You are on page 1of 53
Ectamee 28 Gregory L. Tomes, Bar No, 221817 Vakpelegal.com exancirs P, Pakzad, Rar No, 317054 TEES Ne i 18) 547-5000 18) 547-5329 Attorneys for Plaintif DANA BRUNETTI, AN INDIVIDUAL; and GOLDEN CLOUD, INC., a California corporation SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STAT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DANA BRUNETTI, an individual; and NO. GOLDEN CLOUD, INC., a California corporation, COMPLAINT FOR: Plaintitts, ) (1) BREACH OF WRITTEN v @ .CHT OF IMPLIED, CONTRACT SANITIOLOGY DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, SERIES AGREEMENT; xPelewarsimied obits companysiOHIN |G) BREACH OE IMPLIED. GOLDWYN, an indi dal SATE. CONTRACT — AGREEMENT TO) ENTERTAINMENT CORP. a British PAY FOR DISCLOSURE OR [Columbia Corporation: CHARTER USE OF IDEAS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. a Delaware (8) BREACH OF IMPLIED senpoaton: an DOES ¥ thous 5, CONTRACT - JOINT VENTURE inclusive, AGREEMENT: 5) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY ( DUTY: (6) BREACH OF CONFIDENC! (7) PROMISSORY FSTOPPEL; (8) CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD, (9), PROMISSORTY FRAUD; 10) NEGLIGENT MISREPRPSENTATION: (1) FRAUD. INTENTIONAL c Defendants, MISREPRESEN TATION: 12) QUASI-CONTRACT/UNIUST ENRICHMENT: 13) QUANTUM MERUTT, 19 M IONEY HAD AND RECEIVED; 19) MOLATION GF BU ISINESS AND PROFESSIONS SECTION 17340 EF SEQ? AND | (17) DECLARATORY RELI euance 28 Plaintiffs Dana Brunetti (Brunetti) and Golden Cloud, Ine, » California ‘corporation (“Golden Claud”) allege as follows THE PARTIES 1. Plantier Brunet isan individual and at al ties herein mentioned was. resident ofthe State of California, County of Los Angeles. 2. Plaintie' Golden Cloud i, snd at all vines herein mentioned was,» California coxporation with its principal place of business locsted in Los Angsles County, California. (Hereinafter, Brunetti and Golden Cloud are sometiines collectively rererted to as the fons, LLC (“Discovery 3. Defendant Discovery Commun ) i, and at all times herein mentioned was, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place lof business in Silver Spring, Maryland, Discovery did and does business inthe State of California, County of Los Angeles. Discovery distributes felevision programming through its cable television stations including the Discovery Channel 4. Defendant John Goldwyn ("Goldy'yn”) is an individual and at all times herein mentioned was a resident of California, Upon iniormation and belief, Jobn Goldwyn, resides in State of California, County of Los Angeles. 5, Defendant Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. Lionsgate") is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a British Columbia Corporation with its headquarters inthe City of Santa Monica, County of Los Angeles, State of California, Lionsgate did and does business in the State of California, County of Los Angeles. 6. Defendant Charter Communications, Ine. (“Chartec") i, and at all times licicin mentioned was, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticit, Charter did and does business in the State of California, County of Los Angeles 7. Defendants, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are sued herein under fictitious ‘names. Their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that each ofthe fictitiously named Defendants are 10 ul 2 B 4 1s 16 ” 18 19 20 n 2B 24 25 26 Seams 28 responsible in some manner forthe occurences, events and happenings tefered 1 and alleged herein, cither contractually oF tortousy, and that Plaintiffs’ damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by those Defendants, When ther tue names and their truc hnough 50, ate sometimes collectively referred to herein as “Defendants” and individually asa capacities are ascertained, Plaintifs will amend this Complaint hy ‘names and capacities herein. (Discovery, Goldwyn, Lionsgate, Charter, and Does 1 1 “Defendant.”) 8. Whenever this Complaint alleges an act by more than one Defendant, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, Uist sueh Defendants ated in concert, participation, or collaboration with each other, acting in the scape of such agency, | ‘employment and/or conspiracy, At all material times hereto, Defendants, and each of ther, ‘were the joint venturers of each oiher, the pariners of each other, co-conspirators with each ther, alter ego of each other, and/or were ina principal and agency relationship, and as such, were acting with the sciual, implied or ostensible authority and/or the consent, approval or ratification of each other Defendants in the pursuit ofa shared goal, business venture, conspiacy or otherwise sich that disregard of the separate nature of the Defendants’ business o*zanization or other association, is necessary to prevent an injustice to PlaimiffS, In this regard, Plaintiffs allege upon information and belief, that each of the Defendants les common employees or agents, and at the time this matter arose, was operating using the financal resources of the other Defendants, and cach of the Defendants tends to benafit jointly from the eonspiracies or transactions entered into by one ot more of the Defenclants, Accordingly, each Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the acts of the other Defendants. VENUE 9, Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court under Section 1780 of the California Civil Code hecause Defendants operate and do business in the County of Los Angeles, California, and the aets and omission alleged herein occurred in Los Angeles Coun, California, cour caNr