Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Brophy Counterclaim

Brophy Counterclaim

Ratings: (0)|Views: 28 |Likes:
Published by emerger
Counterclaim by Steve Brophy against Slep-tone Corp., Kurt Slep and James M. Harrington filed on June 27, 2014.
Counterclaim by Steve Brophy against Slep-tone Corp., Kurt Slep and James M. Harrington filed on June 27, 2014.

More info:

Published by: emerger on Aug 15, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/15/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Case 2:12-cv-02684-SRB Document 43 Filed 06/27/
]
Page 1 of 21 1 Steven
C
Brophy 3120 W. Carefree Hwy. 1-301 2 Phoenix, AZ 85086 (623) 434-1838) Defendant
&
Counter-claimant
in
pro per
'
 
·Jj,CED-··· .
= :
LODGED
___
RI:OFIVfD
__
c. .y
JUN
2 7
2014
CL E~K
U
S
DISTRICT
COUPIT
DISTRICT OF
~IZONA
BY
0
OEPUrv
3
4
5
6
7
IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
17 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 27
28
SLEP-TONE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v
STEVEN
C
BROPHY and ASSOCIATED PROTECTIVE SERVICES, L.L.C. d/b/a APS AND ASSOCIATES, Defendants. STEVEN
C
BROPHY, Counter-claimant
v
SLEP-TONE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION; KURT SLEP; and JAMES
M
HARRINGTON, Counter-defendants.
1
CASE NO.: 2:12-CV-02684-LOA
COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST
SL p·
TONE CORPORATION KURT SLEP AND JAMES
M
HARRINGTON JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
 
Case 2:12-cv-02684-SRB Document 43 Filed
06 27 14
Page 2 of
21
1 2 Counter-claimant Steven
C
Brophy ( Brophy ) hereby complains
and
alleges
as
3
follows: 4
1
Brophy
is an
individual who resides
and
regularly conducts business
in
5
Maricopa County, Arizona. 6
2
Upon information and belief, counter-defendant Slep-Tone Entertainment 7 Corporation ( Slep-Tone )
is
a North Carolina corporation having its principal
8
place of business
in
Charlotte, North Carolina. 9
3
Upon information and belief, counter-defendant Kurt Slep ( Slep )
is
an
10
individual who resides
in
North Carolina.
4
Upon
information
and
belief, counter-defendant James Harrington ( Harrington )
12
is an
individual who resides
in
North Carolina.
3
5
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C.
14
§
1332(a), since the amount
in
controversy
in
this action exceeds the
sum
or
5
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest
and
costs,
and
is
between citizens of
16
different states.
17
6
This Court has general personal jurisdiction over
all
counter-defendants
8
because they regularly conduct business
in
this state
and
regularly avail
19
themselves of the protection of the courts of this state.
20
7
This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over
all
counter-defendants
in
this
21
action because the causes of action herein arise from events and occurrences
22
that took place
in
this state, particularly including that this State
is
the place
in
23
which the contract which forms the basis of the at least one of the causes of
24
action herein.
25
8
Venue
is
proper
in
this State
and
District pursuant
to 28
U.S.C.
§
1391
(a)
in
that
26
jurisdiction
in
this mater
is
founded solely upon diversity of citizenship,
all
27
counter-claimants reside
in
this State
and
District, and a substantial part of the
28
events or omissions giving rise
to
the counterclaim occurred
in
this District.
2
 
Case 2:12-cv-02684-SRB Document 43 Filed
06 27 14
Page 3 of
21
1
9.
Slep-Tone
is
the manufacturer
and
distributor of karaoke accompaniment 2 tracks.
3
10.
During April
201
0 Kurt Slep
and
James Harrington contacted Brophy
to
request 4 that Brophy conduct investigations of karaoke show operators ( KJs ) whom 5 Slep-Tone contended were using illegal copies of Slep-Tone's karaoke 6 accompaniment tracks which infringed upon Slep-Tone's trademarks
( KJ
7 Infringers ).
8
11.
Brophy stated
in
April 2010 that
he
would
be
willing to conduct the 9 investigations
and
requested a retainer of $20,000. Slep stated that Slep-Tone
10
did not have the money
to
pay a retainer.
12. On
or about April
21,
2010, Slep proposed
to
Brophy that Brophy conduct the
12
investigations for a percentage of the amounts recovered from
KJs.
Slep
13
offered to allow Brophy to manage Slep-Tone's investigative, negotiation and
14
litigation efforts (by acting as Slep-Tone's agent for purpose of hiring attorneys
15
and agreeing
to
settlement terms with
KJ
Infringers, subject
to
guidelines
16
established
by
Slep-Tone).
17
13. On
or about April
21,
2010,
to
persuade Brophy
to
agree to perform the
8
investigations for a percentage of the recovery Slep stated
to
Brophy that
19
approximately
80%
of
all
KJ
Infringers entered into a settlement with Slep-Tone
20
after being notified of the infringing conduct
and
without the necessity of any
21
litigation being filed,
and
that the average amount of the settlements was
22
$14,000. At the time Slep made these representations,
he
knew they were
3
false. Brophy did not know the representations were false,
and had no
reason
24
to doubt the truth of Slep's statements, particularly since Slep's representations
25
were confirmed by Harrington.
26
14.
Harrington
had
been drafting the settlement agreements for Slep-Tone's
27
trademark infringement claims,
and
pursuant
to
his agreement with Slep-Tone
8
received a portion of every settlement. Accordingly, Harrington knew that Slep's
-3-

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->