Firrantello V West Et Al COMPLAINT

Case 1:08-cv-04785-VM Document 1 Filed 05/22/2008 Page 1 of 25
Dennis H. Cavanaugh (DC 3146)

D H CAVANAUGH ASSOCIATES
555 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10017
Telephone: (212) 856-7210
Facsimile: (212) 856-7211
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------X
Kathleen Firrantello d/b/a Farjo Music,
Civil Action No.:
Plaintiff,
08 CV 4785 (VM) (AJP)
v.
ECF CASE
Kanye West; Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC;
The Island Def Jam Music Group;
Universal Music Group; Vivendi SA;
Sample Clearance Ltd.;
Lonnie Rashid Lynn, Jr. p/k/a Common;
Interscope Geffen A&M Records;
Clifford Smith p/k/a Method Man;
Reginald "Reggie" Noble p/k/a Redman;
Does 1-50; and XYZ Corporations 1-50,
Defendants,
---------------------------------------------------------------X
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Kathleen Firrantello (“Firrantello”) d/b/a Farjo Music (hereinafter referred to as
“Plaintiff” or “Farjo”), by her attorney, Dennis H. Cavanaugh, as and for her complaint, alleges
as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. In this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for acts of copyright
infringement and unfair competition engaged in by Defendants under the laws of the United
States and the State of New York.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This action arises under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 101 et seq.
(the “Copyright Act”), and the common law of the State of New York. This Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331, 1332 and 1338, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 101 et seq., and the
law of supplemental jurisdiction.
3. The venue of this action is properly laid in the Southern District of New York
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1391(b) and (c), 1392 and 1400(a). Upon information and belief,
each of the Defendants has been transacting and continues to transact business in this the State of
New York and elsewhere in interstate commerce, or transacts business that affects such
commerce, and has been committing and continues to commit the acts complained of herein in
the State of New York and elsewhere in interstate commerce, and regularly has been and now
does business and solicits business and derives substantial revenue from the sale and licensing of
creative properties and other products and services sold, used or consumed in the State of New
York, including the musical composition complained of herein, and elsewhere in interstate
commerce. The Defendants expected or should have reasonably expected their acts, including
the acts set forth above and complained of herein, to have consequences in the State of New
York.
4. The amount in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of
$75,000.00.
THE PARTIES
5. Plaintiff is an individual having a residence and her principal place of business in
Pawling, New York.
6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that at all times relevant
2
hereto:
a. Defendant Kanye West (“West”) is either a resident of or doing business
within this judicial district.
b. Defendant Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC (“Roc-A-Fella”), is a limited
liability company with its principal place of business at 825 Eighth Avenue, New York,
New York 10019. On information and belief, Roc-A-Fella is either doing business in or
is engaged in the transaction of business within this judicial district.
c. Defendant The Island Def Jam Music Group (“Island”), is an
unincorporated division of Universal Music Group and/or Vivendi SA with its principal
place of business at 825 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10019. On information
and belief, Island is either doing business in or is engaged in the transaction of business
within this judicial district.
d. Defendant Universal Music Group (“UMG”), is an unincorporated
division of Vivendi SA with its principal place of business at 1755 Broadway
New York, New York 10019. On information and belief, UMG is either doing business
in or is engaged in the transaction of business within this judicial district.
e. Defendant Vivendi SA (“Vivendi”), is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of France with its principal place of business at 42 avenue de
Friedland, 75380 Paris Cedex 08, France. On information and belief, Vivendi has an
office and place of business within this judicial district at 800 Third Avenue, New York,
New York 10022 and is either doing business in or is engaged in the transaction of
business within this judicial district.
f. Defendant Sample Clearance Ltd. (“Sample”), is a corporation with its
3
principal place of business at 162 West 56th Street, Suite 306, New York, New York
10019. On information and belief, Sample is either doing business in or is engaged in the
transaction of business within this judicial district.
g. Defendant Lonnie Rashid Lynn, Jr. p/k/a Common (“Common”) is either a
resident of or doing business within this judicial district.
h. Defendant Interscope Geffen A&M Records (“Interscope”), is an
unincorporated division of UMG and/or Vivendi SA with its principal place of business
at 2220 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404. On information and belief,
Island is either doing business in or is engaged in the transaction of business within this
judicial district.
i. Defendant Clifford Smith p/k/a Method Man (“Method Man”) is either a
j. Defendant Reginald "Reggie" Noble p/k/a Redman (“Redman”) is either a
k. Upon information and belief, Defendants Does 1-50 are either residents of
or are doing business in this judicial district. The identities of the various Does are not
presently known and cannot be presently known. This complaint will be amended to
include the names of said individuals if they permit themselves to be identified.
l. Upon information and belief, Defendants XYZ Corporations 1-50 are
either doing business in or are engaged in the transaction of business within this judicial
district. The identities of XYZ Corporations 1-50 are not presently known and cannot be
presently known. This complaint will be amended to include the name of the actual
company(ies) if the company(ies) permit identification.
4
Defendants West, Roc-A-Fella, Island, UMG, Vivendi and Sample are hereinafter referred to
collectively as the “West Defendants.” Defendants Common, Interscope, UMG and Vivendi are
hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Common Defendants.” Defendants Method Man,
Redman, Island, UMG and Vivendi are hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Method Man
Defendants.” The West Defendants, the Common Defendants, the Method Man Defendants,
Does 1-50 and XYZ Corporations 1-50 are hereinafter referred to collectively as “Defendants.”
7. Plaintiff Firrantello is the daughter of Joe Farrell, a well-known jazz musician,
composer and recording artist (“Farrell”). Farrell died on January 10, 1986 and Firrantello is the
successor in interest to the rights of Farrell with respect to his recordings and musical
compositions. Prior to his death, Farrell did business as Farjo Music in connection with the
music publishing of the musical compositions written by Farrell. Upon her becoming Farrell’s
successor in interest, Firrantello continued to do business as Farjo Music. On October 16, 2003,
Firrantello filed a Business Certificate for Farjo Music with the Clerk’s Office of Duchess
County, New York.
8. In 1974, Farrell wrote a musical composition entitled “Upon This Rock” (the
“Plaintiffs’ Song”). Plaintiffs’ Song was originally recorded by Farrell and this sound recording
was released by Creed Taylor, Inc. d/b/a CTI Records (“CTI”) in 1974, catalog number CTI
6042 S1 (the “Plaintiff’s Record”).
9. The music, lyrics and/or other creative elements of Plaintiff’s Song are wholly
original with Plaintiff and constitute copyrightable subject matter under the Copyright Act.
10. Plaintiff’s Song is the subject of an existing copyright registration, Registration
No. EU486207, a copy of the certificate of which is attached hereto and identified as Exhibit A
and is incorporated herein by reference (the “Copyright”). The Copyright has been duly
5
registered in the Copyright Office and all applicable recordation and registration formalities and
notice requirements under The Copyright Act have been fully complied with.
11. On or about December 13, 1974, Farrell and Char-Liz Music, Inc. (“Char-Liz”)
entered into a Popular Songwriter’s Agreement with respect to the Plaintiff’s Song, whereby
ownership of Plaintiff’s Song was transferred to Char-Liz. This agreement did not provide that
Plaintiff’s Song was a “work for hire” of Char-Liz. It also did not contain any transfer of
Farrell’s renewal rights in either Plaintiff’s Song or the Copyright.
12. The Copyright was originally filed for and obtained by Char-Liz Music, Inc.
Copyright protection of Plaintiff’s Song was obtained pursuant to the 1909 Copyright Act, which
provided for an initial 28-year term of copyright protection and a single 28-year renewal term of
continued protection. As of the date of Farrell’s death in 1986, the Copyright was in its first
term of registration. Upon his death, his rights in the renewals rights in Plaintiff’s Song and the
Copyright passed to Firrantello. Pursuant to U.S. copyright law in effect at that time, the
renewal term of the Copyright vested in Firrantello on or about January 1, 2003. Pursuant to
amendment of U.S. copyright law then in effect, this second renewal term has a period of sixty-
seven (67) years. Plaintiff has filed a renewal registration of Plaintiff’s Song.
13. On or about 1974, Plaintiff’s Song was registered with Broadcast Music Inc.
(“BMI”), the music writer and publisher performing rights society. At all times complained of
herein, information regarding the registration of Plaintiff’s Song and the publishers or other
parties responsible for the licensing of Plaintiff’s Song was available from BMI.
14. Plaintiff’s Record was recorded pursuant to an exclusive recording agreement
between Joe Farrell and CTI entered into on or about May 31, 1973. On or about April 1974,
CTI published Plaintiff’s Record with notice of copyright. Subsequently, CTI filed for and
6
obtained a registration of Plaintiff’s Record as a published sound recording, Registration No.
N18109, a copy of the certificate of which is attached hereto and identified as Exhibit B and is
incorporated herein by reference. On or about 1979-80, CTI sold its catalog of sound recordings,
including Plaintiff’s Record, to Columbia Records, now part of Sony BMG Music Entertainment
(“Sony”). Pursuant to said exclusive recording agreement and industry practice, Sony has paid
Plaintiff fifty percent (50%) of any licensing revenues received by Sony, including from the
licensing of samples of the Plaintiff’s Record. Plaintiff is thus the beneficiary of fifty percent of
the revenues to be received from any licensing, royalties or damages as a result of the
Defendants’ use of the Plaintiff’s Record. Upon information and belief, to date, no license for a
sample of the Plaintiff’s Record has been entered into by any of the Defendants herein and Sony
with respect to the acts complained of herein. Based upon all of the foregoing, Plaintiff has
standing to bring this action with respect to the Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Plaintiff’s
Record.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Copyright Infringement against the West Defendants)
15. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
through 14 of the complaint as if fully set forth herein.
16. This claim arises under the Copyright Acts of 1909 and 1976.
17. Upon information and belief, on or about August 30, 2005, Roc-A-Fella, in
association with Island, UMG and Vivendi, recorded, manufactured and distributed a sound
recording by West of a musical composition entitled “Gone” (the “Infringing West Record”),
which composition incorporates unauthorized copies or copyrighted elements of Plaintiff’s Song
and Plaintiff’s Record, thereby infringing same. “Gone” is contained on the album entitled “Late
Registration,” released by Island, UMG and/or Vivendi.
7
18. Upon information and belief, Sample acted as a music copyright clearance agent
for West, Roc-A-Fella, Island, UMG and/or Vivendi, and such capacity, Sample obtained
clearances or licenses for one or more musical compositions and/or sound recordings other than
Plaintiff’s Song and Plaintiff’s Record for use on one or more musical compositions on “Late
Registration.” By virtue of such role, Sample either knew or should have known that Plaintiff’s
Song and Plaintiff’s Record were subject to copyright protection, and that, accordingly, a license
was required for use of any copyright protected elements thereof. By further virtue of its failure
to obtain a license for use of Plaintiff’s Song and/or Plaintiff’s Record, Sample is thereby liable
for the acts complained of herein as a direct, contributory and/or vicarious infringer.
19. Upon information and belief, the Infringing West Record was knowingly and
willfully directly copied from and/or sampled copyrighted elements of Plaintiff’s Song and
Plaintiff’s Record by the West Defendants.
20. Upon information and belief, the West Defendants have sold and/or distributed
copies of the Infringing West Record in various media throughout the world, including but not
limited to CDs, DVDs, videocassettes, digital downloads and ringtones. Upon further
information and belief, the West Defendants have licensed the Infringing West Record for
further recording and various means of public performance, broadcast and webcast, including but
not limited to live performances, videos, radio, television and the Internet, including through one
or more agents, including but not limited to BMI, ASCAP and The Harry Fox Agency, Inc.
21. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that the West
Defendants have infringed and threaten to further infringe upon Plaintiff’s Song and Plaintiff’s
Record by being the source of the Infringing West Record and aiding and abetting others in the
manufacturing, distributing, offering for sale and/or selling copies of, licensing, and/or otherwise
8
commercially exploiting the Infringing West Record, and contributing to the infringement of
Plaintiff’s Song and Plaintiff’s Record by others, in the Southern District of New York and
elsewhere, all without the consent or authorization of Plaintiff or anyone authorized to act on its
behalf.
22. The marketing and sale of copies of the Infringing West Record by the West
Defendants and others with their aid and assistance, and/or as a direct result of their direct and
contributory actions, constitutes an unauthorized distribution of copies of Plaintiff’s copyrighted
works; and the public performance of the infringing musical composition embodied in the
Infringing West Record by Defendants constitutes unauthorized public performance of Plaintiff’s
copyrighted works, all in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Copyright Act.
23. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that the West
Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrighted work has been and continues to be carried
out with Defendants’ full knowledge that the Plaintiff’s Song and Plaintiff’s Record are
protected by copyright and that all relevant times Defendants had actual and constructive
knowledge of Plaintiff’s rights but proceeded in complete disregard thereof. In doing the acts
complained of herein, Defendants have willfully and intentionally infringed Plaintiff’s
copyrights.
24. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable harm and injury as a
result of the aforesaid infringing acts of Defendants and Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy
at law, in that damages are extremely difficult to ascertain and, unless injunctive relief is granted
as prayed for herein, Plaintiff will be required to pursue a multiplicity of actions.
25. Plaintiff has sustained damages as a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts as
hereinabove alleged. Plaintiff is presently unable to ascertain the full extent of the money
9
damages it has suffered by reason of said acts of copyright infringement, but upon information
and belief such damages exceed $100,000 as to each work infringed as to each Defendant.
26. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendants have
obtained gains, profits, and advantages as a result of their infringing acts as hereinabove alleged.
Plaintiff is presently unable to ascertain the full extent of the gains, profits, and advantages
Defendants have obtained by reason of their aforesaid acts of copyright infringement, but upon
information and belief such gains, profits, and advantages exceed $100,000 as to each work
infringed as to each Defendant.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Copyright Infringement against the Common Defendants)
29. Upon information and belief, on or about May 24, 2005, Interscope, in association
with UMG and Vivendi, recorded, manufactured and distributed a sound recording by Common
of a musical composition entitled “Chi-City” (the “Infringing Common Record”), which
composition incorporates unauthorized copies or copyrighted elements of Plaintiff’s Song and
Plaintiff’s Record, thereby infringing same. “Chi-City” is contained on the album entitled “Be”
released by Interscope, UMG and/or Vivendi.
30. Upon information and belief, the Infringing Common Record was knowingly and
Plaintiff’s Record by the Common Defendants.
31. Upon information and belief, the Common Defendants have sold and/or
distributed copies of the Infringing Common Record in various media throughout the world,
10
including but not limited to CDs, DVDs, videocassettes, digital downloads and ringtones. Upon
further information and belief, the Common Defendants have licensed the Infringing Common
Record for further recording and various means of public performance, broadcast and webcast,
including but not limited to live performances, videos, radio, television and the Internet,
including through one or more agents, including but not limited to BMI, ASCAP and The Harry
Fox Agency, Inc.
32. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that the Common
Record by being the source of the Infringing Common Record and aiding and abetting others in
the manufacturing, distributing, offering for sale and/or selling copies of, licensing, and/or
otherwise commercially exploiting the Infringing Common Record, and contributing to the
infringement of Plaintiff’s Song and Plaintiff’s Record by others, in the Southern District of New
York and elsewhere, all without the consent or authorization of Plaintiff or anyone authorized to
act on its behalf.
33. The marketing and sale of copies of the Infringing Common Record by the
Common Defendants and others with their aid and assistance, and/or as a direct result of their
direct and contributory actions, constitutes an unauthorized distribution of copies of Plaintiff’s
copyrighted works; and the public performance of the infringing musical composition embodied
in the Infringing Common Record by Defendants constitutes unauthorized public performance of
Plaintiff’s copyrighted works, all in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Copyright Act.
Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works has been and continues to be carried
out with Defendants’ full knowledge that the Plaintiff’s Song and Plaintiff’s Record are
11
protected by copyright and that all relevant times Defendants had actual and constructive
knowledge of Plaintiff’s rights but proceeded in complete disregard thereof. In doing the acts
complained of herein, Defendants have willfully and intentionally infringed Plaintiff’s
copyrights.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Copyright Infringement against the Method Man Defendants)
40. Upon information and belief, on or about September 28, 1999, Island, in
12
association with UMG and Vivendi, recorded, manufactured and distributed a sound recording
by Method Man and Redman of a musical composition entitled “Run 4 Cover” (the “Infringing
Method Man Record”), which composition incorporates unauthorized copies or copyrighted
elements of Plaintiff’s Song and Plaintiff’s Record, thereby infringing same. “Run 4 Cover” is
contained on the album entitled “Blackout!” released by Interscope, UMG and/or Vivendi.
41. Upon information and belief, the Infringing Common Record was knowingly and
Plaintiff’s Record by the Common Defendants.
42. Upon information and belief, the Common Defendants have sold and/or
distributed copies of the Infringing Common Record in various media throughout the world,
including but not limited to CDs, DVDs, videocassettes, digital downloads and ringtones. Upon
further information and belief, the Common Defendants have licensed the Infringing Common
Record for further recording and various means of public performance, broadcast and webcast,
including but not limited to live performances, videos, radio, television and the Internet,
including through one or more agents, including but not limited to BMI, ASCAP and The Harry
Fox Agency, Inc.
Record by being the source of the Infringing Common Record and aiding and abetting others in
the manufacturing, distributing, offering for sale and/or selling copies of, licensing, and/or
otherwise commercially exploiting the Infringing Common Record, and contributing to the
infringement of Plaintiff’s Song and Plaintiff’s Record by others, in the Southern District of New
York and elsewhere, all without the consent or authorization of Plaintiff or anyone authorized to
13
act on its behalf.
44. The marketing and sale of copies of the Infringing Common Record by the
Common Defendants and others with their aid and assistance, and/or as a direct result of their
direct and contributory actions, constitutes an unauthorized distribution of copies of Plaintiff’s
copyrighted works; and the public performance of the infringing musical composition embodied
in the Infringing Common Record by Defendants constitutes unauthorized public performance of
Plaintiff’s copyrighted works, all in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Copyright Act.
Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works has been and continues to be carried
out with Defendants’ full knowledge that the Plaintiff’s Song and Plaintiff’s are protected by
copyright and that all relevant times Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge of
Plaintiff’s rights but proceeded in complete disregard thereof. In doing the acts complained of
herein, Defendants have willfully and intentionally infringed Plaintiff’s copyrights.
14
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unjust Enrichment against all Defendants)
49. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
50. As a result of their infringing activities complained of herein, including the
furtherance of the respective careers of West, Common, Method Man and Redman, and their
respective statures in the entertainment business as a direct consequence thereof, Defendants
have been unjustly enriched to the damage of Plaintiff.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as
follows:
1. Permanently enjoining and restraining Defendants, their respective officers,
agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and predecessors and successors, by whatever name,
and all those in active concert or participation with them from:
(a) Further violating any of the exclusive rights of Plaintiff in the copyrighted
song “Upon This Rock,” including the importation, reproduction, preparation, sale or
distribution of any and all copies of the Infringing West Record, the Infringing Common
Record and the Infringing Method Man Record;
(b) Further infringing upon Plaintiff’s rights under the Copyright Act by
importing, manufacturing, producing, distributing, circulating, selling, marketing,
15
offering for sale, advertising, promoting, displaying or otherwise disposing of any
products not authorized by Plaintiff, incorporating any simulation, reproduction,
counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works or its creative
elements;
(c) Licensing or otherwise authorizing the public performance of any
recording of the Infringing West Record, the Infringing Common Record and/or the
Infringing Method Man Record in all media, including, but not limited to, radio,
television (broadcast and cable), the Internet and motion pictures, and publicly
performing the musical compositions embodied in Infringing West Record, the Infringing
Common Record and/or the Infringing Method Man Record;
(d) Using any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable
imitation of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works in such fashion as to relate or connect, or tend
to relate or connect such copies in any way to Plaintiff;
(e) Making any statement or representation whatsoever, or using any false
designation of origin or false description, or performing any act, which can or is likely to
lead the trade or public, or individual members thereof, to believe that any products or
services manufactured, distributed or sold by Defendants are in any manner associated or
connected with Plaintiff or are sold, manufactured, licensed, sponsored, approved or
authorized by Plaintiff;
(f) Engaging in any other activity constituting unfair competition with
Plaintiff or its licensees, or constituting an infringement of any of Plaintiff’s copyrights
or of Plaintiff’s rights in, or rights to use or to exploit, said copyrights, including aiding
and abetting third parties engaging in such activities;
16
(g) Engaging in any acts or activities directly or indirectly calculated to trade
upon or injure the reputation or the goodwill of Plaintiff or in any manner to compete
unfairly with Plaintiff by appropriating the distinctive creative elements of Plaintiff’s
copyrighted works;
(h) Effecting assignments or transfers, forming new entities or associations or
utilizing any other device for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise avoiding the
prohibitions set forth in subparagraphs 1(a) through (g) hereinabove; and
(i) Secreting, destroying, altering, removing or otherwise dealing with copies
of Infringing West Record, the Infringing Common Record or the Infringing Method
Man Record, or any books or records which contain any information relating to the
importation, manufacture, production, distribution, circulation, sale, marketing, offering
for sale, advertising, promoting or displaying of any copies of Infringing West Record,
the Infringing Common Record and the Infringing Method Man Record by Defendants.
2. Directing that Defendants deliver for impoundment:
(a) All copies of the Infringing West Record, the Infringing Common Record
and the Infringing Method Man Record, including sound recordings in any format, CDs,
DVDs, videocassettes, sheet music, labels, boxes, signs, packages, advertisements,
novelty items, prints, dyes, wrappers, receptacles and any other such goods or
merchandise in Defendants’ possession, custody or control incorporating or associated
with Infringing West Record, the Infringing Common Record and the Infringing Method
Man Record; and
(b) All masters, plates, molds, mechanicals or apparatus utilized in making
copies of Infringing West Record, the Infringing Common Record and the Infringing
17
Method Man Record and packaging therefor, and all digital files of same in whatever
media they are maintained.
3. Directing such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to prevent the trade
and public from deriving any erroneous impression that any products or services manufactured,
sold or otherwise circulated or promoted by Defendants are authorized by Plaintiff or related in
any way to Plaintiff or its musical compositions or sound recordings.
4. Directing that an accounting of and judgment be rendered against each Defendant
for:
(a) statutory damages as provided by 17 U.S.C. Sec. 504(a);
(b) all profits received by any of the Defendants from the sale or other
commercial exploitation of Infringing West Record, the Infringing Common Record and
the Infringing Method Man Record, as provided by 17 U.S.C. Sec. 504(b), including all
revenues received relating to or deriving from, in manner whatsoever, Infringing West
Record, the Infringing Common Record and the Infringing Method Man Record, and any
profits received by third parties as a result of activities for which Defendants may be
found contributorily or vicariously liable;
(c) all damages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of any of Defendants’
copyright infringements, as provided by 17 U.S.C. Sec. 504(a), whether as a result of
their direct, contributory or vicarious actions;
(d) all monies received from whatever source, directly or indirectly, by any of
the Defendants as unjust enrichment from the exploitation of Infringing West Record, the
Infringing Common Record and the Infringing Method Man Record.
5. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages of not less than $1,000,000.
18
6. Awarding Plaintiff its costs in this action, including reasonable attorneys’ and
investigative fees, as provided by 17 U.S.C. Sec. 505.
7. Directing that the Court retains jurisdiction of this action for the purpose of
enabling Plaintiff to apply to the Court at any time for such further orders and directions as may
be necessary or appropriate for the interpretation or execution of any order entered in this action,
for the modification of any such order, for the enforcement or compliance therewith, and for the
punishment of any violations thereof.
8. Awarding to Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury.
DATED: New York, New York

May 22, 2008 Respectfully submitted,
D H CAVANAUGH ASSOCIATES
/Dennis H. Cavanaugh/
By___________________________
Dennis H. Cavanaugh (DC 3146)
555 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10019
Tel: (212) 856-7210
Fax: (212) 856-7211
Email: [email protected]
19
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B

Firrantello V West Et Al COMPLAINT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Firrantello V West Et Al COMPLAINT

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

Firrantello V West Et Al COMPLAINT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:08-cv-04785-VM Document 1 Filed 05/22/2008 Page 1 of 25

Dennis H. Cavanaugh (DC 3146)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NATURE OF THE ACTION

States and the State of New York.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

law of supplemental jurisdiction.

5. Plaintiff is an individual having a residence and her principal place of business in

Pawling, New York.

a. Defendant Kanye West (“West”) is either a resident of or doing business

within this judicial district.

b. Defendant Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC (“Roc-A-Fella”), is a limited

is engaged in the transaction of business within this judicial district.

c. Defendant The Island Def Jam Music Group (“Island”), is an

within this judicial district.

d. Defendant Universal Music Group (“UMG”), is an unincorporated

division of Vivendi SA with its principal place of business at 1755 Broadway

in or is engaged in the transaction of business within this judicial district.

e. Defendant Vivendi SA (“Vivendi”), is a corporation organized and

business within this judicial district.

f. Defendant Sample Clearance Ltd. (“Sample”), is a corporation with its

transaction of business within this judicial district.

g. Defendant Lonnie Rashid Lynn, Jr. p/k/a Common (“Common”) is either a

resident of or doing business within this judicial district.

h. Defendant Interscope Geffen A&M Records (“Interscope”), is an

i. Defendant Clifford Smith p/k/a Method Man (“Method Man”) is either a

resident of or doing business within this judicial district.

j. Defendant Reginald "Reggie" Noble p/k/a Redman (“Redman”) is either a

resident of or doing business within this judicial district.

include the names of said individuals if they permit themselves to be identified.

l. Upon information and belief, Defendants XYZ Corporations 1-50 are

company(ies) if the company(ies) permit identification.

hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Common Defendants.” Defendants Method Man,

7. Plaintiff Firrantello is the daughter of Joe Farrell, a well-known jazz musician,

County, New York.

6042 S1 (the “Plaintiff’s Record”).

10. Plaintiff’s Song is the subject of an existing copyright registration, Registration

Farrell’s renewal rights in either Plaintiff’s Song or the Copyright.

14. Plaintiff’s Record was recorded pursuant to an exclusive recording agreement

obtained a registration of Plaintiff’s Record as a published sound recording, Registration No.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

through 14 of the complaint as if fully set forth herein.

which composition incorporates unauthorized copies or copyrighted elements of Plaintiff’s Song

Registration,” released by Island, UMG and/or Vivendi.

Plaintiff’s Record by the West Defendants.

contributory actions, constitutes an unauthorized distribution of copies of Plaintiff’s copyrighted

Infringing West Record by Defendants constitutes unauthorized public performance of Plaintiff’s

complained of herein, Defendants have willfully and intentionally infringed Plaintiff’s

as prayed for herein, Plaintiff will be required to pursue a multiplicity of actions.

25. Plaintiff has sustained damages as a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts as

infringed as to each Defendant.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

through 14 of the complaint as if fully set forth herein.

of a musical composition entitled “Chi-City” (the “Infringing Common Record”), which

composition incorporates unauthorized copies or copyrighted elements of Plaintiff’s Song and

released by Interscope, UMG and/or Vivendi.

Plaintiff’s Record by the Common Defendants.

Fox Agency, Inc.