letter informing him thaton

May 18,2015, Tolliver officially withdrew from the partnership.

45.

14

The July 20, 2015 letter also claimed that Tolliver "ownsan exclusive right" in

15

the partnership's intellectual property assets. According to Tolliver, these rights include: "the

16

released album, entitled 'The Incredible Story of Mr. Birch' and the unreleased album, entitled

17

'The Fighters (a.k.a. Rio Grande)' [...]; the songs; mixtapes; singles; musical compositions; key

18

arts; name; trade name and trademark of the band; and all other forms of branding contained

19

therein; social mediapages and handles and theircontent (including but not limited to twitter,

20

Facebook, Instagram, MySpace, etc.); websites, URL, domain nameand other intellectual

21

property assets." Tolliver claims this exclusive right "pursuant to 17 U.S. Code Section 106 (the

22

'Copyright Act') and other intellectual property statutes."

(-)

46.

23

The July 20, 2015 letter also claimed Tolliver has a right in the name of the band

if)

24

"Ives" and that use of the name of the band, "Ives" would constitute infringement of Tolliver's

25

trademark.

26

47.

The July 20,2015 letter also claimed that use of Tolliver's name, voice, signature,

27

photograph and likeness violated Section 3344 of the California Civil Code.

28

///

__J
COMPLAINT

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Partnership Agreement)

48.

3
4

set forth and realleged herein.

49.

In 2007, Plaintiffand Tolliver had a written agreement that they were partners in

the Band. Plaintiffand Tolliver also hadoral agreements which comprised the partnership

agreement. As part of the partnership agreement, Plaintiff and Tolliver agreed to carry on asco-

owners of the Band for profit. Both Plaintiff and Tolliver were expected to contribute their

money, skills, efforts, and labor to the Band.

50.

10
11

Tolliver's dissociation from the Band and withdrawal from the partnership

breached the agreement to carry on the Band as a business for profit.

51.

12

Plaintiff was damaged by Tolliver's breach of the partnership agreement. Plaintiff

13

was damaged by Tolliver's breach because the partnership is potentially exposed to claims for the

14

cost of recording fees. Plaintiff has also been damaged because he cannot realize the

15

opportunities inherent in continuing the partnership.

16

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

17

(Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)

52.

18

19

21

53.

Plaintiff and Tolliver entered into a contract, namely the partnership agreement.

This contract was both written and oral.

54.

22
23

Plaintiffincorporates Paragraphs 1 through 51 into thiscause of action as if fully

set forth and realleged herein.

20

Plaintiffdid all of the significant things that the contract required him to do. He

performed all the duties of the partnership agreement.

55.

24

H1

Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1through 47 into this cause of action as if fully

Tolliver's actions in dissociating from the Band have unfairly interfered with

25

Plaintiffs right to receive the benefits of the contract.

26

///

27

///

28

///

COMPLAINT

56.

Plaintiff was damaged by Tolliver's conduct. Plaintiff was damaged by Tolliver's

breach because the partnership is potentially exposed to claims for the cost of recording fees.

Plaintiff has also been damaged because he cannot realize the opportunities inherent in continuing

the partnership.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Dissolution of Partnership)

8
9

10
11

12
13

14

15
16

57.

Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 56 into this cause of action as if fully

set forth and realleged herein.

58.

Plaintiff and Tolliver have formed a partnership to carry on as co-owners of the

Band for profit.

59.

Tolliver's dissociation from the Band and withdrawal from the partnership

unreasonably frustrates the economic purpose of the partnership,

60.

Tolliver's actions in dissociating from the Band have made it not reasonably

practicable to carry on the business of the Band in partnership with Plaintiff.

61.

Under the provisions of California Corporate Code section 16801(5)(A) and (B),

Plaintiff is entitled to a dissolution by court decree.

17

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18

(Accounting)

19
20

21
22

62.

Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 61 into this cause of action as if fully

set forth and realleged herein.

63.

Plaintiff demands an accounting from Tolliver as provided for in California

Corporate Code section 16404(b)(1).

23

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

24

(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)

Uj

25
CO

26
27

28

64.

Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 63 into this cause of action as if fully

set forth and realleged herein.

65.

As a partner, Tolliver owed a fiduciary duty of loyalty and care to his partner

partnership.

01

7
COMPLAINT

66.

Tolliver breached his duty of loyalty and care by knowingly acting against the

Band's interests. He dissociated from the Band, knowing that without him the Band, and thus the

partnership, could not fulfill its contractual duties with Riley.

67.

As a direct result, the partnership is potentially exposed to claims for the cost of

recording fees.

6Z.

Plaintiff has been harmed by Tolliver's conduct as a partner in the partnership.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Relief)

9
10
11

69.

Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 68 into this cause of action as if fully

set forth and realleged herein.

70.

An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Tolliver

12

concerning their respective rights to the Intellectual Property of the band, as well as the use of the

13

name of the Band "Ives" and the right to control of the use of Tolliver's "name, voice, signature

14

photograph and likeness ... including without limitation those contained in the Album and the

15

Intellectual Property Assets."

16
17

18

71.

Plaintiff contends that the Intellectual Property created by the Band belongs to the

partnership.

72.

Plaintiff contendsthat the Intellectual Property belonging to the Band includes but

19

are not limited to: the album "The Incredible Story of Mr. Birch"; the album "The Fighters (a.k.a.

20

Rio Grande); any and all songs created by the Band; any and all mixtapes created by the Band; any

21

and all singles created by the Band; any and all musical compositions created by the Band; key

22

arts; the name of the Band "Ives"; trade name and trademark of the Band "Ives"; and all other

23

forms of branding contained therein; social media pages and handles and theircontent created by

24

the Band; the Band's website ivestheband.com. including the URL, domain name, and all content

25

created by the band therein.

26
NJ

73.

Plaintiff contends that, insofar as Tolliver's "name, voice, signature photograph and

27

likeness" is contained in the Intellectual Property belonging to the partnership, the partnership has

28

a right to use it.

U1

8
COMPLAINT

74.

Tolliver contends that use of the Intellectual Property by the Band infringes on his

copyright. Tolliver's counsel sent a letter on July 20, 2015 claiming that he has an "exclusive

right" in the intellectual property assets of the band.

75.

Tolliver's counsel sent a letter on July 20, 2015 claiming that use of the name of

the Band "Ives" is an infringement on his trademark. The letter also claims that this is unfair

competition and false advertising.

76.

Tolliver contends that the right to control of the use of Tolliver's "name, voice,

signature photographand likeness ... including without limitation those contained in the Album

and the Intellectual Property Assets," is a statutory violation,

77.

10

A judicial declaration is therefore necessary and appropriate at this time under the

11

circumstances so that the parties may ascertain their respective rights to the Intellectual Property,

12

including use of the name of the Band "Ives," and the right to the use of Tolliver's "name, voice,

13

signature photograph and likeness" insofar as it is contained in the Intellectual Property.

14
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

15

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

16
17

1.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT

18

A.

For general damages according to proof;

19

B.

For costs of suit herein incurred; and

20

C.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

21

2.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT

22

OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

23

A.

For general damages according to proof;

24

B.

For costs of suit herein incurred; and

25

C.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

<: f)

26

3.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP

27

A.

For a Court Order dissolving the partnership;

28

B.

For costs of suit herein incurred; and

COMPLAINT

C.

1
2

4.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ACCOUNTING

A.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

For accounting of partnership affairs from 2007 to the present, that the account be

settled between Plaintiff and Tolliver, and that Plaintiff have judgment against

Tolliver for whatever sums may be found due and owing to Plaintiff under the

accounting;

B.

For costs of suit herein incurred; and

C.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

5.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

10

A.

For general damages according to proof;

11

B.

For costs of suit herein incurred; and

12

C.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

13
14

6.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

A.

For a declaration of the rights of the parties to the Intellectual Property assets of

15

the Band, including the right to the name of the Band "Ives," as well as right to the

16

use of Tolliver's "name, voice, signature photograph and likeness" insofar as it is

17

contained in the Intellectual Property;

18

B.

For costs of suit herein incurred; and

19

C.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

20
21

DATED: September 3, 2015

ENENSTEIN RIBAKOFF LAVINA & PHAM

22
23

By

__

24

25
26
27

28

1__
COMPLAINT

ENS, ESQ.

I
2
3

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial byjury of all matters triable byjury.

Dated: September 3, 2015

ENENSTEIN RIBAKOFF LAVINA & PHAM

6
7

COUR'FNE-MrflAVENS, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff

8
9

10
11

12

13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20

21
22

23

y?
24
25

26
27

28
in

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

{
2

VERIFICATION
3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

5
6

I have read the foregoing COMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF PARTNERSHIP

AGREEMENT; (2) BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND
FAIR DEALING; (3) PARTNERSHIP DISSOLUTION; (4) ACCOUNTING: (5) BREACH
OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; (6) DECLARATORY RELIEF and know its contents

HI

to those matters I believe them to be true.

9
10

Iam aparty to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing documents are true ofmy

own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief and

Iam D an officer D apartner a

vsrification for that reason.

12

13

14

15

17

18
19

20
21

Iam informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the

foregoing document are true.

The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except

as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those
matters I believe them to be true.

I am one of the attorneys for

_, a party to this action. Such party is

absent from the county ofaforesaid where such attorneys have their offices and 1make
this verification for and on behalf of that party for that reason. I am informed and believe
and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true.
Executed on 1 September, 2015, at

Albuquerque

New Mexico.

Ideclare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia that the

foregoing is true and correct.

22

23
24

., a party to this

action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and Imake this

i!

16

of

Drew^New

25
26
27

28

VERIFICATION TO COMPLAINT