You are on page 1of 25

Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:2964

1 KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT LLP


JEREMIAH T. REYNOLDS (SBN 223554)
2 jreynolds@kwikalaw.com
DANIELA M. SPENCER (SBN 307908)
3 dspencer@kwikalaw.com
808 Wilshire Boulevard, 3rd Floor
4 Santa Monica, California 90401
Telephone: 310.566.9800
5 Facsimile: 310.566.9850

6 Attorneys for Defendants Voltage Pictures,


LLC, Voltage Productions, LLC,
7 Christchurch Productions, DAC, and Nicolas
Chartier
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
LLP

9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10
WESTERN DIVISION
TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11
808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12
FARHAD SAFINIA, an individual, Case No. 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO
13 Assigned to: Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall
Plaintiff and Counter-Claim
14 Defendant.
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO
15 vs. COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS
AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
16 VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC, a California
limited liability company; VOLTAGE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
17 PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company; CHRISTCHURCH
18
PRODUCTIONS DAC, an Ireland designated
19 activity company; NICOLAS CHARTIER, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 100,
20 inclusive,

21 Defendants and Counter-Claim


Plaintiffs.
22

23 VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC, a California


limited liability company; VOLTAGE
24 PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company; CHRISTCHURCH
25 PRODUCTIONS DAC, an Ireland designated
activity company; NICOLAS CHARTIER, an
26 individual,

27 Third-Party Plaintiffs.
28 vs.

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT


Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:2965

1
ICON PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a California
2 limited liability company; BRUCE DAVEY,
an individual; and MEL GIBSON, an
3 individual,

4 Third-Party Defendants.
5

8
LLP

9
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10
TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11
808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

/446433 2
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:2966

1 Defendants Voltage Pictures, LLC, Voltage Productions, LLC, Christchurch


2 Productions, DAC, and Nicolas Chartier (“Defendants”) hereby answer the Complaint of

3 Plaintiff Farhad Safinia (“Plaintiff”) in this action as follows:

4 ANSWER
5 1. Paragraph 1 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which
6 no response is required. To the extent paragraph 1 contains factual allegations, such

7 allegations are denied.

8 2. Deny the allegations in paragraph 2.


LLP

9 3. The allegations in paragraph 3 of the Complaint are irrelevant as Plaintiff’s


KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 Defamation claim has been dismissed as moot, and thus no response is required. To the
TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 extent paragraph 3 contains factual allegations, such allegations are denied.


808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 4. Admit in paragraph 4 that Plaintiff has alleged a claim for copyright


13 infringement under the United States Copyright Act, but deny that the claim has merit.

14 Admit that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction for claims for copyright infringement.

15 5. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which


16 no response is required. To the extent paragraph 5 contains factual allegations, such

17 allegations are denied.

18 6. Paragraph 6 of the Complaint purports to state legal conclusions to which no


19 response is required. To the extent paragraph 6 contains factual allegations, such

20 allegations are denied

21 7. Lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of


22 the allegations in paragraph 7 and therefore deny on that basis.

23 8. Admit the allegations in paragraph 8 of the Complaint.


24 9. Admit the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Complaint
25 10. Admit in paragraph 10 that Christchurch is a designated activity company
26 under the Republic of Ireland, but deny that its principal place of business is Los Angeles

27 County, California.

28 11. Admit in paragraph 11 that Mr. Chartier resides in Los Angeles County,
/446433 3
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:2967

1 California and that Mr. Chartier is the CEO and manager of Voltage Pictures, LLC and

2 Voltage Productions, LLC. Deny that Voltage has any ownership interest in or is the sole

3 stakeholder in Christchurch.

4 12. Lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of


5 the allegations in paragraph 12 and therefore deny on that basis.

6 13. Deny the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Complaint.


7 14. Deny the allegations in paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
8 15. Lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of
LLP

9 the allegations in paragraph 15 and therefore deny on that basis.


KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 16. Deny the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Complaint, except admit that
TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 Plaintiff made revisions to prior draft scripts of a Screenplay, entitled The Professor and
808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 the Madman (“Screenplay”), performed directing services for the motion picture, Mel

13 Gibson was cast as professor James Murray and Sean Penn was cast as Dr. William Minor.

14 17. Lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of


15 the allegations in paragraph 17 and therefore deny on that basis.

16 18. Deny the allegations in paragraph 18 of the Complaint.


17 19. Deny the allegations in paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
18 20. The allegations in paragraph 20 of the Complaint are irrelevant as Plaintiff’s
19 Defamation claim has been dismissed as moot, and thus no response is required. To the

20 extent paragraph 20 contains factual allegations, such allegations are denied.

21 21. The allegations in paragraph 21 of the Complaint are irrelevant as Plaintiff’s


22 Defamation claim has been dismissed as moot, and thus no response is required. To the

23 extent paragraph 21 contains factual allegations, such allegations are denied.

24 22. The allegations in paragraph 22 of the Complaint are irrelevant as Plaintiff’s


25 Defamation claim has been dismissed as moot, and thus no response is required. To the

26 extent paragraph 22 contains factual allegations, such allegations are denied.

27 23. The allegations in paragraph 23 of the Complaint are irrelevant as Plaintiff’s


28 Defamation claim has been dismissed as moot, and thus no response is required. To the

/446433 4
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 5 of 25 Page ID #:2968

1 extent paragraph 23 contains factual allegations, such allegations are denied.

2 24. The allegations in paragraph 24 of the Complaint are irrelevant as Plaintiff’s


3 Defamation claim has been dismissed as moot, and thus no response is required. To the

4 extent paragraph 24 contains factual allegations, such allegations are denied.

5 25. The allegations in paragraph 25 of the Complaint are irrelevant as Plaintiff’s


6 Defamation claim has been dismissed as moot, and thus no response is required. To the

7 extent paragraph 25 contains factual allegations, such allegations are denied.

8 26. With respect to the allegations in paragraph 26 of the Complaint, Defendants


LLP

9 repeat and re-allege their responses to the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 26 above.
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 27. Deny the allegations in paragraph 27 of the Complaint.


TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 28. Deny the allegations in paragraph 28 of the Complaint, except admit that
808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 Defendants have prepared a movie based on the Screenplay.

13 29. Deny the allegations in paragraph 29 of the Complaint.


14 30. Deny the allegations in paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
15 31. Deny the allegations in paragraph 31 of the Complaint.
16 32. The allegations in paragraph 32 of the Complaint are irrelevant as Plaintiff’s
17 Defamation claim has been dismissed as moot, and thus no response is required. To the

18 extent paragraph 24 contains factual allegations, such allegations are denied.

19 33. The allegations in paragraph 33 of the Complaint are irrelevant as Plaintiff’s


20 Defamation claim has been dismissed as moot, and thus no response is required.

21 34. The allegations in paragraph 34 of the Complaint are irrelevant as Plaintiff’s


22 Defamation claim has been dismissed as moot, and thus no response is required.

23 35. The allegations in paragraph 35 of the Complaint are irrelevant as Plaintiff’s


24 Defamation claim has been dismissed as moot, and thus no response is required.

25 36. The allegations in paragraph 36 of the Complaint are irrelevant as Plaintiff’s


26 Defamation claim has been dismissed as moot, and thus no response is required.

27 37. The allegations in paragraph 37 of the Complaint are irrelevant as Plaintiff’s


28 Defamation claim has been dismissed as moot, and thus no response is required.

/446433 5
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 6 of 25 Page ID #:2969

1 38. The allegations in paragraph 38 in the Complaint are irrelevant as Plaintiff’s


2 Defamation claim has been dismissed as moot, and thus no response is required.

3 39. The allegations of paragraph 39 in the Complaint are irrelevant as Plaintiff’s


4 Defamation claim has been dismissed as moot, and thus no response is required.

5 40. The allegations of paragraph 40 in the Complaint are irrelevant as Plaintiff’s


6 Defamation claim has been dismissed as moot, and thus no response is required.

7 41. The allegations of paragraph 41 in the Complaint are irrelevant as Plaintiff’s


8 Defamation claim has been dismissed as moot, and thus no response is required.
LLP

9 REQUESTED RELIEF
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 Defendants request that this Court deny the relief requested by Plaintiff in
TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 Plaintiff’s “Prayer for Relief ” and dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.
808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
13 By way of defenses and affirmative defenses, and without assuming any burden of
14 proof not otherwise required by law, Defendants allege as follows:

15

16 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE


17 (Waiver)
18 1. As a result of Plaintiff’s agreements, knowledge, conduct, words and/or
19 actions, Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of waiver.

20 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE


21 (Unclean Hands)
22 2. As a result of Plaintiff’s knowledge, conduct, words and/or actions,
23 Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by his unclean hands.

24 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE


25 (Estoppel)
26 3. As a result of Plaintiff’s knowledge, conduct, words and/or actions,
27 Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of estoppel.

28

/446433 6
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 7 of 25 Page ID #:2970

1 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE


2 (Plaintiff’s Own Actions Caused Any Loss)
3 4. As a result of Plaintiff’s knowledge, conduct, words and/or actions, Plaintiff
4 is barred from all relief sought in the Complaint on the grounds that any alleged loss or

5 damage Plaintiff suffered was caused by Plaintiff’s own actions.

6 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE


7 (Failure to Mitigate)
8 5. As a result of Plaintiff’s knowledge, conduct, words and/or actions,
LLP

9 Plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief are barred or limited because Plaintiff failed to
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 exercise reasonable care and diligence to mitigate his alleged damages.


TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE


808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 (Vague, Ambiguous and Uncertain)


13 6. The Complaint and each purported cause of action therein, is vague,
14 ambiguous and uncertain.

15 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE


16 (Agreement/Ratification)
17 7. The claims in the Complaint are barred in whole or in part because the
18 conduct alleged was undertaken pursuant to the Plaintiff’s agreements, and Plaintiff’s

19 knowledge, acquiescence, ratification, approval, and/or consent.

20 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE


21 (Set-Off)
22 8. To the extent that Plaintiff has suffered any damages, such damages should
23 be set-off in an amount to be proven.

24 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE


25 (Unjust Enrichment)
26 9. Plaintiff would be unjustly enriched if allowed to recover on the Defendants.
27

28

/446433 7
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 8 of 25 Page ID #:2971

1 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE


2 (Consent of Plaintiff)
3 10. Plaintiff agreed to, and participated in, those actions which Plaintiff claims to
4 have caused injury or damage. Since such participation and consent were given knowingly

5 and voluntarily, Plaintiff’s claims are invalid.

6 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE


7 (Comparative Fault of Third Parties)
8 11. People other than Defendants caused or contributed to the damages Plaintiff
LLP

9 claims to have suffered. Therefore any award made in favor of the Plaintiff in this case
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 must be reduced by an amount equal to the percentage of the fault of others in causing or
TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 contributing to the damages as alleged in the complaint.


808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE


13 (Fraud on the Copyright Office)
14 12. Plaintiff’s claims in the Complaint are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff

15 committed fraud on the copyright office in connection with his improper registrations.

16 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE


17 (Reservation of Rights)
18 13. Defendants expressly reserve the right to raise additional affirmative
19 defenses at trial as facts supporting any such affirmative defenses may become known to

20 him during the pendency of this action.

21 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment against Plaintiff on his Complaint as


22 follows:

23 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by his Complaint against Defendants;


24 2. That Defendants be awarded their costs of suit incurred herein.
25

26

27

28

/446433 8
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 9 of 25 Page ID #:2972

1 COUNTERCLAIMS
2 For their counterclaim against Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Farhad Safinia
3 (“Safinia”) and complaint against third-party defendants Icon Productions, LLC (“Icon

4 Productions”), Bruce Davey (“Davey”), and Mel Gibson (“Gibson”) (collectively, “Third-

5 Party Defendants”), Defendants and Counter-Claimants Voltage Pictures, LLC, Voltage

6 Productions, LLC, and Christchurch Productions, DAC (collectively, “Counter-

7 Claimants”) allege as follows:

8 NATURE OF THIS ACTION


LLP

9 1. Counter-Claimants seek damages, declaratory judgment, and other relief for


KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 Safinia’s and Third-Party Defendants’ willful conspiracy to unlawfully hijack control of


TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 and/or interfere with Counter-Claimants’ ability to exploit the rights to distribute the
808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 motion picture based on “The Professor And the Madman” (“Picture”).

13 2. Safinia is now alleging that he solely owns a September 14, 2017 polish of
14 the script for the Picture (“the Screenplay”) and has registered the Screenplay in the United

15 States Copyright Office claiming sole ownership thereof despite the fact that Safinia

16 entered into an agreement with Counter-Claimants for his writing services and also

17 executed a clear and unambiguous “Certificate of Authorship” providing that “all writings”

18 he created in connection with his work on the Picture would constitute works for hire

19 under the Copyright Act. Accordingly, Counter-Claimants are seeking declaratory

20 judgment declaring that the alleged copyright asserted by Safinia is invalid and

21 unenforceable and that he committed a fraud upon the Copyright Office. He cannot bring

22 a copyright infringement claim based on a script that he prepared as a work-for-hire and

23 does not own.

24 3. By fraudulently registering his work as his own, Safinia has breached his
25 Certificate of Authorship (which was assigned to an affiliate of Counter-Claimants) and

26 subsequent agreement with Counter-Claimants to create a polish of a screenplay based on

27 “The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the

28 Oxford English Dictionary.”

/446433 9
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 10 of 25 Page ID #:2973

1 4. Safinia has also breached his agreement with Counter-Claimants for his
2 directing services in connection with the Picture. Safinia has breached his directing

3 agreement by: (a) wrongfully cancelling multiple scenes, including the shooting of a scene

4 that had been scheduled for over four months to be shot in the Library of Trinity College in

5 Ireland involving two hundred extras and expensive set dressings thereby causing the

6 Picture to go overtime and overbudget; (b) wrongful ling canceling several other scscenes

7 and moving them to Ocford Engaldn wrongfully demanding that the production shoot

8 additional scenes in Oxford, England when the film was already overbudget and into
LLP

9 overtime; (c) failing to deliver a director’s cut of the Picture at two hours, which is the
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 length required for distributors and it was contractually required in all drafts of Safinia’s
TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 directing agreement that had been sent to Safinia’s lawyer; and (d) refusing to do any
808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 further work on the Picture unless the original editor, John Gilbert, was reengaged as editor

13 and a plan to shoot all scenes from Oxford was put in motion, instead of a reduced

14 schedule of shooting in Oxford that Defendants had proposed. Safinia has refused to even

15 review the current cut of the Picture or fulfill his obligation to complete the cutting of the

16 Picture.

17 5. On information and belief, Third-Party Defendants induced Safinia into


18 breaching his agreements with Counter-Claimants in order to either hijack control of the

19 Picture and prevent Counter-Claimants from exploiting the rights in the Picture. By

20 inducing Safinia to fraudulently register the script as his own, Third Party Defendants have

21 cast a cloud on copyright ownership of the Picture. Third-Party Defendants have made it

22 virtually impossible for Counter-Claimants to sell the right to distribute the Picture to film

23 distributors in various territories causing Counter-Claimants to suffer millions of dollars in

24 damages.

25 JURISDICTION AND VENUE


26 6. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
27 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338 with respect to claims seeking declaratory and other

28 relief arising under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§101 et seq.; pursuant to the Declaratory

/446433 10
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 11 of 25 Page ID #:2974

1 Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq.; and supplemental jurisdiction over the entire

2 case or controversy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3 7. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Third Party Defendants and venue
4 is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a), in that

5 the claims arise in this Judicial District where Third Party Defendants’ principal place of

6 business is located, where they regularly conduct business, and where the Counter-Claims

7 arose.

8 THE PARTIES
LLP

9 8. Voltage Pictures, LLC is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, a
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of California,
TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 and residing and conducting business in Los Angeles County, California.


808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 9. Voltage Productions, LLC is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was,
13 a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada,

14 and residing and conducting business in Los Angeles County, California.

15 10. Voltage Pictures, LLC and Voltage Productions, LLC will sometimes be
16 collectively referred to as “Voltage”.

17 11. Christchurch Productions, DAC is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein
18 was, a designated activity company organized and existing under the laws of the Republic

19 of Ireland.

20 12. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that.
21 Safinia is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an individual residing in the County of Los

22 Angeles, State of California and doing business within the County of Los Angeles, State of

23 California.

24 13. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that
25 Icon Productions is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, a limited liability

26 company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada, and conducting

27 business in Los Angeles County, California.

28 14. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that
/446433 11
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 12 of 25 Page ID #:2975

1 Bruce Davey is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an individual doing business within

2 the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Counter-Claimants are informed and

3 believe, and on that basis allege, that Davey is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein

4 was, a co-partner in Icon Productions along with Gibson.

5 15. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that
6 Mel Gibson is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an individual residing in the County of

7 Los Angeles, State of California and doing business within the County of Los Angeles,

8 State of California. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,
LLP

9 that Gibson is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, a co-partner in Icon
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 Productions along with Davey.


TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 16. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that, at
808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 all relevant times mentioned herein Safinia and Third-Party Defendants, and each of them,

13 were acting in concert or participation with each other, or were joint participants and

14 collaborators in the acts complained of, and were the agents or employees of the others in

15 doing the acts complained of herein, each and all acting within the course and scope of the

16 agency of and/or employment by the others, each and all acting in concert one with the

17 other and all together.

18 17. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that, at
19 all relevant times mentioned herein, Safinia and Third-Party Defendants, and each of them,

20 were, and are, the agents, servants, alter egos and/or employees of each of the other Safinia

21 and Third-Party Defendants, and all the things alleged to have been done by Safinia and

22 Third-Party Defendants were done in the capacity of and as agent, servant, alter ego and/or

23 employee of and for the other Safinia and Third-Party Defendants, with their knowledge

24 approval, and ratification.

25 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
26 VOLTAGE’S RIGHTS TO THE SCREENPLAY
27 18. In or around 2014, Voltage became interested in potentially producing a
28 motion picture based upon the book entitled, “The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of

/446433 12
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 13 of 25 Page ID #:2976

1 Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford English Dictionary,” (“the Book”) by

2 Simon Winchester. The Book tells the tale of Professor James Murray, a man who created

3 the first edition of the Oxford English dictionary with the help of numerous volunteers.

4 His most prolific contributor was Dr. William C. Minor, an American surgeon who was

5 held in a lunatic asylum for murder. Voltage was informed by Icon Productions that it

6 controlled the underlying rights to make a movie based on the Book. Voltage was further

7 informed by Icon Productions that it or its affiliate had acquired the rights to a script based

8 on the Book that had been originally prepared by Todd Komarnicki, and had later been
LLP

9 revised by John Boorman and Farhad Safinia.


KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 19. Effective March 12, 2015, Voltage Productions, on the one hand, and Icon
TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 Productions, on the other hand, entered into a collaboration agreement where Voltage
808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 Productions was engaged to exclusively submit the “Property,” defined as “The proposed

13 motion picture entitled ‘The Professor and the Madman’ (the ‘Picture’) based on the

14 screenplay by Farhad Safinia, which is based on the book by Simon Winchester,” to

15 potential lead actors for the role of Dr. William Minor, as well as produce and arrange the

16 financing of the production of the Project into a motion picture. Voltage Productions and

17 Icon Productions also agreed Voltage Productions would arrange for full financing for the

18 Picture through its affiliates.

19 20. Airborne Productions, Inc. (“Airborne”) entered into a “Quitclaim


20 Assignment” with Definition Films, dated August 21, 2016, for the purpose of acquiring

21 all of Airborne’s rights in the Picture. Although the Quitclaim Assignment was dated

22 August 21, 2016, it was actually executed on September 29, 2016, the day before principal

23 photography was set to begin. Voltage was told by Icon Productions that Airborne is an

24 “Icon Entity.” In the Quitclaim Assignment, Airborne assigned all of its right, title and

25 interest in and to the Picture to Definition Films. Airborne represented and warranted that

26 it had underlying rights in both the Book and the screenplay based on the book that had

27 been revised by Farhad Safinia. The Quitclaim Assignment specifically states that

28 Airborne is assigning “[a]ll rights in and to the book entitled ‘The Professor and the

/446433 13
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 14 of 25 Page ID #:2977

1 Madman’ written by Simon Winchester (‘Winchester’), and all rights in and to all drafts

2 and versions of the screenplay currently entitled ‘The Professor And The Madman’ written

3 by Farhad Safinia (‘Safinia’) and/or any other writer (based on the foregoing book)

4 (collectively, the ‘Literary Material’).” In addition, the Quitclaim Assignment provides

5 that Airborne is assigning “Certificate of Authorship dated January 8, 2007, between

6 Airborne Productions, Inc. (‘Airborne’) and Safinia wherein Safinia certifies that he was

7 engaged by Airborne “to render writing services in connection with the pre-existing script

8 entitled ‘The Professor and the Madman’ based on a book of the same name on a work for
LLP

9 hire basis.”
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 21. Definition Films has a Sales Agency Agreement with Voltage and a
TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 Production Services Agreement with Christchurch. Thus, Voltage and Christchurch are
808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 entitled to use the Screenplay in the creation and exploitation of their motion picture.

13 22. Icon Distribution, LLC and Icon Productions entered into a “Quitclaim
14 Agreement” with Definition Films, dated August 22, 2016, assigning to Definition Films

15 (inter alia) all of their right, title and interest in “[a]ll literary material relating to the

16 Picture including without limitation the ‘Literary Material’ set forth in Exhibit ‘A’ hereto,

17 and all copyrights in connection therewith, and all tangible and intangible properties

18 respecting the Picture” and “All contracts, agreements, assignments and instruments of

19 every kind and character under which Icon Distribution and/or Icon Productions have

20 heretofore acquired any right, title or Interest in or to the Picture, including without

21 limitation, all documents enumerated in Exhibit ‘A’ hereto . . . .”

22 23. Mr. Safinia is not the sole writer of the screenplay for the Picture. As
23 discussed above, Mr. Safinia performed revisions to prior draft scripts that had been

24 prepared by five-time Academy Award nominee John Boorman, whose credits include

25 “Excalibur,” “Deliverance,” “Hope and Glory,” and writer Todd Kormanicki, best known

26 as the screenwriter for the motion picture, “Sully.” The rights to the prior draft

27 screenplays prepared by Mr. Boorman, Mr. Kormanicki and Mr. Safinia were assigned by

28 Icon Distribution and Icon Productions to Definition Films as part of the Quitclaim

/446433 14
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 15 of 25 Page ID #:2978

1 Agreement described above. Accordingly, as of August 22, 2016, Definition Films had

2 acquired all rights necessary to make the Picture based on the Book and the screenplays

3 penned by Mr. Boorman, Mr. Kormanicki, and Mr. Sefinia.

4 VOLTAGE’S CONTRACT WITH SAFINIA


5 24. In or around August 2016, Zev Foreman, who was then President of
6 Production for Voltage Pictures, began negotiating with Safinia’s agent, Danny Greenberg,

7 and lawyer, Warren Dern, regarding the specific terms of a directing agreement as well as

8 a writing agreement for Safinia to perform a “polish” or a minor rewrite of the existing
LLP

9 script that had been acquired by Definition Films.


KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 25. On August 5, 2016, Mr. Foreman made an offer to Mr. Greenberg to pay
TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 Safinia a total of $200,000 for his directing services and for performing a polish on the
808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 script. On August 23, 2016, Mr. Foreman wrote to Mr. Dern to offer to pay Safinia a total

13 of $200,000 for his directing services and for performing a polish on the script.

14 26. On September 27, 2016, Mr. Foreman followed up with Mr. Dern, inquiring
15 about the offer and noting that shooting was set to begin on Friday, September 30, 2016.

16 Mr. Dern finally responded on September 28, 2016 stating that Safinia wanted a fee of

17 $275,000. Mr. Foreman immediately responded the same day, stating “We are a bit late to

18 get into that now. I’ve been very clear about what we could do and about different options.

19 I only have 200 for him. thats it.” Mr. Dern responded, stating “Hmmmmm. Okay. We

20 will chat on our end.”

21 27. Safinia accepted the contract between himself and Counter-Claimants


22 through his words, conduct and actions. On September 30, 2016, principal photography on

23 the Picture began in Ireland with Safinia serving as the director of the Picture. Safinia had

24 specifically travelled to Dublin, Ireland to begin performing directing services and to

25 prepare for principal photography on the Picture. The shooting script that Safinia was

26 almost identical to the Screenplay Safinia had revised in 2007; it simply made very minor

27 changes including reformatting the pagination of the Screenplay and cutting some scenes

28 and dialogue for time requirements.

/446433 15
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 16 of 25 Page ID #:2979

1 28. Furthermore, Safinia was paid for his work. It was later agreed with
2 Safinia’s lawyers, that of the $200,000 total he was to be paid, Safinia would be paid the

3 WGA minimum for a “polish” on the script, equivalent to a fee of $17,818. The balance of

4 $182,182 would be the fixed fee for his directing services. Production also agreed to pay

5 for all of Safinia’s costs he incurred in connection with the Picture, totaling the sum of

6 $56,816.

7 29. Mr. Dern informed Voltage Pictures to contact Safinia’s agent at William
8 Morris Endeavor (“WME”), in order to pay Safinia. On November 21, 2016,
LLP

9 Christchurch paid the sum of $17,818 to Safinia for his polish fee in care of his agents at
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 WME. In addition, on November 21, 2016, Christchurch paid Safinia the sum of
TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 $163,963.80 through his agents at WME, representing the amount due to him through
808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 delivery of his first cut of the Picture.

13 SAFINIA, ICON, DAVEY, AND GIBSON’S CONCERTED EFFORT TO DERAIL


14 THE SHOOTING OF THE MOVIE
15 30. During principal photography, the production encountered serious problems
16 caused by the actions of producers Mel Gibson and Bruce Davey, and director Farhad

17 Safinia. For example, near the close of shooting, Mel Gibson, Bruce Davey and Farhad

18 Safinia changed their minds and wrongfully refused to shoot a scene that had been

19 scheduled for over four months to be shot in the Library of Trinity College in Ireland

20 involving two hundred extras and expensive set dressings because Gibson, Davey and

21 Safinia now wanted the scene shot in Oxford, England. These issues caused the

22 production to extend two days past the schedule of forty shooting days and caused

23 additional costs to the production, which was over-budget by approximately $1.3 million.

24 31. Despite the fact that the Picture was over-budget and had gone into overtime,
25 Gibson, Davey and Safinia demanded that additional shoot days occur in Oxford, England.

26 The additional shoot days in Oxford, England demanded by Gibson, Davey and Safinia

27 would have caused the production to have to shoot an additional five days of overtime and

28 would cost an additional $2,500,000 USD when the production was already over-budget.

/446433 16
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 17 of 25 Page ID #:2980

1 32. In December 2016, Mr. Foreman, Mr. Rustam, and Mr. Chartier met with
2 Safinia and Gibson to discuss finishing the Picture. Safinia and Gibson requested that the

3 production shoot the “missing” Oxford scenes in January 2017. Mr. Chartier informed

4 them that, Safinia should finish his director’s cut of the Picture and see what scenes were

5 needed because the Picture had already gone into overtime in scheduling and over-budget

6 in Ireland, and the existing cut of the Picture was already two hours and forty-five minutes

7 and still “missing" twenty minutes of scenes that would be shot in Oxford, England.

8 However, per Safinia’s directing agreement, the Picture needed to be cut down to two
LLP

9 hours to meet the delivery requirements for film distributors. Mr. Chartier stated that they
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 should do a cut of the Picture and see what scenes were needed before doing additional
TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 costly shooting in Oxford, England.


808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 33. On or around February 20, 2017, Safinia delivered a director’s cut of the
13 Picture that was two hours and forty minutes long. Safinia knew he was obligated to

14 deliver a cut at two hours since this is the length required for distributors and it was

15 contractually required in all drafts of his directing agreement that had been sent to

16 Safinia’s lawyers. On or around March 10, 2017, Safinia delivered another cut of the
Picture at two hours that everyone, including Davey and Gibson, agreed was not a strong
17
cut of the Picture. The Picture’s editor, John Gilbert, also left to go back to his native New
18
Zealand around this time.
19
34. Thereafter, Counter-Claimants began good faith plans and discussions to see
20
if the missing scenes in Oxford, England could be shot at a lower cost since the Picture
21
was already over budget. In April 2017, the production hired two highly respected editors,
22
Tim Squyres, and Dino Jonsater, to edit the Picture since Plaintiff failed to deliver a
23 director’s cut at its contractual length on time.

24 35. On May 4, 2017, the production invited Safinia to work with Tim Squyres on
25 editing the Picture. However, on May 5, 2017, Safinia notified Counter-Claimants that he

26 would not do any further work on the Picture until the original editor, John Gilbert, was

27 reengaged as editor and a plan to shoot all scenes from Oxford was put in motion, instead

28 of a reduced schedule of shooting in Oxford that Voltage Productions had proposed.

/446433 17
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 18 of 25 Page ID #:2981

1 When Dino Jonsater came to Los Angeles for a month to work on the Picture, the

2 production again asked Safinia to work on the editing and again he declined.

3 36. Since that time Safinia, Gibson, and Davey have attempted to pressure

4 Voltage Productions into conducting additional shots in Oxford, England. Voltage

5 Productions has engaged in good faith discussions to attempt to come to a compromise on


shooting in Oxford but Voltage Productions’ offers have been rejected. Safinia, Gibson,
6
and Davey have refused to review the current cut of the Picture or attempt to edit it down.
7
37. Instead, on July 31, 2017, Icon Productions, LLC and TW Artist, Inc. (a
8
loan-out company for Gibson’s services) filed a complaint in the Los Angeles Superior
LLP

9
Court against the identical Defendants in this case alleging they had breached their
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10
contract with Defendants by allegedly failing to allow additional scenes to be shot in
TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11
808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

Oxford, England, and by failing to allow Safinia to create the final cut of “Professor and
12
the Madman.”
13
38. When Counter-Claimants vigorously defended the lawsuit, Icon, Davey, and
14
Gibson came up with another avenue of attack. Counter-Claimants are informed and
15
believe that Third-Party Defendants convinced Safinia to claim he owned the Screenplay
16
and commit fraud against the Copyright Office by illegally registering a copyright in his
17
revisions of the Screenplay. On August 4, 2017, the same attorney who represented Icon
18
registered the Screenplay at the United States Copyright Office. Then, on September 19,
19
2017, Safinia filed the instant lawsuit, echoing many of the same accusations alleged in
20
Icon’s lawsuit and naming the same set of Defendants. Safinia’s lawsuit was filed by the
21
same set of attorneys representing Icon in its lawsuit.
22
39. Due to the spurious cloud that Safinia’s fraudulent copyright registration has
23
cast on the Picture, Counter-Claimants are unable to sell the rights to the Picture and raise
24
money to reimburse financiers for their financial contributions to the Picture. It appears
25
that Counter-Claimants’ substantial investment in the Picture will be lost as a result of the
26
illegal actions of Safinia and Third-Party Defendants.
27

28

/446433 18
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 19 of 25 Page ID #:2982

1 FIRST COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF


2 Declaratory Judgment
3 (Against Farhad Safinia)
4 40. Counter-Claimants reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations in
5 Paragraphs 1 to 39 above.

6 41. Counter-Claimants seek adjudication of an actual controversy arising under


7 the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§101 et seq., in connection with Safinia’s purported

8 copyright claim to the Screenplay. Counter-Claimants seek the Court’s declaration that the
LLP

9 Copyright Act does not bestow upon Safinia the rights he has asserted and attempted to
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 enforce against Counter-Claimants. This is because either: a) he signed a clear and


TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 unambiguous “Certificate of Authorship” providing that “all writings” he created in


808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 connection with his work on the Picture would constitute works for hire under the

13 Copyright Act, and thus his revisions to the Screenplay constitute a work for hire; b) the

14 script is an unauthorized derivative work as it is an adaptation of the Book by author

15 Simon Winchester, and the Screenplay drafted by Todd Komarnicki and revised by John

16 Boorman, and thus Safinia cannot claim a copyright in the work; and c) there is nothing

17 original in Safinia’s script to warrant protection as there are only minor changes between

18 the script and previous versions.

19 42. Safinia has falsely filed for a copyright registration on the work in the
20 United States Copyright Office on August 4, 2017, and is falsely asserting sole ownership

21 of the Screenplay.

22 43. An actual justiciable controversy exists by way of the immediate litigation


23 brought by Safinia.

24 44. Counter-Claimants request an order declaring that the alleged copyright


25 asserted by Safinia in the Screenplay is invalid and unenforceable and Counter-Claimants

26 have a valid and enforceable copyright in the Screenplay and all of its iterations.

27

28

/446433 19
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 20 of 25 Page ID #:2983

1 SECOND COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF


2 Breach of Contract
3 (Against Farhad Safinia)
4 45. Counter-Claimants reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations in
5 Paragraphs 1 to 44 above.

6 46. Safinia and Airborne signed a contract whereby all of Safinia’s writing
7 services in connection with “The Professor and the Madman” would be done on a work for

8 hire basis.
LLP

9 47. Airborne assigned the “Certificate of Authorship” to Definition Films, an


KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 affiliate of Voltage Pictures. Definition Films has authorized Counter-Claimants to bring


TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 claims against Safinia for his breach of the Certificate of Authorship.


808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 48. Counter-Claimants and Safinia then entered into another contract for
13 Safinia’s directing services and to perform a polish of his previous script. That contract

14 was an express contract pursuant to which Safinia was to be paid $200,000 for his

15 directing services and for performing a polish on the script. Safinia’s agents agreed to the

16 sum by replying “Okay.” Later, it was agreed by Safinia’s lawyers that of the $200,000

17 total he was to be paid, Safinia would be paid the WGA minimum for a “polish” on the

18 script, equivalent to a fee of $17,818, and the balance for his directing services.

19 49. The contract was also an implied contract. Safinia flew to Ireland to direct
20 the Picture using his shooting script after it was made clear that the offer was to pay him a

21 total of $200,000 for his services. Furthermore, Safinia agreed to the price to be paid after

22 he was in Ireland. This is reflected in a draft writing agreement between Vendetta, LLC

23 (an affiliate of Voltage) and Safinia reflecting the comments of Safinia’s lawyers showing

24 that they agreed that he was to be paid a WGA minimum fee, which is $17,818. Safinia’s

25 lawyer informed Voltage how Safinia was to be paid, and Safinia was paid a total of

26 $17,818 for his services.

27 50. Counter-Claimants have satisfied their obligations under the contract with
28 Safinia by paying his fee. Christchurch paid the sum of $17,818 to Safinia for his polish

/446433 20
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 21 of 25 Page ID #:2984

1 fee in care of his agents. In addition, Christchurch paid Safinia the sum of $163,963.80

2 through his agents at WME, representing the amount due to him through delivery of his

3 first cut of the Picture. Production also paid for Safinia’s expenses.

4 51. Safinia has breached his writing contracts by (1) reneging and repudiating
5 his agreement to accept $200,000 for his directing services and for performing a polish on

6 the script; (2) wrongfully refusing to enter into a written agreement documenting the

7 agreed-upon terms of his directing and writing contracts; and (3) wrongfully claiming

8 ownership of a September 14, 2017 script despite signing the COA and separately entering
LLP

9 into an agreement with Voltage for his writing services.


KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 52. Safinia has also breached his agreement with Counter-Claimants for his
TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 directing services in connection with the Picture. Safinia has breached his directing
808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 agreement by: (a) wrongfully cancelling multiple scenes, including the shooting of a scene

13 that had been scheduled for over four months to be shot in the Library of Trinity College in

14 Ireland involving two hundred extras and expensive set dressings thereby causing the

15 Picture to go overtime and overbudget; (b) wrongfully demanding that the production

16 shoot additional scenes in Oxford, England when the Picture was already overbudget and

17 into overtime; (c) failing to deliver a director’s cut of the Picture at two hours, which is the

18 length required for distributors and it was contractually required in all drafts of his

19 directing agreement that had been sent to Mr. Safinia’s lawyer; and (d) refusing to do any

20 further work on the Picture unless the original editor, John Gilbert, was reengaged as editor

21 and a plan to shoot all scenes from Oxford was put in motion, instead of a reduced

22 schedule of shooting in Oxford that Defendants had proposed. Safinia has refused to even

23 review the current cut of the Picture or fulfill his obligation to complete the cutting of the

24 Picture.

25 53. By reason of the foregoing, Counter-Claimants have been damaged in an


26 amount to be determined at trial.

27

28

/446433 21
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 22 of 25 Page ID #:2985

1 THIRD COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF


2 Intentional Interference with Contractual Relationships
3 (Against Icon Productions, Mel Gibson, Bruce Davey)
4 54. Counter-Claimants re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in
5 Paragraphs 1 to 53 above.

6 55. At all relevant times, Third-Party Defendants knew of the Certificate of


7 Authorship, and knew of the agreement between Safinia and Counter-Claimants to create a

8 polish of the script, and knew of the directing agreement between Safinia and Counter-
LLP

9 Claimants.
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 56. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that Third-Party Defendants


TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 intended to disrupt Counter-Claimants’ ability to exploit, sell or distribute the Picture, after
808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 Counter-Claimants refused to conduct additional shots in Oxford, England.

13 57. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that Third-Party Defendants


14 knowingly and intentionally ordered, induced or instructed Safinia to fraudulently claim

15 sole ownership of the Screenplay despite knowing that he had no right to claim ownership

16 of the Screenplay, thereby placing a “cloud on title” in the Picture.

17 58. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that Third-Party Defendants


18 knowingly and intentionally ordered, induced or instructed Safinia to cancel production of

19 several scenes and wrongfully demand that the production shoot additional scenes in

20 Oxford, England when the Picture was already overbudget and into overtime.

21 59. By convincing Safinia to fraudulently register the copyright and claim


22 ownership of the Screenplay, Third Party Defendants intentionally interfered in the

23 contractual relationships between Counter-Claimants and Safinia.

24 60. By demanding additional scenes in for the Picture be shot in Oxford


25 England, Third Party Defendants intentionally interfered in the contractual relationships

26 between Counter-Claimants and Safinia.

27 61. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that Third Party Defendants
28 intended to induce Safinia to breach his contract or knew that breaching his contract was

/446433 22
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 23 of 25 Page ID #:2986

1 certain or substantially certain to occur.

2 62. By reason of the foregoing, Counter-Claimants have been damaged in an


3 amount to be determined at trial, and Third Party Defendants’ conduct was a substantial

4 factor in causing this harm.

5 63. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that in
6 engaging in the misconduct alleged herein, Third-Party Defendants have acted with

7 malice, oppression, and in willful disregard of Counter-Claimants’ rights and interests,

8 thus entitling Counter-Claimants to an award of punitive damages in an amount


LLP

9 appropriate to punish or make an example of them.


KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF


TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relation


808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 (Against all parties)


13 64. Counter-Claimants re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in
14 Paragraphs 1 to 63 above.

15 65. Counter-Claimants were in talks to potentially sell the right to distribute the
16 Picture to film distributors in various territories. Contracts between these parties would be

17 of economic benefit for Counter-Claimants as it would allow them to raise money to

18 reimburse financiers for their financial contributions to the Picture.

19 66. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that Safinia and Third-Party
20 Defendants knew of these relationships and potential deals.

21 67. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that Safinia and Third-Party
22 Defendants intended to disrupt Counter-Claimants’ ability to sell or distribute the Picture,

23 after Counter-Claimants refused to conduct additional shots in Oxford, England.

24 68. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that Safinia and Third-Party
25 Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with Safinia to fraudulently claim sole

26 ownership of the Screenplay despite knowing that Safinia had no right to claim ownership

27 of the Screenplay.

28 69. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that Safinia and Third-Party
/446433 23
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 24 of 25 Page ID #:2987

1 Defendants concocted this conspiracy and scheme in order to disrupt Counter-Claimants’

2 ability to sell or distribute the Picture, by casting a cloud on Counter-Claimants’ title to the

3 copyright in the Picture, thus preventing them from selling or distributing the picture.

4 70. Counter-Claimants are informed and believe that Safinia and Third Party
5 Defendants intended to disrupt the relationship between distributors and Counter-

6 Claimants or knew that the disruption was certain or substantially certain to occur.

7 71. The cloud on Counter-Claimants’ title to the copyright in the Picture has
8 disrupted the relationship between distributors and Counter-Claimants, and severely
LLP

9 impacted Counter-Claimants’ ability to sell the rights to the Picture.


KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 72. By reason of the foregoing, Counter-Claimants have been damaged in an


TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 amount to be determined at trial, and Third Party Defendants’ conduct was a substantial
808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

12 factor in causing this harm.

13 PRAYER FOR RELIEF


14 WHEREFORE, Counter-Claimants pray for judgment to be entered in their favor
15 and against Counter-Defendant and Third-Party Defendants as follows:

16 1. For monetary damages in an amount to be proven at trial;


17 2. For punitive and exemplary damages;
18 3. For reasonable attorneys’ fees if allowed by law;
19 4. For costs of suit; and
20 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
21

22 DATED: December 21, 2017 KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER


KUMP & ALDISERT LLP
23

24 By: /s/ Jeremiah T. Reynolds


Jeremiah T. Reynolds
25 Attorneys for Defendants Voltage Pictures,
26 LLC, Voltage Productions, LLC, Christchurch
Productions, DAC, and Nicolas Chartier
27

28

/446433 24
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-06902-CBM-RAO Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 25 of 25 Page ID #:2988

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

3 Counter-Defendants Voltage Pictures, LLC, Voltage Productions, LLC, Christchurch

4 Productions, DAC, and Nicolas Chartier hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable,

5 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b).

7 DATED: December 21, 2017 KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER


KUMP & ALDISERT LLP
8
LLP

9 By: /s/ Jeremiah T. Reynolds


Jeremiah T. Reynolds
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT

10 Attorneys for Defendants Voltage Pictures,


TEL 310.566.9800 • FAX 310.566.9850

11 LLC, Voltage Productions, LLC, Christchurch


808 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 3RD FLOOR
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401

Productions, DAC, and Nicolas Chartier


12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

/446433 25
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

You might also like