You are on page 1of 9
ANTHONY J. ONCIDI (SBN: 118135) ‘ PIETRO A. DESERIO (SBN: 309230) /PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2049 Century Park East, 32nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 ‘Telephone: (310) $$7-2900 Facsimile: (310) 557-2193 Attorneys for Plaintiff, VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC. COpy CONFORMED COPY “ORIGINAL FI Seayvemee oes Sia OCT 05 2018 ‘Shett R, Carter, Executive Oficer/Clerk ‘By: Charlo L. Coleman, Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC., a Delaware | Case No. 18ST cvoo 496 |Corporation, Plait vs INETELIX, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR: (1) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; and (2) Unfair Competition — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ Code 17200 et seq. ‘COMPLAINT Plaintiff Viacom International Inc. (“Viacom”), for its complaint against Netflix, Ine. ((*Netflix” or “Defendant”), alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. For some reason, Netflix thinks it’s not bound by the same rules that apply to everyone else, as it continues to blatantly disregard well-established California law, including the {fornia Labor Code itself, which expressly recognizes and permits the enforcement of term employment agreements. Cal. Labor Code §§ 2920, ef seq. Despite the fact that Viacom executive Momita Sengupta (“Sengupta”) was employed pursuant to a valid, fully enforceable term employment agreement, Netflix sought her out and knowingly and deliberately induced her to breach her employment contract. 2. Viacom employed Sengupta as Executive Vice President, Production Management and Operations in the Global Entertainment Group, pursuant to a three-year term employment agreement (“the Employment Agreement”), which will not expire until April 21, 2020. Sengupta negotiated the terms of her Employment Agreement and enjoyed both the security and benefits of {that Employment Agreement. 3. Netflix was aware that Sengupta was under a term Employment Agreement with, Viacom. Despite that fact, and flouting well-settled law that applies to all who do business in California, Netflix engaged in an illegal course of dealing designed to tortiously induce Sengupta to breach her Employment Agreement with Viacom so that she could commence employment with Netflix immediately. Viacom is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Netflix even promised Sengupta that it would defend and indemnify her and pay for her legal representation should Viacom seek to enforce its legal rights. 4, Netflix has signaled that it has no intention of complying with the law, and that its illegal attempts to induce Viacom employees to break their contracts without consequence will not Ibe limited to Sengupta. Viacom is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Netflix has illegally induced employees to breach contracts with other industry employers, at least one of whom is pursuing court enforcement of its rights. 5. Netflix’s tortious interference with an enforceable term employment agreement is, -1- ‘COMPLAINT era wee ul 12 1B 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 neither trailblazing nor innovative ~ rather, it’s just another example of Netflix’s utter contempt for the law of the State of California, which benefits employers and employees alike, and itis simply lunlawfil. Netflix should not be permitted to profit from its unequivocally illegal and tortious behavior. Consequently, Viacom seeks damages and injunctive relief as a result of Netflix’s willful and malicious interference in Viacom’s contractual relationship with Sengupta. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This action arises under the laws of the State of California and is within the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court. 7. A substantial part of the events giving rise to Viacom’s causes of action as alleged herein occurred in Los Angeles County, California, and has a direct effect on Viacom in Los /Angeles County, California. 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, as Netflix does business in Los | Angeles, California and/or is a tesident of California, 9, Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 395 et seq. and Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(B), as this is the judicial district in ‘which (i) Netflix does business; and (ji) a substantial part of the events giving rise to Viacom's claims occurred, including Sengupta’s breach and Netflix’s inducement of that breach. PARTIES 10. Plaintiff Viacom is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in New York, New York, and it conducts business in Los Angeles, California. 11. Defendant Netflix is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in Los Gatos, California, and it conducts business in Los Angeles, California, with offices located at +5808 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90028. BACKGROUND 12. Viacom is a creator, producer and distributor of television programming and other entertainment products, including motion pictures and digital media. Viacom has invested and continues to invest billions of dollars annually to create and disseminate its entertainment content to millions of consumers, including investing in its executive workforce, which plays an integral role in -2- ‘COMPLAINT