DR Luke Amended Claim

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2017 10:48 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2017
Exhibit A
to Affirmation of
Jeffrey M. Movit
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
:
LUKASZ GOTTWALD p/k/a DR. LUKE, KASZ
:
MONEY, INC., and PRESCRIPTION SONGS, LLC,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-against:
:
KESHA ROSE SEBERT p/k/a KESHA,
:
:
Defendant.
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Index No. 653118/2014

Justice Kornreich
[PROPOSED] SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Jury Trial Demanded
Plaintiffs Lukasz Gottwald p/k/a Dr. Luke (Gottwald), Kasz Money, Inc. (KMI) and
Prescription Songs, LLC (Prescription Songs) (collectively, Plaintiffs), by and through their
undersigned attorneys, as and for their Second Amended Complaint against Defendant Kesha
Rose Sebert p/k/a Kesha (Kesha), allege, with personal knowledge of their own actions, and
upon information and belief as to the actions of others, as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.
Kesha is a recording artist and songwriter. Gottwald is a Grammy-nominated
songwriter and producer of smash hit musical recordings. KMI and Prescription Songs are,
respectively, a production company and a publishing company which are both owned by
Gottwald.
2.
Beginning in 2012, Kesha, her mother Pebe Sebert (Pebe), and her manager
Vector Management, LLC (Vector) hatched a campaign which was expressly and admittedly
designed to ruin Gottwalds business and reputation. Kesha, through her management, has
admitted that this campaign was undertaken as retaliation after Plaintiffs would not agree to enter
into so-called renegotiated contracts with Kesha containing terms that would be far less
8498699.4

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

favorable to Plaintiffs than those in their currently binding agreements with Kesha. Even though
Kesha and her representatives had no right or basis to insist that Plaintiffs enter into such
renegotiated contracts, they were greatly angered that Plaintiffs would not agree to do so.
3.
Kesha, her mother Pebe, and Keshas other representatives thus embarked on a
vicious campaign to destroy Gottwald employing vicious tactics including defamation,

blacklisting, and extortion. In violation of her contractual agreements with Plaintiffs, Kesha
refused to comply with her ongoing obligations to deliver sound recordings and compositions to
Plaintiffs, to allow Gottwald to produce her work, or to account for or pay substantial royalties to
KMI.
4.
As part of their coordinated effort to ruin Plaintiffs business and reputation,
Kesha and Pebe spread to the public false, disgusting and highly damaging statements about
Plaintiffs to numerous third parties which constitute defamation per se. Among other things,
they revived an utterly baseless claim which Kesha and Pebe previously acknowledged under
oath to be false that Gottwald purportedly raped Kesha nearly a decade ago, as well as other
false and baseless accusations of purported abuse.
5.
After Keshas initial defamatory smear campaign did not succeed in obtaining
business concessions from Plaintiffs, she commenced a lawsuit against them in California
Superior Court on October 14, 2014, asserting meritless claims arising from false allegations of
purported abuse. Kesha and her representatives anticipated wrongly that Plaintiffs would
quickly settle the California action and did not expect them to vigorously oppose her baseless
claims. In the face of Plaintiffs opposition, Kesha eventually dismissed her California lawsuit
voluntarily, thereby acknowledging that it entirely lacked merit.
8498699.4
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
6.
Plaintiffs commenced this action later on that same day of October 14, 2014. In
September 2015, Sebert filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in this action seeking, inter
alia, to terminate her contractual relationships with Plaintiffs, and allow Kesha to sign a new,
lucrative agreement with a third-party record label. Plaintiffs opposed that motion, and on
February 19, 2016, this Court denied it.
7.
Kesha and her representatives were surprised and angered that Plaintiffs had
defeated her injunction motion. Kesha and her representatives decided that she would
purportedly resume performing under her contracts with Plaintiffs (as she always had the ability
to do), but that they would redouble their malicious efforts to utterly ruin Gottwald and his
business. They organized a campaign to blacklist Plaintiffs from the entire music industry.
8.
In furtherance of her scheme to blacklist Plaintiffs from the music industry, Kesha
also spread a knowingly false and wholly defamatory accusation that Gottwald had purportedly
raped another female recording artist. Kesha and her team also promoted boycotts and social
media harassment of third parties who continued to work with Gottwald in order to pressure
them to stop doing so. Keshas management even went so far as to develop a plan for leaking
to the public the cell phone numbers and email addresses of top-level executives from Sony
Music Entertainment and its related entities (collectively, Sony).
9.
These wrongful actions did not further any financial interests of Kesha or her
representatives. (Indeed, since losing the injunction motion, Keshas representatives have
repeatedly stated that Kesha is no longer seeking more money or more favorable business terms.)
Instead, these actions have been solely intended as revenge and retaliation against Plaintiffs for
defeating Keshas injunction motion and refusing to acquiesce to Keshas and her
representatives prior threats.
8498699.4

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
10.
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

While Kesha and her representatives have self-servingly characterized their
malicious actions against Plaintiffs as an altruistic crusade for womens rights, their private
communications reflect that it is nothing of the sort. Indeed, these communications demonstrate
their utter contempt for the activists they have induced to further their campaign to destroy
Plaintiffs. As Keshas manager cynically stated in an email dated February 20, 2016: What
worries me is that [i]t [i.e., Keshas smear campaign] can quickly become yesterdays news. Are
there any feminist groups that can jump in? They always get results. We need the female Al
Sharpton.
11.
Thus, contrary to the statements put out by Keshas sophisticated PR operation, it
is Kesha and her teamand not Gottwaldwho are the bullies here. As set forth in detail
herein, they have engaged in a vicious campaign of social media and other harassment and have
cunningly circulated vile falsehoods about Gottwald, with the specific and admitted intent of
destroying him.
12.
This type of malicious, destructive and vengeful conduct serves no legitimate
purpose and should not be countenanced. Gottwald has upheld his end of his bargain with
Kesha, devoting the better part of a decade to transforming Kesha from an unknown entity into a
well-known recording star. Keshas contractual breaches, and her admitted campaign to ruin
Plaintiffs business and reputation, have caused tremendous damage as set forth herein.
PARTIES
13.
Gottwald is a California resident.
14.
KMI is incorporated in the State of New York.
15.
Prescription Songs is a California limited liability company.
16.
Kesha is a California resident who is a singer-songwriter doing business in New
York.
8498699.4

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

17.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Kesha pursuant to New York Civil
Practice Law and Rules 301 and 302 because she is transacting business in the State of New
York, has engaged in acts in violation of Plaintiffs rights in the State of New York, and/or has
been and is causing injury to Plaintiffs in the State of New York.
18.
The Court also has personal jurisdiction over Kesha because she consented to
same in the KMI Agreement and the Prescription Publishing Agreement, both of which are
defined below.
19.
Venue is proper in the County of New York pursuant to the KMI Agreement and
the Prescription Publishing Agreement, which provide for sole jurisdiction in New York for any
controversies regarding those agreements.
20.
Venue is also proper in the County of New York pursuant to New York Civil
Practice Law and Rules 503.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
A.
Gottwald Discovers Kesha and Signs Her to an Exclusive Recording Deal
21.
Gottwald who is professionally known as Dr. Luke is a Grammy-nominated
songwriter and producer of smash hit musical recordings by artists including Katy Perry, Britney
Spears, and Kelly Clarkson, among others. Gottwald has written the most Number One songs of
any songwriter ever. He was named by Billboard as one of the top ten producers of the decade in
2009 and the Producer and Songwriter of the Year for 2010, and was the 2010 ASCAP
Songwriter of the Year. Gottwald is also the principal and owner of KMI, a company which
furnishes the services of certain individuals in the entertainment industry.
22.
In or about 2005, Gottwald discovered an unknown and unsigned musical artist
named Kesha Rose Sebert when he listened to her demo tape. Recognizing her potential,
8498699.4
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
Gottwald called Kesha at her home in Nashville, Tennessee and expressed interest in working
with her. Kesha, in turn, was excited to be provided with an opportunity to work with Gottwald
and record his songs. Thus, the parties working relationship began.
23.
In order to further their working relationship, Kesha entered into an exclusive
recording agreement with Gottwalds company KMI, effective as of September 26, 2005 (the
KMI Agreement). Kesha hired a sophisticated and experienced entertainment lawyer to
negotiate the KMI Agreement on her behalf.
24.
Under the terms of the KMI Agreement, Kesha agreed, among other things, that:
(a) she would provide her exclusive recording services to KMI for a specified term, which at
KMIs election could be extended through the release of Keshas sixth album (which was later
modified to her fifth album); (b) Gottwald would be engaged to provide production services for
at least six recordings on each Kesha album; and (c) Gottwald would be provided with a
specified percentage of the sales of each such recording he produced. Gottwald is an expressly
intended third-party beneficiary of the KMI Agreement.
25.
The KMI Agreement expressly requires that any disputes regarding the agreement
be litigated in the courts of New York and not elsewhere. Specifically, Section 10(f) provides
as follows:
THE NEW YORK COURTS (STATE AND FEDERAL), SHALL
HAVE SOLE JURISDICTION OF ANY CONTROVERSIES
REGARDING THIS AGREEMENT; ANY ACTION OR OTHER
PROCEEDING WHICH INVOLVES SUCH A CONTROVERSY
SHALL BE BROUGHT IN THOSE COURTS IN NEW YORK
COUNTY AND NOT ELSEWHERE. THE PARTIES WAIVE
ANY AND ALL OBJECTIONS TO VENUE IN THOSE
COURTS AND HEREBY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THOSE COURTS.
8498699.4

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

B.
Dissatisfied With the Progress of Her Career, Kesha Makes Her First
Attempt to Terminate the KMI Agreement by Making Extortionate
Threats to Disclose False Allegations of Improper Conduct by Gottwald
26.
Shortly following the entry of the KMI Agreement, Kesha began to express
frustration that her recording career was not progressing as quickly as she had expected it would.
Kesha had no experience in the music business and did not understand that the process of
developing an artist does not occur overnight, but rather requires time, patience and hard work.
27.
Thus, in late 2005, Kesha retained representatives who repudiated the KMI
Agreement on her behalf. At Keshas behest, these representatives pressed a false and fictitious
story on her behalf that Gottwald had purportedly engaged in drug-related and other abuse of
her. In their communications with Gottwald and his team, Keshas representatives made clear
that they would make this fictitious story public if Gottwald did not agree to terminate the KMI
Agreement. However, Gottwald simply refused to accede to extortion and would not
compromise his clear contractual rights.
C.
Kesha Abandons Her First Extortion Campaign, Reaffirms the

KMI Agreement, and Signs the Prescription Publishing Agreement
28.
By 2008, Kesha had become deeply frustrated by her stalled career. No record
company would or could sign her to a deal because she was already signed to KMI. At that time,
Kesha disavowed her repudiation of the KMI Agreement, and reaffirmed that the agreement is
valid and binding. Kesha and KMI executed amendments to the KMI Agreement in 2008 and
2009, continuing their working relationship.
29.
In 2009, KMI also negotiated and executed an agreement with the RCA/JIVE
record label to release and promote Keshas recordings. Sebert simultaneously executed an
Assent, Guaranty, and Entertainment Rights Agreement (the Assent) whereby, inter alia,
8498699.4
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
Sebert assented to the execution of the RCA/Jive recording agreement, and agreed to be bound
by all grants and restrictions contained in that agreement.
30.
On November 26, 2008, Kesha entered into a separate Co-Publishing and
Exclusive Administration Agreement with Prescription Songs, Gottwalds publishing company

(the Prescription Publishing Agreement). Again, this contract was negotiated on behalf of
Kesha by an experienced and sophisticated entertainment lawyer.
31.
The Prescription Publishing Agreement states in Paragraph 21(b) that: The
prevailing party in any legal action (after all appeals have been taken or the time for taking such
appeals has expired) brought by one party against the other and arising out of this agreement
shall be entitled, in addition to any other rights and remedies available to it at law or in equity, to
reimbursement for its costs and expenses (including court costs and reasonable fees for attorneys
and expert witnesses) incurred with respect to bringing and maintaining any such action.
32.
Like the KMI Agreement, the Prescription Publishing Agreement includes a
provision requiring that any disputes regarding the agreement be litigated in the courts of New
York and not elsewhere. Specifically, Section 21(a) provides:
The state courts of the State of New York, County of New York
and/or the Federal District Courts for the Southern District of New
York, shall have jurisdiction and venue of any controversies
regarding this agreement. Any action or other proceeding which
involves such a controversy will be brought in the enumerated
courts, and not elsewhere. In addition to accepting such
jurisdiction, each party hereby waives any objection based upon
forum non conveniens or any similar ground.
33.
Kesha was represented by a sophisticated and experienced entertainment lawyer
in connection with the negotiation of the 2008 and 2009 amendments to the KMI Agreement, the
Assent and the Prescription Publishing Agreement.
8498699.4
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
D.
Thanks to Plaintiffs, Kesha Enjoys Enormous Success, and Kesha

and Pebe Repeatedly Express Their Gratitude to Gottwald for Same
34.
Gottwald and KMI produced and promoted Keshas debut album for KMI entitled
Animal and follow-up EP for KMI entitled Cannibal, both of which were released in 2010. Both
of these works feature extensive songwriting and production contributions from Gottwald along
with the team he assembled and oversaw, have sold millions of copies worldwide, and have
spawned numerous Number 1 singles, including Tik Tok and We R Who We R. As he had
done for numerous other artists, Gottwald put substantial energy into taking Kesha a previously
unknown singer and transforming her into the well-known artist that she now is.
35.
In addition to making Kesha a star, Gottwald also provided Pebe with valuable
songwriting opportunities. Indeed, in 2009, Gottwald provided Pebe with her first major
songwriting opportunity in decades (a co-write for a famous third-party artist), knowing that
doing so would allow Pebe to obtain a publishing deal. Pebe expressly acknowledged this to
Gottwald, writing: Thank you for keeping me on this song and changing my life.
36.
This was far from the only favor which Gottwald graciously provided to Keshas
family. Pebe would regularly ask Gottwald to provide favors that would advance the
entertainment-industry careers of herself and her other children; Gottwald often obliged. Kesha
and Pebe both repeatedly expressed their gratitude and admiration for all that Gottwald had done
for their careers and families.
37.
For example, in a September 26, 2009 email to Gottwald, Pebe wrote: You are
part of our family, and I hope you know, as much as you have been there for Kesha and me,
that we will always be there for you, as family, and friends, if you need anything. And, in a
June 4, 2010 email to Gottwald, Pebe stated: Thank you Luke[]. You have changed our lives
8498699.4
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
forever. I love you !! Pebe. Similarly, in a July 16, 2011 email to Gottwald, Pebe wrote: I
know you are going to be a great dad. See Exs. A, B and C hereto.
38.
Moreover, Kesha sent Gottwald a birthday card, with a handwritten note stating
the following:
To the foxxy-est producer EVER!
Ur just getting better with time!
Thank you 4 helping me make my WILDEST dreams come true!
I love you!
See Ex. D hereto.
39.
Kesha also rightly praised Gottwald in her 2012 autobiography My Crazy
Beautiful Life, writing, among other things: I had so many great songs that I had already done
by myself, but Luke brought something new and fresh to my sound, and he encouraged me to be
bold; and Luke is like a good coach. He is always pushing me and challenging me to get
better.
E.
Kesha and Pebe Truthfully Testify in 2011 That

Gottwald Never Made Any Sexual Advance at Kesha
40.
On or about May 25, 2010, Keshas former manager DAS Communications Ltd.
(DAS) commenced a litigation against Kesha and Gottwald. In its Complaint, DAS alleged
that Kesha purportedly breached her management agreement with plaintiff dated January 27,
2006, and that Gottwald had allegedly tortiously interfered with that contract. Gottwald filed an
Answer in which he denied those allegations, and asserted counterclaims against DAS for
inducing Kesha to breach the KMI Agreement by repudiating it. The action was resolved
amicably, and a Stipulation of Discontinuance was entered on November 21, 2012.
8498699.4
10
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
41.
Prior to the resolution of the action, both Kesha and her mother were deposed. At
their respective depositions, Kesha and Pebe were represented by a prominent national law firm.
Moreover, one of Keshas managers from Vector, Jack Rovner, personally attended Keshas
deposition. Gottwald was not present at either deposition. During the depositions, DASs
counsel asked each of these witnesses whether the accusations of purported abuse by Gottwald
against Kesha were true. Both witnesses testified that they were false.
42.
Specifically, Kesha testified that she never had an intimate relationship with
Gottwald, that he had never given her a date rape drug, and that he had never made a sexual
advance toward her let alone raped her.
Q. Dr. Luke never gave you coke or drugs?
A. Dr. Luke never gave me coke.
Q. Did he give you drugs?
A. What kind of drugs?
Q. Any kinds of drugs that are not purchasable at the pharmacy.
[Keshas attorney]: If you know.
A: I dont know.
*
[Q]: Do you know what a roofie is?

A. Yes.
Q. What is that?
A. Its a drug.
Q. Which does what?
A. Its like a date rape drug.
*
8498699.4
11
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
Q. Did Dr. Luke ever give you a roofie?

A. No.
*
Q. Okay, when did you ever have an intimate relationship

with Gottwald?
[Gottwalds counsel]: Objection as to form.
A. No.
*
Q. Were you ever with Gottwald at a time when you thought he

was high?
[Gottwalds counsel]: Objection to form.
A. He may or may not do drugs.
Q. You dont know if he does drugs?
A. I dont know if he does drugs.
*
Q. Did you ever sleep with Mr. Gottwald in the same bed?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didnt have an intimate relationship while you
were sleeping with him in the same bed?
A. No.
*
Q. Did your mother complain [to DAS] about Dr. Luke having
made sexual advances to you?
*
A. I dont know what my mother told to [DAS]. I know that Ive

Dr. Luke never made sexual advances at me, so
See Ex. E hereto (emphasis added).
8498699.4
12
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
43.
Pebe similarly testified neither her daughter nor anyone else ever told her that
Gottwald had given Kesha a date rape drug and that she did not believe that Gottwald and Sebert
had a sexual relationship:
Q. Before that first meeting with with [DAS], had anyone
told you that Gottwald had slipped Kesha a date rape drug?
A. No.
Q. Did anyone ever tell you that at any time?
A. No.
*
Q. Are you aware of whether he had had any kind of sexual

relationship with your daughter prior to the time you met with
DAS at the Chateau Marmont?
A. I dont believe there was, no.
See Ex. F hereto (emphasis added).
F.
Kesha Has Repudiated and Otherwise

Breached Her Contracts with Plaintiffs
44.
Despite the fact that the parties have had a tremendously successful business
relationship, commencing in 2013, Kesha refused to provide services under, and otherwise
breached, the KMI Agreement and the Prescription Publishing Agreement.
45.
Keshas Breaches of the KMI Agreement. Kesha has breached at least three
material terms of the KMI Agreement. First, as modified by subsequent amendment, Section
Two of the KMI Agreement requires Kesha to deliver five albums of her musical recordings to
KMI. In breach of the agreement, and in order to pressure Plaintiffs to agree to business
concessions, Kesha refused to deliver her recordings to KMI for years, even though she only
previously delivered two albums to KMI. Kesha has only recently resumed providing her
recording services.
8498699.4
13

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
46.
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

Second, pursuant to Section Six of the KMI Agreement, Gottwald is entitled to
produce no few than six (6) recordings on each of her albums. In breach of the agreement,
Kesha now refuses to allow Gottwald to produce any recordings. (As Gottwald previously
informed the Court, he is only seeking money damages as a remedy for this refusal, and does not
seek injunctive relief to enforce his right to produce recordings.)
47.
Third, pursuant to an amendment to the KMI Agreement dated May 18, 2009,
Kesha is required, on a regular basis, to account to and pay KMI specified percentages of her
revenues from merchandising, touring and other enumerated ancillary income streams on a
periodic basis, and to meaningfully consult with KMI regarding all opportunities for such
ancillary income. Kesha has breached the terms of this amendment by failing to account for or
pay large amounts of ancillary income to which KMI is contractually entitled. Specifically,
Kesha has not paid a substantial sum of ancillary royalties for which she previously accounted.
There are also large amounts of ancillary royalties due and owing for which Kesha has never
accounted let alone paid. Indeed, Kesha has not paid KMI any ancillary royalties whatsoever
in more than four (4) years. Kesha has also breached this amendment by failing to consult at all
with KMI let alone meaningfully consult regarding her touring opportunities, merchandising
opportunities, and other opportunities to earn ancillary income.
48.
Keshas Breach of the Prescription Publishing Agreement. In addition to her
outright repudiation of the Prescription Publishing Agreement, Kesha has breached the duty of
good faith and fair dealing inherent in that agreement. The Prescription Publishing Agreement
provides for a term of three consecutive contractual periods: an Initial Period, a First Option
Period and a Second Option period. During each contractual period, Kesha is required to
deliver to Prescription Songs a specified number of compositions written by her (the Minimum
8498699.4
14
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
Delivery Commitment). Although there is no explicit deadline in the Prescription Publishing

Agreement to fulfill the Minimum Delivery Commitment, the duty of good faith and fair dealing
requires Kesha to fulfill it within a commercially reasonable period of time. In order to pressure
Plaintiffs to agree to business concessions, Kesha refused to deliver any compositions for years
even though she was regularly writing new songs and thereby breached the duty of good faith
and fair dealing by failing to deliver any compositions to Prescription Songs within a
commercially reasonable period of time.
G.
Kesha and Pebe Engage in a Campaign of Defamation and Extortion to

Pressure Plaintiffs to Accept the Termination of Their Agreements
49.
Kesha and Pebe have orchestrated a campaign of publishing false and calculatedly
shocking accusations against Gottwald to extort Plaintiffs into letting Kesha out of the KMI
Agreement and the Prescription Publishing Agreement; and destroy Plaintiffs business and
reputation. Pebe and Kesha have discussed and thus published these accusations about
Gottwald to one another. Kesha is the source of these accusations that Pebe has more broadly
disseminated to third parties. These accusations are false, were published with malice, and
constitute defamation per se.
50.
The Defamatory Pebe Emails. The defamation and extortion campaign began on
October 29, 2013, when Pebe emailed Gottwalds longtime entertainment lawyer, stating the
following:
Tomorrow I am going to start making public how Dr. Luke
blackmailed me into giving him and Circuit publishing credit, on
all songs I wrote on [the Kesha album entitled] [W]arrior, with
Kesha and other writers and producers .
Luke date raped Kesha when she was 18. Nicky Hiltons birthday?
Paris Hiltons house? Luke gave Kesha pills?
She ended up naked in his hotel room 2 days later, no longer a
virgin?
8498699.4
15
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
Do we want all this to come out?

[E]ither Luke releases Kesha from all legal contracts, and gives
me back all my publishing, or we, Kesha and I tell the truth .
These accusations against Gottwald are all false as Kesha and Pebe themselves both know and
have stated under oath.
51.
The next day, October 30, 2013, Pebe sent a follow-up email to Gottwalds
entertainment lawyer, stating: ps I am sending all of this to the blogger who has started the
whole "Free Kesha" thing, sorry about the trail of truth you fucking criminals! Again, Kesha
and Pebe knew this defamatory accusation against Gottwald and his representatives was false.
52.
The Defamatory Pebe Letter. On December 30 and 31, 2013, Pebe sent a letter via
email in which she claim claimed, among other things, that Dr. Luke abused Kesha, both
physically and mentally. Again, as Kesha and Pebe are well aware, these accusations are false.
Pebe sent this letter to a substantial number of recipients, including individuals named Emily
Wright, Beka Tischker, Benny Blanco, Kool Kojak, Matt Squire, David Gamson, and Mike
Eisele.
53.
Despite the patent falsity of these accusations, Pebe has made clear that extortion
is the ultimate goal of this defamatory campaign. In communications with Gottwald and his
representatives, Pebe has threatened to further disseminate accusations of the type above unless
Gottwald lets Kesha out of her agreements with Plaintiffs, and provides Pebe with a larger
financial interest in the certain songs which Pebe claims to have co-authored.
54.
Plaintiffs have been informed that Pebe also published some or all of the
aforementioned false accusations of fact to representatives of her music publisher Sony/ATV

Music Publishing.
8498699.4
16
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
55.
The Defamatory Kesha Letters. Thereafter, in January of 2014, Kesha sent
handwritten letters to her fans setting forth additional knowingly false factual assertions
regarding Gottwald. These false assertions included: Yes, Dr. Luke has tortured me + my
family he did do what people know about + so much more terrible shit; Im here working
out some emotional trauma + abuse, there is someone I work with that is so abusive; and
Someone I work with has literally driven me into this disease, tortured me, and fucked with me
and my family . When Kesha sent these letters, she knew that they would be widely
disseminated on the Internet by her fans and thereafter published in the press.
56.
The Defamatory So-Called Draft Complaint. Then, in the Summer of 2014,
attorneys representing Kesha held a meeting in New York City with the general counsel of a
major record label with which Gottwald does substantial business. At this meeting, Keshas
attorneys showed the general counsel a purported draft complaint against Gottwald which
contained false and scurrilous accusations against Gottwald of, among other things, having raped
Kesha, given her drugs against her will, and engaged in other purported acts of physical, sexual
and emotional abuse of her. Kesha and her attorneys knew that all of the allegations of purported
misconduct by Gottwald in this so-called draft complaint were wholly false, and made these
accusations to the general counsel with malicious intent.
57.
In yet another blatant act of extortion, Keshas attorneys informed the general
counsel that if Gottwald did not agree to let Kesha out of her recording agreement, they would
file the draft complaint, thereby tarnishing Gottwalds reputation. Obviously cognizant of the
unlawful nature of this conduct, Keshas attorneys refused to let the general counsel retain a copy
of the draft complaint, and refused to allow Gottwald or his representatives to even look at it.
Although Kesha claims to have produced a copy of this draft complaint, in discovery,
8498699.4
17

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

Plaintiffs have reason to believe that it is not the actual document that was shown to the general
counsel. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend their pleading to add additional allegations
regarding the content of the draft complaint after they receive a copy of the actual document
that was shown to the general counsel.
H.
Kesha and Her Team Expand Their Defamatory Scheme in an Attempt to

Blacklist Plaintiffs from the Music Industry
58.
Following Plaintiffs defeat of her preliminary injunction motion, Kesha and her
team embarked on a conscious and coordinated effort to blacklist Plaintiffs from the music
industry.
59.
This campaign has included, but has not been limited to, using Keshas knowingly
false and defamatory accusations about Gottwald to encourage famous recording artists and other
celebrities to publicly condemn Gottwald and to refrain from working with him, and promoting
Keshas false accusations of abuse to as many press outlets as possible. In doing so, Kesha and
her representatives recognized that the more widely these accusations were circulated, the more
tarnished Gottwalds name would become, and as a result artists would not agree to work with
him.
60.
Kesha and her representatives also closely coordinated with social media
accounts, including one run by a close family friend of the Seberts, to further spread Keshas
defamatory statements and tarnish Plaintiffs reputation.
61.
Kesha and her representatives have also encouraged and assisted with the creation
of bogus Internet petitions to, inter alia, pressure Sony to terminate its business with Plaintiffs.
Multiple of these petitions have been claimed to be the independent work of a 46-year old
woman named Rebecca Pimmel who is purportedly unrelated to the Seberts. However, as Kesha
and her team is well aware, Rebecca Pimmel is not a real person; rather, these petitions were
8498699.4
18

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

actually created in direct coordination with the Seberts by the aforementioned family friend of
the Seberts.
62.
This malicious campaign had no economic motive for Keshawho has now
decided to purportedly resume performing under her contracts with Plaintiffs and has repeatedly
stated that she is no longer trying to obtain better financial terms. Instead, it was designed solely
to ruin Plaintiffs reputation and business interests.
I.
Kesha Falsely Asserts that Gottwald Raped Another Recording Artist
63.
On February 26, 2016one week after losing her motion for preliminary
injunctionKesha initiated a text message conversation with Stefani Germanotta, the recording
artist who is professionally known as Lady Gaga.
64.
During this text message conversation, Kesha falsely and baselessly asserted that
Kesha and another female recording artist (the Other Recording Artist) had both been raped by
Gottwald.
65.
Specifically, Kesha told Lady Gaga that she [i.e., the Other Recording Artist]
was raped by the same man as Kesha.

66.
The man to whom Kesha referred was Gottwaldas the surrounding context of
the text message makes clear.

67.
Keshas assertions to Lady Gaga were completely false. Gottwald did not rape
Kesha, and he did not rape the Other Recording Artist.

68.
Kesha was (and is) well aware Gottwald never raped Kesha.
69.
Kesha has no basis or justification whatsoever to falsely assert that Gottwald
raped the Other Recording Artist.
8498699.4
19
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
70.
Kesha made these false assertions for the malicious purpose of further damaging
Plaintiffs reputation and business. Kesha did not stand to make any more money or obtain
better business terms as a result of them.
71.
Since this text message conversation, Lady Gaga has spread negative messages
about Gottwald in the press. Indeed, Lady Gaga has gone so far as to suggest during a radio
interview that she possesses secret information regarding Gottwald that is damaging to him.
Lady Gagas statements during this radio interview were thereafter repeated and spread widely
by many international media outlets.
72.
Upon information and belief, Keshas false accusation that Gottwald raped the
Other Recording Artist has been widely circulated throughout the music industryjust like her
false accusation that Gottwald raped Keshathereby causing further grievous damage to
Plaintiffs reputation and business, just as Kesha intended.
73.
Kesha did not have any economic motivation for making these false assertions to
Lady Gaga. Rather, Kesha made these statements as revenge for losing her injunction motion
and for the purpose of furthering her malicious plan to destroy Plaintiffs. As Lady Gaga
observed in this text message conversation, it will NOT [b]e easy for her [i.e., the Other
Recording Artist] or any artist to work w[ith] him [i.e. Gottwald] after this.
COUNT I
(Defamation In Connection With Statements Published
Prior To The Commencement Of This Action)
74.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 73 as if fully stated herein.

75.
The statements that Kesha made concerning Plaintiffs prior to the commencement
of this action, as detailed above, are false.
8498699.4
20
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
76.
The false statements that Kesha made concerning Plaintiffs prior the
commencement of this action were published to various third parties.

77.
In making these false statements, Kesha acted with wanton dishonesty such that
punitive damages are warranted. Kesha also acted with common-law and Constitutional malice.
No privilege applies to the publication of these statements.
78.
Keshas assertions are defamatory on their face, by subjecting Plaintiffs to, among
other things, hatred, shame, contempt, ridicule, and disgrace. Keshas assertions have a tendency
to injure Plaintiffs in their occupation, and damage their reputation.
79.
The statements about Gottwald have injured, and were made with an intent to
injure, Plaintiffs reputation, including Gottwalds reputation in his business as a music

producer/songwriter who works closely with a broad range of artists and writers. As a result,
Keshas conduct rises to the level of defamation per se, and no proof of special harm or damages
is necessary.
80.
To the extent proof of special harm or damages is necessary, as a proximate cause
of Keshas defamatory statements, Plaintiffs have suffered special damages to their reputations,
and to existing and potential business relationships with other artists and record labels in an
amount to be proven at trial, plus interest.
COUNT II
(Defamation In Connection With Statements To Lady Gaga)
81.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

82.
The statements that Kesha made to Lady Gaga concerning Plaintiffs, as detailed
above, are false.
8498699.4
21

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
83.
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

Keshas assertions are defamatory on their face, by subjecting Plaintiffs to, among
other things, hatred, shame, contempt, ridicule, and disgrace. Keshas assertions have a tendency
to injure Plaintiffs in their occupation, and damage their reputation.
84.
In making these false statements, Kesha acted with wanton dishonesty such that
punitive damages are warranted. No privilege applies to the publication of these statements.
85.
Keshas assertions were made with common-law and Constitutional malice and
wanton dishonesty. When she made her assertions, Kesha was aware they were false; or, at
minimum, knew they were without any basis in fact and acted with reckless disregard of whether
they were false or not. Kesha entertained, at minimum, serious doubts as to the truth of her
defamatory statements and had a high degree of awareness of the probable falsity of the
defamatory statements.
86.
The statements about Gottwald have injured, and were made with an intent to
injure, Plaintiffs reputation, including Gottwalds reputation in his business as a music

producer/songwriter who works closely with a broad range of artists and writers. As a result,
Keshas conduct rises to the level of defamation per se, and no proof of special harm or damages
is necessary.
87.
To the extent proof of special harm or damages is necessary, as a proximate cause
of Keshas defamatory statements, Plaintiffs have suffered special damages to their reputations,
and to existing and potential business relationships with other artists and record labels in an
COUNT III
(Breach Of The KMI Agreement)
88.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations continued in
8498699.4
22
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
89.
The KMI Agreement and its subsequent 2008 and 2009 amendments are a valid
contract between Kesha, on the one hand, and KMI and Gottwald, on the other hand. Gottwald
is expressly intended as a third party beneficiary of the KMI Agreement.
90.
KMI and Gottwald have fully performed their obligations under the KMI
Agreement.
91.
Kesha repudiated the KMI Agreement. In violation of the terms of the KMI
Agreement, Kesha refused to comply with her ongoing obligations to deliver sound recordings to
Gottwald, or to allow Gottwald to produce her work. Kesha has also refused to account for or
pay KMI ancillary revenues which she owes under that agreement.
92.
Kesha also breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the KMI
Agreement by acting in bad faith in attempting to force KMI into a purported breach of its
obligations to furnish Keshas services to Kemosabe Records. Kesha further breached the duty
of good faith and fair dealing by attempting to establish a direct contractual relationship with
Kemosabe Records, thereby forcing out KMI and depriving it of the benefit of its bargain as the
contractual furnisher of Keshas recording services to Kemosabe Records.
93.
Because of Keshas breach of contract, Gottwald and KMI are entitled to
compensatory damages (including expectation damages and consequential damages) in an

COUNT IV
(Breach Of The Prescription Publishing Agreement)
94.
Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations continued in

95.
The Prescription Publishing Agreement is a valid contract between Kesha, on the
one hand, and Prescription Songs, on the other hand.
8498699.4
23

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
96.
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

Prescription Songs has fully performed its obligations under the Prescription
Publishing Agreement.
97.
Kesha repudiated the Prescription Publishing Agreement. Kesha breached the
duty of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the Prescription Publishing Agreement by refusing
and failing to fulfill her Minimum Delivery Commitment within a commercially reasonable
period of time, and by refusing to deliver compositions that she authored. Through these actions,
and others, Kesha has breached her contractual duty to render her services exclusively to KMI
during the contractual term.
98.
Because of Keshas breach of contract, Prescription Songs is entitled to
compensatory damages (including expectation damages and consequential damages) in an

99.
Pursuant to Paragraph 21(b) of the Prescription Publishing Agreement,
Prescription Songs is entitled to its costs and expenses (including court costs and reasonable fees
for attorneys and expert witnesses) incurred with respect to bringing and maintaining this action.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court grant them relief as follows:
1.
On the first and second causes of action, direct, special, and/or punitive damages
to Gottwald in an amount to be determined at trial.

2.
On the third and fourth causes of action, compensatory damages (both direct and
consequential) in an amount to be determined at trial.

3.
That the Court award Plaintiffs pre-judgment interest, attorneys fees and costs,
and such other and further relief as this Court deems proper.
8498699.4
24
INDEX NO. 653118/2014

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs demand trial by jury of all claims so triable.
DATED: New York, New York

January 30, 2017
MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP

By:/s/ Christine Lepera________
Christine Lepera
Jeffrey M. Movit
12 East 49th Street, 30th Floor
New York, New York 10017-1028
Telephone: (212) 509-3900
Facsimile: (212) 509-7239
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8498699.4
25

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624
INDEX NO. 653118/2014


DR Luke Amended Claim

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DR Luke Amended Claim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2017 10:48 PM

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 624

INDEX NO. 653118/2014

INDEX NO. 653118/2014

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2017 10:48 PM

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2017

SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Index No. 653118/2014

Kesha is a recording artist and songwriter. Gottwald is a Grammy-nominated

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2017 10:48 PM

INDEX NO. 653118/2014

vicious campaign to destroy Gottwald employing vicious tactics including defamation,

As part of their coordinated effort to ruin Plaintiffs business and reputation,

INDEX NO. 653118/2014

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2017 10:48 PM

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2017

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2017 10:48 PM

INDEX NO. 653118/2014

While Kesha and her representatives have self-servingly characterized their

Thus, contrary to the statements put out by Keshas sophisticated PR operation, it

This type of malicious, destructive and vengeful conduct serves no legitimate

Gottwald is a California resident.

KMI is incorporated in the State of New York.

Prescription Songs is a California limited liability company.

Kesha is a California resident who is a singer-songwriter doing business in New

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2017 10:48 PM

INDEX NO. 653118/2014

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Practice Law and Rules 503.

Gottwald Discovers Kesha and Signs Her to an Exclusive Recording Deal

Gottwald who is professionally known as Dr. Luke is a Grammy-nominated

In or about 2005, Gottwald discovered an unknown and unsigned musical artist

INDEX NO. 653118/2014

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2017 10:48 PM

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2017

In order to further their working relationship, Kesha entered into an exclusive

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2017 10:48 PM

INDEX NO. 653118/2014

Kesha Abandons Her First Extortion Campaign, Reaffirms the

INDEX NO. 653118/2014

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2017 10:48 PM

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2017

On November 26, 2008, Kesha entered into a separate Co-Publishing and

Exclusive Administration Agreement with Prescription Songs, Gottwalds publishing company

The Prescription Publishing Agreement states in Paragraph 21(b) that: The

Like the KMI Agreement, the Prescription Publishing Agreement includes a

Kesha was represented by a sophisticated and experienced entertainment lawyer

INDEX NO. 653118/2014

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2017 10:48 PM

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2017

Thanks to Plaintiffs, Kesha Enjoys Enormous Success, and Kesha

INDEX NO. 653118/2014

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2017 10:48 PM

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2017

Kesha also rightly praised Gottwald in her 2012 autobiography My Crazy

Kesha and Pebe Truthfully Testify in 2011 That

INDEX NO. 653118/2014

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2017 10:48 PM

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2017

[Q]: Do you know what a roofie is?

INDEX NO. 653118/2014

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2017 10:48 PM

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2017