1 BARRY L.

MORRIS
2 State Bar No. 48368
Attorney at Law
3 1407 Oakland Blvd., Suite 200
4 Walnut Creek, California 94596
(925) 934-1100
5 Fax: (925) 934-1122
6 [email protected]
7 Attorney for Plaintiff
8 JEFF WALD
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SANTA MONICA COURTHOUSE

12
JEFF WALD,
13
Plaintiff, No. 20SMCV00832
14
v.
15
Department P
16 LOUIS ARRIOLA, TARYN ARRIOLA,
17 NYLA Media Group (aka, NYLA PRODUCTIONS),
CAMERON MITCHELL,
18
19 Defendants./
20
First Amended Complaint for Damages
21
22 Plaintiff JEFF WALD alleges, for a cause of action for fraud and breach

23 of contract:

24 Dramatis Personae
25
1. Plaintiff JEFF WALD is 76 years old and has been in the
26
entertainment business for over 50 years. As a producer, plaintiff has
27
28 produced 2300 hours of documentaries, television shows, miniseries, and

1
1 movies, including 2 Days in the Valley. As a personal manager, plaintiff WALD
2 has nurtured the careers of Sylvester Stallone, Miles Davis, Oscar Brown Jr.,
3 Roseanne Barr, Mike Tyson, Donna Summer, Crosby Stills and Nash, Helen
4 Reddy, the Turtles, Deep Purple, Chicago, James Brolin, Tiny Tim and others
5
too numerous to mention. He was appointed to the 1984 Olympic Committee
6
by Mayor Bradley, he was a delegate for Jerry Brown to the 1976 Democratic
7
National Convention and for Ted Kennedy in 1980, he has been on the Board
8
of Directors of Cedar-Sinai and the Betty Ford Clinic, and he was named
9
Humanitarian of the Year by the City of Hope.
10
2. Defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA is a convicted fraudster, with a long
11
history of engaging in assorted fraudulent endeavors. In 2009, defendant
12
LOUIS ARRIOLA was convicted of a felony, a violation of 18 USC §1341, Mail
13
14 Fraud, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California,

15 based on what the United States Attorney described as “elaborate scheme to

16 defraud telecommunications service providers.”

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 3. Pursuant to that scheme defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA pretended
28 to be a representative from a Pennsylvania company that he had no connection

2
1 to, used that company’s tax identification number to order telephone service,
2 and forged the signature of a senior official of that company to open
3 fraudulent accounts with the telecommunications providers
4 4. As the government described a typical telecommunications fraud
5
scheme, “[o]ften, the fraud ring steals the identities of real companies and the
6
identities of actual company officers to facilitate the process of applying for
7
and obtaining telecommunications service from a victim provider…The
8
victim providers, believing they have a legitimate customer, install service at
9
a physical address designated by the fraud ring which the fraud ring then uses
10
as a call forwarding facility….The fraud ring then resells the
11
telecommunications service received from the victim providers to the fraud
12
ring's own clients at very low rates…The victim providers typically discover
13
14 the fraud only after there has been high volume usage of their

15 telecommunications service in a relatively short period of time.”

16 5. That’s exactly what defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA and his buddies

17 did. After renting an office and having the phone companies install needed
18 equipment, in the space of three months, defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA and his
19 confederates ran up a bill of over a million dollars of high-volume
20 international telephone service. When payment was not received, the phone
21 companies threatened to cut off the service if the bill was not paid
22 immediately. In a variation on the “check-is-in-the-mail” trope, defendant
23 ARRIOLA told the phone company that the check had been sent by Federal
24 Express. The federal express envelope did indeed arrive, but it when was
25
opened, it was empty. All told, defendant ARRIOLA and his confederates
26
defrauded three telecommunications companies of over $1,000,000.
27
28

3
1 6. Upon his plea of guilty, defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA was
2 sentenced to 27 months imprisonment in a federal penitentiary, followed by 3
3 years of supervised release.
4 7. The United States Attorney who prosecuted the fraud case
5
concluded that defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA, “has acquired a specialty in
6
telecommunications fraud.” It is not surprising then that defendant LOUIS
7
had a history of telecommunications fraud.
8
8. In 2001, before the events which led to his felony conviction,
9
defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA executed a scheme of fraud, victimizing
10
Telepacific, a telecommunications company. Defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA
11
was employed in the sales department at Telepacific. Defendant LOUIS
12
ARRIOLA claimed to have sold Telepacific services to three companies
13
14 located in the Los Angeles area. He submitted three applications to Telepacfic

15 in the name of actual companies indicating that these three clients had agreed

16 to purchase telephone services from Telepacific. However, when Telepacific

17 attempted to collect payment from these three companies, they discovered
18 that the companies had never contracted to purchase services from Telepacific.
19 Not surprisingly, defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA’s employment Telepacific was
20 terminated.
21 9. After he was fired by Telepacific, defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA
22 went on to commit fraud against Pac West, another telecommunications
23 company. Defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA was hired as branch manager of the
24 Pac West Burbank office, where he worked managing the sales of
25
telecommunications services to corporate customers. Defendant LOUIS
26
ARRIOLA was terminated after about two months of employment for
27
suspected fraud.
28

4
1 10. At the time of sentencing in his federal felony case, the
2 government prophetically told the court that the “government views
3 defendant as an extremely high risk” of reoffending. With more than a little
4 irony, defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA’S on-line biographies now describe him as
5
a “chief operations officer…brokering major deals in telecommunications.”
6
Most recently, in his capacity as Chief Operating Officer of LDI Networks Inc,
7
another telecommunications company, defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA is being
8
sued by Alterna Capital Solutions, LLC, in the United States District Court for
9
the Central District of California, No. 2:20-cv-07277, for $6,469,958 relating to
10
the financing of VoIP telecommunications services for LDI Networks.
11
Although the complaint in Alterna Capital Solutions, LLC v. Louis Arriola does
12
not specifically allege fraud, from the facts stated therein, it appears that fraud
13
14 was involved.

15 9. Defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA founded defendant NYLA Media

16 Group, aka NYLA PRODUCTIONS, (hereinafter, “NYLA”) in 2016.

17 Defendant ARRIOLA’S involvement in the entertainment business has thus
18 far been limited to financing one straight-to-DVD movie, another movie that
19 had a very limited release, and a Spanish language film. On information and
20 belief, although he had nothing to do with the actual production of Rambo, Last
21 Blood, defendant ARRIOLA purchased a producer’s credit for that film.
22 10. Defendant CAMERON MITCHELL was, for many years, an agent
23 at Creative Arts Agency (CAA). That employment came to an abrupt end
24 when he was fired in November of 2017 for sexual harassment. In August of
25
2019, defendant MITCHELL became CEO for defendant NYLA Media Group,
26
aka NYLA PRODUCTIONS, (hereinafter, “NYLA”).
27
11. Defendant NYLA is an LLC registered in Delaware. Although it
28
does business and has offices and employees in California, it is not registered
5
1 under either “NYLA Media Group” of “NYLA Productions” with the
2 California Secretary of State as required by Corporations Code §17702.01 et
3 seq.
4 12. Defendant TARYN ARRIOLA, aka, Taryn Sims, the daughter of
5
defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA, was a producer of the film American Cherry, a
6
feature film now in post-production which is the subject of this lawsuit.
7
Defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA’S IMDb biography describes his daughter,
8
defendant TARYN ARRIOLA, as “an accomplished production designer.”
9
13. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the
10
defendants named herein as Does 1-50, inclusive, and therefore sues those
11
defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to
12
allege their true names and capacities when same are ascertained.
13
14
First Cause of Action: Fraud, Conspiracy to Commit Fraud
15
16 14. In mid 2017, plaintiff JEFF WALD obtained a script for a movie
17 then named Fishbowl. In early 2019, plaintiff JEFF WALD brought the script to
18 defendants LOUIS ARRIOLA, TARYN ARRIOLA, and NYLA who agreed to
19 make it into a movie. The title was changed to American Cherry.
20 15. At the outset of discussions regarding the production of American
21 Cherry, defendant ARRIOLA represented himself as being an honest and
22 successful businessman, someone who could be trusted, someone who would
23
live up to oral agreements. During the time the oral agreement was reached,
24
the MOU prepared, and American Cherry filmed, plaintiff JEFF WALD did not
25
know, and defendant ARRIOLA never mentioned, that he had a prior felony
26
conviction for fraud.
27
16. During the negotiations for the production of American Cherry,
28
defendant ARRIOLA willfully concealed his status as a fraudster for the
6
1 purpose of inducing plaintiff JEFF WALD to do business with him. Given that
2 defendant ARRIOLA’s conviction was for fraud, had plaintiff JEFF WALD
3 known that defendant ARRIOLA was a convicted fraudster, plaintiff JEFF
4 WALD would never have done business with him.
5
17. In the March of 2019, after numerous texts, telephone
6
conversations, and meetings, an agreement was reached between plaintiff
7
JEFF WALD and defendants NYLA, LOUIS ARRIOLA, and TARYN
8
ARRIOLA on the terms for making American Cherry from the script secured by
9
plaintiff WALD.
10
18. On March 11, 2019 plaintiff JEFF WALD spoke with Ms. Jenny
11
Alonzo, then CEO of NYLA, to discuss the terms for filming American Cherry.
12
Defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA was brought into the mix by telephone. As a
13
14 result of that meeting and telephone calls to defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA, an

15 agreement was reached on the essential terms for the producer’s fees for

16 American Cherry.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 Exhibit A, Excerpt of transmittal e-mail
27
28 19. The parties’ oral agreement was memorialized in a Memorandum

7
1 of Understanding (hereinafter, "MOU"), attached as Exhibit B. On information
2 and belief, the MOU was drafted by an attorney representing defendants. The
3 MOU set forth the terms for the production of American Cherry.
4 20. The MOU set the fee for a script writer, Marcella Cytrynowicz at
5
$50,000. On information and belief, defendants LOUIS ARRIOLA and NYLA
6
paid Ms. Cytrynowicz $50,000 for her work as a script writer.
7
21. The MOU also set the fee for Ms. Cytrynowicz’s work as the
8
director of American Cherry at $75,000. On information and belief, defendants
9
LOUIS ARRIOLA and NYLA paid Ms. Cytrynowicz in accordance with the
10
terms set forth in the MOU.
11
22. The MOU set the fee for Sarah May Sommers for her work as co-
12
producer at $20,000. Defendants LOUIS ARRIOLA and NYLA paid Ms.
13
14 Sommers $20,000 for her work as co-producer of American Cherry.

15 23. As set forth in the MOU, defendants NYLA, LOUIS ARRIOLA,

16 and TARYN ARRIOLA agreed to pay plaintiff WALD the sum of $100,000, in
17 increments of $25,000, to act as a producer for American Cherry. The producer’s
18 fee for plaintiff JEFF WALD included compensation for acquiring the script
19 for American Cherry.
20
21
22
23
24 Excerpt of Exhibit B, the MOU

25
26 24. From the time the MOU was drafted by counsel for NYLA and sent

27 to plaintiff JEFF WALD, March 12, 2019, to date, the MOU has neither been

28 modified nor disavowed, either orally or in writing, by any of the parties

8
1 thereto. Rather the false promises of payment set forth therein were used by
2 defendants ARRIOLA and NYLA to induce plaintiff JEFF WALD into
3 providing producer services without paying him the agreed upon fee. On
4 information and belief, and consistent with his prior history of fraudulent
5
dealings, defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA never had any intention of paying
6
plaintiff JEFF WALD his full fee as per the MOU.
7
25. Prior to the start of the filming of American Cherry, defendants paid
8
plaintiff WALD $25,000 in accordance with the terms of the MOU. Although
9
the MOU called for plaintiff WALD to be paid an additional $75,000 in $25,000
10
increments, by the time principal photography concluded, defendants, and
11
each of them, had failed to pay plaintiff WALD anything in addition to the
12
original $25,000 that had already been paid. To date, defendants, and each of
13
14 them, have refused to make any further payments to plaintiff WALD that they

15 were contractually obligated to pay.

16 26. One of plaintiff WALD’S responsibilities as a producer was to

17 recruit talent for the film. Defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA wanted “Tier I” talent.
18 While that was a laudable goal, given that defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA’s
19 involvement in the movie industry was of very recent vintage, defendant
20 LOUIS ARRIOLA apparently was unfamiliar with the contemporary pay scale
21 of “Tier 1” actors in Hollywood.
22 27. Defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA had champagne tastes which he
23 attempted to satiate with a self-imposed beer budget. After the MOU was
24 drafted, defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA cut the budget of American Cherry by
25
$1,000,000, almost in half. Although plaintiff JEFF WALD put his best effort to
26
acquire talent for the movie, defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA rejected many of the
27
actors that plaintiff WALD had recruited, either because they were too
28
expensive or, if the price was right, defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA rejected the
9
1 actors offered by plaintiff JEFF WALD as insufficiently glamorous.
2 28. As an example of the former, plaintiff JEFF WALD recruited
3 Marissa Tomei, who agreed to be in the film for $300,000 instead of her usual
4 $1,000,000 plus fee; she was rejected by defendants ARRIOLA as being too
5
expensive. Rather than raise his budget or lower his “standards.” Defendant
6
LOUIS ARRIOLA decided to “shoot” the bearer of bad tidings and refused to
7
pay plaintiff JEFF WALD the rest of his contractual fee.
8
29. Despite defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA’s reluctance to pay for what
9
he wanted, plaintiff JEFF WALD was able to secure the services of Marcella
10
Cytrynowicz, the director of American Cherry, Hannah Griffith, a
11
producer/actress, Geoff Goodman, a producer, Matty Cardarople, an actor,
12
Larsen Thompson, an actor, and Audrey Holcomb, an actor. Plaintiff JEFF
13
14 WALD also secured the involvement of Jennifer Esposito, an actor who starred

15 in Crash, the winner of the 2006 Oscar for Best Picture. However, Ms. Esposito

16 backed out when the defendant NYLA revised the script.

17 30. On information and belief, at the time the agreement set forth in
18 the MOU was made, defendants NYLA, LOUIS ARRIOLA, and TARYN
19 ARRIOLA, and each of them, had no intention of paying plaintiff WALD the
20 producer's fee of $100,000 that they agreed to in the MOU. Rather, defendants
21 NYLA, LOUIS ARRIOLA, and TARYN ARRIOLA conspired with each other
22 and with persons unknown to defraud plaintiff JEFF WALD of his
23 contractually agreed upon fees for serving as a producer of American Cherry.
24 31. Defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA’s false promise that he would
25
plaintiff JEFF WALD for his services as a producer and subsequent refusal to
26
honor that contractual promise constituted an “unfair practice” within the
27
meaning of that term as used by Civil Code §3345 in that it “caused one or
28
more senior citizens…to suffer loss…of income.” (See also Bus. & Prof. Code
10
1 §17200.)
2 32. In detrimental reliance on the oral promises of employment and
3 payment made by defendants and memorialized in the MOU, at the beginning
4 of the summer of 2019, plaintiff JEFF WALD traveled to Fayetteville, Arkansas,
5
where American Cherry was being filmed.
6
33. In detrimental reliance on the oral promise of payment, as
7
memorialized in the MOU, plaintiff JEFF WALD spent six weeks on the set of
8
American Cherry in Fayetteville fulfilling his contractual obligation to act as a
9
producer.
10
34. Defendants NYLA and ARRIOLA engaged in a pattern of
11
fraudulent and otherwise reprehensible conduct during the filming of
12
American Cherry. Defendants ARRIOLA and NYLA attempted to defraud Ms.
13
14 Sommers, the female lead, of her contractual fee for acting. Just before she was

15 going to do a scene, defendant TARYN ARRIOLA came to Ms. Sommers

16 bearing a large stack of papers that had tabs for where she was supposed to
17 sign. Defendant TARYN ARRIOLA falsely told Ms. Sommers, who was 21 at
18 the time, that plaintiff JEFF WALD, her father, knew about the papers, that
19 there was just a name change, and that he had read and approved of the
20 papers. In truth, plaintiff JEFF WALD had neither read the documents, nor
21 was he aware of their existence. He certainly did not approve of them.
22 35. Moreover, rather than a simple name change, the papers that
23 defendant TARYN ARRIOLA tricked Ms. Sommers into signing were drawn
24 up for the purpose of reducing Ms. Sommers salary from $40,000 to $18,000
25
for portraying the female lead in American Cherry. The Screen Actors Guild
26
(hereinafter, “SAG”) was contacted. On information and belief, SAG told
27
NYLA and defendants ARRIOLA that if they did not restore Ms. Sommers’
28
salary, they would lose their deposit with SAG. Ms. Sommers salary was
11
1 restored.
2 36. Defendants ARRIOLA and NYLA hired Geoff Goodman as a
3 producer for American Cherry. His fee was set at $75,000 in the MOU.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Excerpt of Exhibit B, MOU
11
Defendants, and each of them, were well aware that Mr. Goodman had been
12
13 working on the script for American Cherry for approximately a year prior to the

14 commencement of filming and his fee was set, in part to recognize the value

15 of that work. Just before the actual filming started, defendant TARYN
16 ARRIOLA informed Mr. Goodman that defendants were unilaterally reducing
17 his fee from $75,000 to $12,500 and that if he did not agree, he would not get a
18 producer’s credit. Mr. Goodman was thus coerced into agreeing to the reduced
19 fee.
20 37. On or about August 14, 2019, defendant CAMERON MITCHELL
21 became the CEO of defendant NYLA.
22 38. On or about August 25, 2019, after the principal photography of
23
American Cherry was completed, plaintiff WALD asked defendant LOUIS
24
ARRIOLA for the rest of his fee. Defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA refused, falsely
25
stating that “I don’t owe you any money!!”
26
39. On or about September 21, 2019, plaintiff JEFF WALD and
27
defendant MITCHELL spoke on the phone about the MOU and discussed
28

12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 Exhibit C
12
13 moneys owed to plaintiff JEFF WALD by defendants NYLA et al.
14 40. Subsequent to the phone call, e-mails and texts were exchanged. In
15 response to defendant MITCHELL’s e-mail of September 21, 2019, plaintiff
16 WALD made it clear that he was asking for nothing less than full compliance
17 with the terms of the MOU. Plaintiff JEFF WALD informed defendant
18 MITCHELL that he was demanding his whole fee, as set forth in the MOU,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Exhibit D: Plaintiff JEFF WALD Text to defendant MITCHELL

26
27 and that the fee was not subject to negotiation
28 41. On September 24, 2019 plaintiff JEFF WALD sent a copy of the

13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Exhibit E
11
12 MOU to defendant MITCHELL, who acknowledged receipt.
13 42. On or about September 25-26, 2019, defendant MITCHELL
14 ratified the terms of the MOU and told plaintiff JEFF WALD that he had “good
15 news” for him.
16 43. Shortly thereafter, defendant MITCHELL sent plaintiff WALD a

17 text indicating that the matter was settled, that someone named Randy

18 Johnson would be handling it from that point on, that Mr. Johnson would
be sending paperwork attendant to the resolution, and that Mr. Johnson
19
had plaintiff WALD’S wiring information so that Mr. Johnson could transmit
20
the money.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Exhibit F
10
11
44. On information and belief, the above representations -- that the
12
dispute was settled and that defendant MITCHELL had authorized Randy
13
Johnson to wire money to plaintiff JEFF WALD -- were false and defendant
14
MITCHELL knew they were false at the time he made them. At no time did
15 defendant MITCHELL intend to pay plaintiff JEFF WALD his full fee as set
16 forth in the MOU.
17 45. No further payment from NYLA was ever received by plaintiff
18 JEFF WALD.
19 46. Plaintiff JEFF WALD was damaged by defendant ARRIOLA’s
20 fraudulent acts vis a vis American Cherry. Because defendant ARRIOLA has
21 refused to pay him his fee, as set forth in the MOU, that he promised to pay,
22 and defendant LOUIS ARRIOLA forced him to hire and pay an attorney to file
23
a lawsuit to recover what he is owed.
24
47. The conduct of defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein
25
was willful, malicious, oppressive and despicable, performed with full
26 knowledge of the adverse effects of their actions on plaintiff WALD and with
27 willful, deliberate and conscious disregard of the consequences to plaintiff
28 JEFF WALD. As a result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, as

15
1 alleged herein, plaintiff JEFF WALD is entitled to exemplary and punitive
2 damages in an amount sufficient to punish and deter defendants, and each
3 of them, as alleged herein, from engaging in such conduct in the future, the
4 exact amount of which is subject to proof at the time of trial.

5
Second Cause of Action: Breach of Contract
6
7
48. Plaintiff JEFF WALD realleges each and every allegation contained
8
paragraphs 1-47 above and incorporates the same as though fully set forth
9
herein.
10
49. The above-referenced MOU is a binding memorandum of an oral
11
agreement that was reached on March 11, 2019 between plaintiff JEFF WALD
12
13 and defendants ARRIOLA and NYLA. The MOU set the terms for plaintiff

14 JEFF WALD’S participation as a producer of American Cherry. In reasonable

15 reliance on the terms of the MOU, to his detriment, plaintiff WALD was
16 induced to travel to and spend 6 (six) weeks in Fayetteville, Arkansas on the
17 set of American Cherry fulfilling his role as a producer.
18 50. Defendants, and each of them, breached their contractual
19 obligations, as set forth in the MOU, by failing to pay plaintiff JEFF WALD the
20 remaining $75,000 of his producer’s fee.
21 WHEREAS Plaintiff JEFF WALD prays that judgment be rendered as
22 follows:
23 First Cause of Action:
24
1. Compensatory damages in an amount of proof;
25
2. Punitive damages in an amount according to proof;
26
3. Treble Damages pursuant to Civil Code §3345.
27
4. Costs of suit;
28
5. Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.
16
1

2 Second Cause of Action

3
1. Compensatory damages in the amount of $75,000.
4
2. Costs of suit;
5
3. Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.
6
Dated: September 9, 2020
7

8 FA R RY L . M O R R I S
9 Attorney for Plaintiff
JEFF WALD
10

11

12
Proof of Service by e-Mail
13

14
First Amended Complaint

15 I, Barry Morris, declare that Iam acitizen of the

United States of America, over the age of 18 years;
16 my business address and place of business is 1407
Oakland Blvd., #200, Walnut Creek, California,
17
94596; and Iam not aparty to the within action.
18 On the date shown below, per stipulation by the
19
parties (C.C.P. §1010.6(2)(A)(ii).) Ie-mailed the
attached document to Paul Sorrell at
20 [email protected]
21

22 Executed on September 9, 2020 at Walnut Creek, CA

23 Ideclare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
24 correct.

25

26 BAl^RYL.MORRIS
27

28

17
Exhibit A
From: Jenny Alonzo <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 9:16 PM
Subject: Amended MOU for Fishbowl
To: Jeff Wald <[email protected]>
Cc: Louis Arriola <[email protected]>, David Ross
<[email protected]>, Taryn Sims
<[email protected]>, Jadyn Arriola
<[email protected]>

Jeff,

Attached is the Fishbowl amended MOU per yesterday's conversation with Louis, our
conversation this morning, and the notes you sent back this afternoon.

As you will see, the terms for producer payments are all the same. However, per Lou's
agreement with you while on the call, he will be giving you an advance of $25k upon
signage of this MOU. In addition, as agreed, Louis will be executing the payment to
secure the script/chain of title with Marcella and also release a $5k payment to get the
casting director working immediately. Until a bank account for the Fishbowl LLC SVP is
established, you will be held responsible for the $5k payment for the casting director.

Please review and make sure the rest of your team signs off on the memorandum so we
can proceed to a termsheet.

Thanks so much!

Be great!
Jenny
Alonzo | m. 917.972.4771 | e. [email protected]
Exhibit B
 NYLA MEDIA GROUP
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

PROJECT: FISHBOWL

INVESTMENT/BUDGET: $2.6M

DIRECTOR: Marcella Cytrynowicz

LEAD ACTOR(S): TBD

PRE-PRODUCTION START DATE: TBD

PRINCIPAL PRODUCTION START DATE: TBD
FILMING LOCATION: Dominican Republic

CREDITS:

The Picture shall have the following producing and company credits:
• Each Producer shall be entitled to a “Produced by” credit, with at least two
NYLA producers included in the top three positions.
• Investor shall be entitled to the following credits:
o Lou Arriola, Executive Producer in first position
o Taryn Sims Producer
o Dave Ross Producer
o Jadyn Arriola Associate Producer
o Jenny Alonzo, Executive Producer in second position behind only
Lou Arriola.
• Producer’s production company shall be entitled to a production company
credit and, subject to distributor approval, which the parties each agree to
use good faith efforts to obtain, an animated company logo at the
beginning of the Picture, and a bug logo in all paid advertising, provided
that in no event shall Investor be required to give up or reduce its logo
entitlements.
• The Director’s production company shall be entitled to a production
company credit

PAYMENT SCHEDULE:

Upon the signing of the MOU, a termsheet will be generated and the following
payment schedule will be executed according to the terms within each of the
following sections/party:

Writer: Marcella Cytrynowicz

$50,000 - Script purchase price/secure chain of title; paid when MOU is signed

FISHBOWL MOU
CONFIDENTIAL – 03.12.19
8
Page 1 of 3
Director: Marcella Cytrynowicz
Total Fee: $75,000 (1st 25% upon duly executed termsheet; 2nd 25% at start of
principal photography; 3rd 25% at end of principal photography; 4th and final 25%
when final cut is delivered.) $18,750 each installment

Producer: Jeff Wald

Total Fee: $100,000
Payment schedule as follows: 1st 25% upon duly executed termsheet; 2nd 25%
upon securing acceptable talent; 3rd 25% at start of principal photography; 4th
and final 25% at completion of principal photography, unless reshoots needed;
otherwise final payment at completion of reshoots which is the official
completion of principal photography); $25k each installment

Producer: Geoffrey Goodman

Total Fee: $75,000
Payment schedule as follows: 1st 25% upon duly executed termsheet; 2nd 25%
upon securing acceptable talent; 3rd 25% at start of principal photography; 4th
and final 25% at completion of principal photography, unless reshoots needed;
otherwise final payment at completion of reshoots which is the official
completion of principal photography); $18,750 each installment

Co-Producer: Sarah May Sommers

Total Fee: $20,000
Payment schedule as follows: 1st 25% upon duly executed termsheet; 2nd 25%
upon securing acceptable talent; 3rd 25% at start of principal photography; 4th
and final 25% at completion of principal photography, unless reshoots needed;
otherwise final payment at completion of reshoots which is the official
completion of principal photography); $5k each installment

Casting Director: $5k to start casting process; paid upon signage of MOU.

DISTRIBUTION: The financier and Producers will work collaboratively to

attain a distribution deal for the feature film.

WATERFALL: TBD

APPROVALS:

Final Cut: Company and Director shall have the right to prepare the “festival
cut” and/or “distributor screening” cut of the Picture; provided, that (i) final
cut rights may be granted to any distributor or (ii) if the Picture does not sell
based on the “festival cut” or “distributor screening” cut, Investor shall have
the right to re-cut the Picture , provided that final cut rights shall be reserved
to any distributor or Investor if necessary or desirable to effect a sale in
Investor’s good faith opinion.

FISHBOWL MOU
CONFIDENTIAL – 03.12.19
9
Page 2 of 3
Talent: Investor, Company, and Director to have mutual approval
over key cast, with Investor having tie-break in the event of a disagreement;
Investor shall have true mutual approval over the roles of “Finn,” “Dale,” and
“Louise. The role of “Eliza” will be played by Sarah May Sommers.

Music: Investor shall have the right to collaborate with Director and Company on
music direction and choices. In the event of a disagreement, Director shall be the
tie-breaker.

SUBSEQUENT PRODUCTIONS:

• The Picture shall be produced (pursuant to a production services

agreement with Licensor) an SPV formed by Company and such SPV shall
enter into all production agreements related to the Picture.
• Derivative Productions. The Licensor shall control the right to develop,
produce and exploit all derivative productions, which decision shall be
jointly controlled by Investor and Company.

ACCOUNTING: Will be handled by an accountant who will follow the

Collection Account Management (CAM) process/system.


Agreed and accepted by:

_____________________________
Jeff Wald, Producer
03.13.19

FISHBOWL MOU
CONFIDENTIAL – 03.12.19
10
Page 3 of 3
Exhibit C
From: Cameron Mitchell <[email protected]> Date: September 21,
2019 at 8:42:44 AM PDT To: Jeff WALD <jeff[email protected]> Cc: Taryn
Arriola <[email protected]>, David Ross
<[email protected]> Subject: Re: CONTRACT

Good speaking to you this morning. Sorry we didn’t connect before the
email.

Louis and I are speaking on Monday.

You and I will connect around lunch time Monday.

If you need me this weekend call my cell.

Best, Cameron
Exhibit D
On Sep 21, 2019, at 8:34 AM, Jeff WALD <jeff[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning Cameron, Let’s make this very simple and cut to the chase.

You are the CEO and per our conversation you said you understood my very
clear position.

I HAVE A VALID CONTRACT SENT BY JENNY ALONZO (FORMER

CEO) WRITTEN BY LOUIS’ ARRIOLA’S (FORMER CEO) WRITTEN BY
LOUIS’ ARRIOLA’S ATTORNEY RANDY JOHNSON AND APPROVED
BY LOUIS ARRIOLA. I was given $25,000 in writing against my $100,000
fee. I was treated with hostility on the set. My daughter was fired without
cause. Sarah and I were not invited to the producer meeting until I wrote an
e mail making clear my position. Taryn then acted professionally and invited
me to the meeting this Wednesday. I am going to use my reputation and
experience to make AMERICAN CHERRY a hit on the festival circuit and
with the public.

As you know I am represented by Patty Glaser and Howard Weitzman and

they are monitoring the situation regarding NYLA and the press and my
position.

There is no negotiation I want my contract lived up to period!!

I have nothing left to say the decision is now.

This communication is an effort to resolve this matter. I need to understand

if NYLA is going to honor my contract as per our discussion as regarding
the deadline date you and I agreed on to be paid Monday September 23rd
2019.

Sincerely, Jeff Wald

SOMMERS ENTERPRISES INC. Jeff Wald (President & CEO)

Email:jeff[email protected] Mobile:310-804-6139
Exhibit E
Exhibit F