Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin - motion to amend complaint.pdf

7/24/2019 Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin - motion to amend complaint.pdf

1/65

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Francis Malofiy, Esq.

Francis Alexander, LLC280 N. Providence Rd. | Suite 105

Media, PA 19063

T: (215) 500-1000; F: (215) 500-1005

E: [email protected] for Plaintiff

Glen L. Kulik, Esq. (SBN 082170)Kulik Gottesman & Siegel LLP

15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1400Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

T: (310) 557-9200; F: (310) 557-0224E: [email protected]

Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SKIDMORE, as Trustee forthe RANDY CRAIG WOLFE TRUST,

Plaintiff,

v.

LED ZEPPELIN; JAMES PATRICK

PAGE; ROBERT ANTHONY PLANT;JOHN PAUL JONES; SUPER HYPE

PUBLISHING, INC.; WARNER MUSIC

GROUP CORP., Parent of

WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC.;ATLANTIC RECORDING

CORPORATION; RHINOENTERTAINMENT COMPANY,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03462 RGK (AGRx)

Hon. R. Gary Klausner

NOTICE OF MOTION ANDMOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEN

COMPLAINT TO ADD

DFENDANTS; MEMORANDUM O

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN

SUPPORT THEREOF

Filed concurrently with Declarations o

Francis Malofiy and Glen L. Kulik;Second Amended Complaint; and

[Proposed] Order

Date: March 28, 2016Time: 9:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 850

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 98 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 65 Page ID #:1674


2/65

iNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pag

NOTICE .................................................................................................................... iii

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES........................................... 1

I.

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 4

III.

PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED AMENDMENT MEETS THE

REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 15 ................................................................... 8

A. PLAINTIFF ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND HASTIMELY MOVED TO AMEND. ....................................................... 10

B.

THE SAC WILL NOT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS OR

THE ENTITIES THEY USE TO AID THEIRINFRINGING ACTIONS. .................................................................. 12

C.

THE SAC STATES VALID CLAIMS AGAINST THE

ENTITIES AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMENDWILL PROMOTE JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY. .................................. 12

IV.

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 13



3/65

iiNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Pag

Cases

DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton,833 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................ 1

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 1

F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts,344 U.S. 228, 229 (1952) .......................................................................................

Forman v. Davis,371 U.S. 178 (1962) ...............................................................................................

Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc.,

170 F.3d 877 (9th Cir.1999) ...................................................................................

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc.,194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999) ..................................................................................

Miller v. Rvkoff-Sexton Inc.,845 F.2d 209 (9th Cir. 1988) ................................................................................ 1

Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose,893 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir.1990) .................................................................................

Owens v. Kaiser Fund. Health Plan, Inc.,244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001) .............................................................................. 3,

Qualcomm, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,989 F. Supp. 1048 (N.D. Cal. 1997) ..................................................................... 1

Statutes

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) ........................................................................................... 3,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) ....................................................................................................

Other Authorities

William Schwarzer, et al.,Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial 8:422 ................ 1Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, 1487 ........................................ 1



4/65

iiiNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOTICE

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 28, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. or as soo

thereafter as this matter can be heard before the Honorable R. Gary Klausner of th

United States District Court for the Central District of California, at 312 N. Sprin

Street, Courtroom 850, Los Angeles, California, 90012, Plaintiff Michael Skidmor

Trustee for the Randy Craig Wolfe Trust, will move and hereby moves for leave t

amend the operative complaint to add as defendants: Flames of Albion Mus

Limited; Succubus Music Limited; Classicberry Limited, Super Hype Tap

Limited; Sons of Binion Limited; Trolcharm Limited; JPJ Communications Limite

and WB Music Corp. (collectively, Entities).

This motion is based on the attached memorandum of points and authoritie

the proposed second amended complaint attached to this motion as Exhibit 1, th

Declarations of Francis Malofiy and Glen L. Kulik in support thereof, and all file

and pleadings in this action.

Plaintiffs counsel and Defendants counsel met and conferred regardin

Plaintiffs intent to file this motion on February 18, 2016, by telephone. Defendan

stated they would not stipulate to the amendment and will oppose the motion.

Dated: February 25, 2016 FRANCIS ALEXANDER, LLC

/s/ Francis Alexander MalofiyFrancis Alexander Malofiy, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff



5/65

1


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff seeks leave of Court to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC)

for the purpose of adding as defendants certain business Entities which are owned,controlled and operated by the current Defendants. None of these Entities were

identified by Defendants in their initial disclosures, nor have their initial disclosure

ever been amended. However, Plaintiff learned through supplemental discovery

responses belatedly served by Defendants in January 2016, and confirmed this

month by taking certain corporate depositions, that all monies derived from the

infringing work are channeled through these Entities prior to ultimately being

disbursed to the individual Defendants. Thus, the Entities are critical to the full and

proper adjudication of this case, in particular, to the determination of the issue of

damages resulting from Defendants copyright infringing actions. If leave to amen

is not granted, Plaintiff will just have to file a second lawsuit naming these

additional parties and that is not efficient for the Court or the parties.

Specifically, the proposed SAC, attached to this motion as Exhibit 1, names

the following new parties:

1. Flames of Albion Music Limited: company used jointly by Defendants

Jimmy Page and Robert Plant to collect and disburse funds associated with their

publishing rights derived from the infringing work.

2.

Succubus Music Limited: company used by Defendant Jimmy Page to

collect and disburse funds associated with his publishing rights derived from the

infringing work.

3.

Sons of Binion Limited: company used by Defendant Robert Plant to

collect and disburse funds associated with his publishing rights derived from the

infringing work.

4. Super Hype Tapes Limited: company used jointly by Defendants

Jimmy Page, Robert Plant and John Paul Jones to collect and disburse funds



6/65

2


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

associated with their performance and artist royalties derived from the infringing

work.

5.

Classicberry Limited: company used by Defendant Jimmy Page to

collect and disburse funds associated with his performance and artist royaltiesderived from the infringing work.

6. Trolcharm Limited: company used by Defendant Robert Plant to

collect and disburse funds associated with his performance and artist royalties

derived from the infringing work.

7. JPJ Communications Limited: company used by Defendant John Paul

Jones to collect and disburse funds associated with his performance and artist

royalties derived from the infringing work.

8.

WB Music Corp.: tool company used by defendant Warner/Chappell

for the sole purpose of signing publishing contracts with the other Defendants and

proposed defendants listed above in items 1 through 7.

Public available information, such as copyright registrations, as well as the

initial disclosures and other documents produced by Defendants early in the

litigation made no mention of such Entities. The first opportunity Plaintiff had to

remotely identify the Entities was in January 2016, when Defendants belatedly

produced documents regarding damages (approximately 40,000 pages). Yet, not al

Entities were identified in those 40,000 pages. It was only in their supplemental

responses later that month, that Defendants identified all Entities, and disclosed the

information which they had a duty to provide at the outset of the case. Finally, on

January 29, 2016, defense counsel stated outright that these Entities actually had a

stake in the infringing work, and thus conceded that the copyright registrations

Defendants had produced failed to identify the proper parties with economic



7/65

3


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

interests in the infringing work.1

Good cause exists to grant this motion under the extremely liberal standards

of Rule 15(a). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)(stating that leave to amend shall be

freely given when justice so requires);see also Owens v. Kaiser Fund. Health PlaInc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001). The allegations of the SAC, if proven,

would render the new parties essential to the proper calculation of damages in this

case since all monies received by Defendants derived from the infringing work are

channeled through these Entities. See e.g.F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary

Arts, 344 U.S. 228, 229 (1952).

Other factors considered by courts in evaluating motions to amend under Rul

15(a) similarly militate in favor of permitting amendment here. As noted above,

Plaintiff responsibly and in good faith relied on public records and on information

provided by Defendants to determine the parties reaping benefits from the

exploitation of the infringing work. Although Defendants knew all along that these

documents and information were outdated, they purposefully omitted any documen

which could alert Plaintiff to the existence of the Entities. Since learning of the

identity of the Entities in late January, Plaintiffs counsel, a small practitioner,

drafted the SAC, sought Defendants approval to file the SAC, and upon

Defendants refusal, prepared this Motionalong with taking depositions,

designation of expert witnesses, and other ongoing trial preparation work in this

case.

1Both the public records of the copyright office and Defendants document

production regarding the owners of the copyrights wrongly indicated DefendantSuper Hype Publishing as the publisher of the Led Zeppelin catalog. However,

apparently at some point in time, with Defendants consent, Flames of Albion Musi

Limited became a successor in interested of Defendant Super Hype Publishing.

Defendants did not disclose this information until late January 2016, and now seekto use their omission as a shield against Plaintiff.



8/65

4


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Likewise, neither Defendants nor the Entities can credibly claim any unfair

prejudice as a result of the proposed amendment. The Entities are intrinsically

connected with the Defendants. In fact, these Entities were formed for the sole

purpose of benefiting the Defendants so that they can minimize liability andoptimize their profits derived from the infringing work. Defendants and Entities

have the same interests and are likely to have the same counsel. Although Plaintiff

may file a new case against these Entities, allowing Plaintiffs to add them as

additional defendants in this case would ensure Plaintiffs claims would be litigated

in an efficient and non-duplicative manner.

Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully submits that, pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), th

Court grant the instant motion to amend.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for copyright infringement arising out of Defendants

unauthorized exploitation of Plaintiffs copyrighted material, Taurus, which was

unlawfully copied in Defendants infringing work Stairway to Heaven. The

complaint was filed on May 31, 2014; and a First Amended Complaint on October

10, 2014.

Plaintiff relied on copyright registrations and other public records relating to

the infringing work in order to determine the proper defendants in this case.

Defendants initial disclosure and other initial document production failed to

identify any other parties with interest in the infringing work. To Plaintiffs

surprise, a few weeks ago, Defendants produced documents identifying eightnew

entities with direct interests in the infringing work.

Defendants initial disclosures did notindicate any other potential parties tha

could have an interest in this lawsuit, or, more specifically, that any other party

could have any information relating to profits and losses of the infringing work. To

the contrary, their sole reference was to Ms. Joan Hudson, who was identified as th

individual Defendants accountantand as someone that may have information



9/65

5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

related to their individualexpenses.

The facts as to when and how Plaintiff first discovered the identity of the

Entities are recited and explained in the Declarations of Francis Malofiy and Glen

Kulik submitted herewith. Those declarations testify to the following.The first chance that Plaintiff had to even begin to identify the Entities was

after December 29, 2016, when Defendants untimely provided approximately

40,000 pages of discovery. Discovery requests were previously served on

Defendants on October 13, 2015, making the documents due on November 13, 201

However, Defendants refused to provide any discovery as to damages until a

stipulated protective order was signed, despite never moving for an extension. The

protective order was signed only on December 28, 2015. Defendants served the

damages discovery the next day on December 29, 2015.

As there were 40,000 pages of documents, sifting through these documents

took a considerable amount of time. Moreover, supplemental answers to Plaintiffs

interrogatories on damages were provided even later, on January 5, 2016 for the

individual defendants and January 26, 2016 for the corporate defendants. It was on

these supplemental answers that many of the Entities were identified for the first

time, but their roles were still unclear. Further, deficiencies in these supplemental

answers hindered Plaintiffs understanding of the complicated business structure

used by Defendants to reap the benefits of the infringing work and limit their

liability. For example, when referring Plaintiff to the relevant documents in the

40,000 page production, Defendants referenced tens of thousands of pages at one

time, a direct violation of FRCP 33(d), which mandates that when answering

interrogatories by referencing business documents, the references have to be of a

sufficient particularity. These generic references to tens of thousands of pages

simply do not satisfy FRCP 33(d), and in any case made it close to impossible to

speedily comb through the production. The Warner/Chappell answer directed

Plaintiff to examine documents 5,000 to 35,000.



10/65

6


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Nevertheless, because the individual defendants personally verified their

supplemental answers, Plaintiff believed they were the individuals who would have

requisite knowledge of the facts that were contained within the interrogatories.

Plaintiff intended to question the individual defendants at their depositions about thinformation that they had verified. However, at their depositionsthe last one

occurring on January 29, 2016 despite Plaintiffs insistence that it take place earlier

the individual defendants professed to be completely ignorant of their financial

situations and stated that they had deliberately done no preparation for their

depositions. They instead referred Plaintiff to Ms. Joan Hudson, their accountant.

The initial disclosures of Defendants, however, never claimed that Hudson had any

knowledge of the individual defendantsoverall financesand critically their

business entities which Plaintiff now seeks to add, through which all their profits ar

funneled. Instead, the initial disclosures only claimed that she had knowledge of

their expenses.

By that time, it was apparent that Defendants were not going to produce Ms.

Joan Hudson and they explicitly stated as much at a January 29, 2016 meet and

confer in London, England held after Plants deposition. Plaintiffs counsel even

offered to extend the UK deposition trip in order to be able to depose Ms. Joan

Hudson and/or review documents in her possession and control. Defendants

adamantly refused.

Near the end of January 2016, with the supplemental answers for the

corporate defendants, Defendants finally produced a profit and loss statement whic

is the key document which specifies how to interpret the 40,000 production.

However, even then Defendants misidentified the documents bates number, further

delaying Plaintiffs investigation. Following this, the depositions of the corporate

designees for the corporate defendants took place on February 9 and 10, 2016. It w

at this deposition that Plaintiff was finally able to interrogate employees of the

defendants who understand the extraordinarily complicated corporate ownership



11/65

7


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

schemes arranged by Defendants. Specifically, during Defendant Warner/Chappell

deposition Plaintiff was informed for the first time that Defendant Warner/Chappel

does not enter into contracts in its own name. Rather, it uses one of three separate

entities depending on whether the artist is signed to ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC.

2

Since Led Zeppelin is signed to ASCAP, Defendant Warner/Chappell uses WB

Music (one of the Entities Plaintiffs seek to add to this action) as its publishing

company. Not surprising, during deposition Warner/Chappell representative could

not confirm whether WB Music has any offices or employees, even whether or not

he was an employee of Defendant Warner/Chappell or proposed party WB Music.

Simply put: WB Music is nothing but a tool used by Defendant Warner/Chappell to

enter into dealings with Led Zeppelin.

To summarize, Defendants never identified the Entities on their initial

disclosures. Defendants delayed producing damages discovery until the very end of

December 2015. The production was 40,000 pages and was very difficult to

analyze, in particular to Plaintiffs counsel which is a small law firm with just two

lawyers. A week after producing the 40,000 pages, Defendants provided

supplemental answers verified by the individual defendants. A month later at the en

of January 2016 supplemental answers were provided for the corporate defendants,

along with the crucial profit and loss statement. It was on these supplemental

answers that many of the Entities were identified for the first time. On January 29,

2016 defense counsel acknowledged that the Entities had a direct role in the

exploitation of Stairway to Heaven. Lastly, the corporate defendants were deposed

on February 9 and 10, 2016, and definitively explained the interaction and working

relationship of all of the Entities and Defendants.

It is now apparent that although Defendants had knowledge of the relevance

of the Entities to this action, they purposefully avoided and delayed disclosing any

2Song writers are typically signed into one of these three entities.



12/65

8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

information that could alert Plaintiff to the fact that the public records were

outdated. For example, according to the copyright registrations, Defendant Super

Hype Publishing is the correct party and copyright claimant of the Led Zeppelin

catalog of roughly 87 songs. However, it is now clear that at some point in time, atDefendants direction,Flames of Albion Limited became a successor in interest of

Defendant Super Hype Publishing. Nonetheless, Defendants document production

regarding the copyright registrations wrongly indicated that Defendant Super Hype

Publishing remains the publisher for the Led Zeppelin catalog.

Defendants have a direct involvement with the EntitiesWB Musicis a

conduit through which Defendant Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. does business with

any artist who is affiliated with ASCAP. (Kulik Decl., para. 10.) At the corporate

deposition of Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., it was clear that it is a mere device in

name only and that employees of Warner/Chappell Music do all the work. (Id.,

para. 10.) Defendants knew all along of the relevance of WB Music to this case.

Defendants purposefully omitted such information. They now seek to use their

omission as a shield to Plaintiffs claims. After the close of discovery, Defendants

for the first time, contend that the Entities are the correct defendants. This Court

should not allow Defendants to benefit from their discovery violations and imprope

litigation tactics.

III. PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED AMENDMENT MEETS THE

REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 15

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend its FAC to add the Entities as additional

defendants in this suit. The Entities are intrinsically connected with current

Defendants and have played an essential role in receiving and distributing funds

derived from Defendants exploitation of the infringing work. Rule 15(a) sets a

liberal standard for amendment. As indicated by the Ninth Circuit, this policy is to

be applied with extreme liberality. Owens, 244 F.3d at 712 (citingMorongo Band

of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir.1990). All inferences



13/65

9


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

should be drawn in favor of granting the motion. Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc.

170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir.1999).

Courts generally consider four factors when evaluating a plaintiffs request to

amend a complaint: (1) bad faith or dilatory motive; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudiceto the opposing party; and (4) futility of the proposed amendment. Forman v. Davi

371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962);Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194

F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999). Each of these four factors support Plaintiffs request

for leave to amend.

Plaintiff has shown good faith. Plaintiff responsibly and in good faith

relied on public records and on information provided by Defendants to

determine the parties reaping benefits from the exploitation of the

infringing work. Although Defendants knew all along that these

documents and information were outdated, they purposefully delayed

producing documents which identified the Entities until the last possible

moments of discovery, which, they now conveniently contend are the

correct defendants in this case.

Plaintiffs amendment is timely. The first chance defendants had to

identify the Entities was in mid-to-late January 2016. It was only on

January 29, 2016 that defense counsel conceded that the Entities actuall

had a stake in the infringing work and consequently were benefiting from

it. It was only on February 9 and 10, 2016 that Plaintiff was able to

depose corporate designees about the Entities and their roles in the

exploitation of Stairway to Heaven. Plaintiff has attempted to resolve th

issue with Defendants. However, given their refusal to stipulate to the

amendment, Plaintiff was forced to prepare this Motion, the SAC

concurrently with the on-going litigation work in this case, which

includes depositions, designation of experts and other trial preparation

tasks.



14/65

10


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs amendment will not prejudice Defendants or their Entities.

The Entities are intrinsically connected with the Defendants. In fact,

these Entities were formed for thepurpose of maximizing Defendants

profits derived from their infringing work. Defendants and Entities havthe same interests and are likely to have the same counsel.

Defendants cannot meet the very high burden of showing futility in

Plaintiffs SAC. Defendants themselves claim the Entities to be the

correct defendants in this caseand although Plaintiffs may file a

separate action, granting Plaintiffs amendment will promote judicial

efficiency and a speedy resolution of the dispute between the parties.

A. Plaintiff Acted In Good Faith and Has Timely Moved To Amend.

The factors of good faith and undue delay substantially overlap. See e.g

Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, 1487 (When the court inquires

into the good faith of the moving party, it typically will take account of the movant

delay in seeking the amendment.) Courts also consider whether the proposed

amendment is interposed for some improper purpose, such as to affect the Courts

jurisdiction or for reasons of litigation tactics. See id. (if the Court determines that

the amendment was asserted in bad faith, as for example, when plaintiff attempts to

destroy the federal courts removal jurisdiction over the case by altering the

complaint so that the case will be remanded, the court may not allow the

amendment.) Here, Defendants cannot make any showing that Plaintiff has acted

in anything but good faith in pursuing this amendment. The proposed amendment

will not affect this Courts jurisdiction over this matter, and Plaintiff has no tactical

advantage to gain through this amendment. To the contrary, it is Defendants that

seek to gain a tactical advantage from their failure to promptly disclose the identity

of the Entities, which they conveniently now contend to be the correct defendants.

Plaintiff responsibly and in good faith relied on public records and document

which were produced early in the case to identify the proper parties to this case.



15/65

11


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants never identified the Entities in their initial disclosures and Plaintiff had

no reason to question the official records as they were also produced by Defendants

early in the litigation. At no time, until a few weeks ago, did Defendants mention o

disclose any documents indicating that there were other entities, in addition to thenamed Defendants, which held an interest in the infringing work.

The first chance that Plaintiff had to remotely identify the Entities was

December 29, 2016, when Defendants untimely provided approximately 40,000

pages of discovery. Plaintiffs counsel, as a small firmwith only two lawyers,

diligently worked in analyzing such voluminous record. However, many of the

Entities were not mentioned on those 40,000 pages of discovery. It wasnt until

January 26, 2016, about two weeks before the discovery deadline, that defense

counsel finally produced the most important document, a profit and loss statement,

which clearly highlighted the involvement of the Entities in the exploitation of the

infringing work.

Accordingly, it is plain that Plaintiff has acted with good faith in relying on

public records and other documents produced by Defendants early in the litigation,

and has not unduly delayed the instant motion to amend. It wasnt until a few week

ago that Defendants first produced documents identifying the Entities. Thus, there

was no delay on Plaintiffs part because it was relying on public available

information and Defendants discovery responses. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v.

Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987) (finding no bad faith and affirming

grant to leave to amend where plaintiff sought to develop evidence of wrongful

conduct before asserting claims); Qualcomm, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 989 F. Supp.

1048, 1050 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (finding no undue delay where the plaintiffs ongoing

investigation and discovery had revealed sufficient information upon which to base

new claims for relief).



16/65

12


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

B. The SAC Will Not Prejudice Defendants or the Entities They Use

To Aid Their Infringing Actions.

Defendants bear the burden of establishing that prejudice will result from

Plaintiffs amendment. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048,1052 (9th Cir. 2003). Defendants cannot possibly make such a showing. As noted

previously, Defendants all along have been aware that the public records and initial

documents which Plaintiff was relying on were outdated. The information regardin

the identity and the role played by the Entities in exploiting the infringing work,

until a few weeks ago, was in Defendants sole possession and thus inaccessible to

Plaintiff. Most importantly, the Entities are owned, controlled and operated by the

current Defendants, who use the Entities to collect and distribute funds from their

copyright infringement work. The Entities interests are aligned with the

Defendants, and thus have been protected in this action. Although Defendants may

claim otherwise, it is highly likely that if the Entities were added to this action, they

would be represented by the same counsel who represents current Defendants in thi

matter.

C. The SAC States Valid Claims Against the Entities and Granting

Leave To Amend Will Promote Judicial Efficiency.

The final factor considered by Courts under Federal Rule 15 is futility of the

proposed amendment. Where, as here, the amended complaint alleges a legally

sufficient claim for relief (namely Copyright Infringement and related equitable

relief), leave to amend should be granted. See Miller v. Rvkoff-Sexton Inc., 845 F.2

209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988). A substantive evaluation of the merits of Plaintiffs

allegations, however, would be improper on a motion for leave to amend. See

William Schwarzer, et al.,Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial 8:422 (noting tha

[o]rdinarily, courts do not considerthe validity of a proposed amended pleading in

deciding whether to grant leave to amend.)

Although here Plaintiff merely needs to show that it can allege sufficient



17/65

13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

claims, and need not provide any supporting evidence, in this case, it is undisputed

that the individual Defendants use the Entities to funnel proceeds derived from thei

infringing work. Specifically, the profit and loss statement produced by Defendant

clearly identify the entities as having a direct participation and interest inadministering and publishing the Led Zeppelin song catalog, including the infringin

work. Defense counsel admitted as much at the January 29, 2016 meet and confer

when he contended that the Entities were the correct parties. This is in addition to

the deposition of the corporate designees on February 9 and 10, 2016, who made

clear that these entities are parties and interest. These documents and depositions

reveal that the Entities directly benefited from the infringing work, as such, they are

essential parties to the proper calculation of damages in this case.

Additionally, granting leave to amend will promote judicial efficiency and

ensure the speedy resolution of all disputes between the parties. As previously

mentioned, Plaintiff will file an additional lawsuit naming these Entities as

defendants based on the recent uncovered evidence that the Entities are directly

involved in funneling funds derived from the infringing work. However, if this

Court were to grant Plaintiff leave to amend, Plaintiff would need not file the secon

lawsuit as there would be no need to proceed in litigating the dispute in two separat

forums. Thus, Plaintiff respectfully submits that the amendment will promote

judicial efficiency and ensure the speedy adjudication of all disputes between the

parties.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully request that the Court grant

the instant motion to amend.

Dated: February 25, 2016 FRANCIS ALEXANDER, LLC

/s/ Francis Alexander Malofiy

Francis Alexander Malofiy, Esq.Attorney for Plaintiff



18/65

{00283975;1}

EXHIBIT 1



19/65

1PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Francis Malofiy, Esq.Francis Alexander, LLC280 N. Providence Rd. | Suite 105Media, PA 19063T: (215) 500-1000; F: (215) 500-1005

E: [email protected] for Plaintiff

Glen L. Kulik, Esq. (SBN 082170)Kulik Gottesman & Siegel LLP15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1400Sherman Oaks, CA 91403T: (310) 557-9200; F: (310) 557-0224E: [email protected]

Attorney for PlaintiffUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SKIDMORE, as Trustee for theRANDY CRAIG WOLFE TRUST,

Plaintiff

v.Led ZeppelinJames Patrick Page

Robert Anthony PlantJohn Paul JonesSuper Hype Publishing, Inc.Warner Music Group Corp.

Parent of:Warner/Chappell Music, Inc.Atlantic Recording CorporationRhino Entertainment CompanyWB Music Corp.

Flames of Albion Music LimitedSuccubus Music Limited

Sons of Binion LimitedSuper Hype Tapes LimitedClassicberry LimitedTrolcharm LimitedJPJ Communications Limited

Defendants

No.:15-cv-3462-RGK-AGR

Case Filed:

May 31, 2014

Causes of Action:Copyright Infringement

Right of AttributionFalsification ofRock n Roll History

Jury Trial Demanded

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT



20/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PREAMBLE

1. In the summer of 1967, Randy Craig Wolfe (aka Randy California

discovered by Jimi Hendrix, was a founding member of the eclectic rock band Spirwho pioneered the psychedelic rock sound. The band fused rock and jazz an

enhanced the audio palette by incorporating mind-bending and mood-altering effec

such as the Etherwave-Theremin, delay, and distortion into their recorded songs an

live performances.

2. In January 1968 Spirit released a self-titled album named Spirita to

40 Billboard charting album. On that album was a unique 2 minute and 37 secon

instrumental titled Taurus which has a distinct-plucked guitar line and melod

Little did anyone know at the time, 17-year old Randy had created what wou

become some of the most famous guitar work in the history of music.

3. Late in 1968, a then new band named Led Zeppelin began touring in th

United States, opening for Spirit. It was during this time that Jimmy Page, Le

Zeppelins guitarist, grew familiar with Taurus and the rest of Spirits catalo

Page stated in interviews that he found Spirit to be very good and that the band

performances struck him on an emotional level.

4. Jimmy Pages use of the Etherwave-Theremin, and other psychedeli

type audio effects which helped give Led Zeppelin its distinctive soundespecial

prominent in Whole Lotta Lovewas inspired by seeing California effective

use these types of audio-enhancing effects on tour.

5. Within days after opening for Spirit, Led Zeppelin quickly began

cover Spirits songsincorporated the song Fresh Garbage from Spirits sel

titled album into their live sets. Fresh Garbage was on the same album side a

Taurus.

6. A year after touring with Spirit, Page allegedlywrote the most famou

rock song of all timeStairway to Heavenby fireside in a remote cottage



21/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Wales called Bron-Yr-Aur; it was released in 1971. It is no coincidence that th

iconic notes to Stairway to Heaven, that have enthralled generations of fans, soun

almost exactly the same as Californias ethereal yet classical guitar composition

Taurus.7. In 1996 Randy had a chance to have his say about the similaritie

between Taurus and Stairway to Heaven in his song-by-song liner notes for th

1996 reissue of Spirit,when he wrote:

People always ask me why Stairway to Heaven sounds

exactly like Taurus, which was released twoyears earlier. Iknow Led Zeppelin also played Fresh-Garbage in their liveset. They opened up for us on their first American tour.

8. However, in 1996 (printed in 1997), shortly before Randys death

when asked directly about why Taurus and Stairway to Heaven sounded simila

he said:

Well, if you listen to the two songs, you can make your ownjudgment.Its an exact Id say it was a rip-off. And theguys made millions of bucks on it and never said, Thank

you, never said, Can we pay you some money for it? Its

kind of a sore point with me. Maybe some day theirconscience will make them do something about it. I dontknow. There are funny business dealings between recordcompanies, managers, publishers, and artists. But when artistsdo it to other artists, theres no excuse for that. Im mad!

See Jeff McLaughlin, Spirits Still Willing: A Conversation with Randy

California, Listener Magazine, Winter 1997, p. 51.

9. When Jimmy Page was interviewed and asked When you wer

borrowing from classic blues songs on the first two albums, did you ever think

would catch up to you? Page answered this question as follows:

You mean getting sued? Well, as far as my end of it goes, Ialways tried to bring something fresh to anything that I used. Ialways made sure to come up with some variation. In fact, Ithink in most cases, you would never know what theoriginal source could be. Maybe not in every case but in



22/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

most cases. So most of the comparisons rest on the lyrics. AndRobert was supposed to change the lyrics, and he didnt alwaysdo that which is what brought on most of the grief. Theycouldnt get us on the guitar parts of the music, but they nailed

us on the lyrics.

We did, however, take some liberties, I must say [laughs]. Butnever mind; we did try to do the right thing, it blew up in ourfaces

See Brad Tolinski with Greg DiBenedetto, Page Delves into Led Zeppelins Rich

Past, Guitar World (May 1993).

10. This is hardly the first time Zeppelin has been accused of lifting the

most famous songs; in fact, Zeppelin has a deep-rooted history of liftin

composition from blues artists and other songwriters who they have repeatedl

failed to credit. Heres a partial list:



23/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11. Led Zeppelin is undeniably one of the greatest bands in history, an

their musical talent is boundless. However, what happened to Randy California an

Spirit is wrong. Led Zeppelin needs to do the right thing and give credit where cred

is due.

1

Randy California deserves writing credit for Stairway to Heaven and take his place as an author of Rocks greatest song.

*****

1Funds obtained from a favorable resolution of this lawsuit will go to the Randy Craig Wolfe Trust,which is run by Trustee Michael Skidmore, who has selflessly dedicated years to preserving andpromoting Randys spirit, including releasing 12 previously unreleased albums featuring RandyCalifornia. Mick and the Trust preserve Randys memory by supporting the musical aspirations ofchildren in public schools and by developing Randy Californias musicportfolio, the proceeds of whichare provided to buy children in need musical instruments.



24/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FACTSRandy California is Discovered by Jimi Hendrix

12.

Randy California was a guitar virtuoso who began playing the guitar

an early age. None other than the great Jimi Hendrix recognized his talent whe

Randy was just 15 years old in 1966 playing in a music shop in NYC.

13. Hendrix recruited Randy to play in his band Jimmy James and the Blu

Flames. They played together in Greenwich Village and Randy was invited b

Hendrix to join the newly formed Jimi Hendrix Experience in London. Randy d

not go with Hendrix because his family was concerned that Randy was just

teenager and needed to finish his schooling.

14. It was Jimi Hendrix who nicknamed Randy Wolfe Randy California

a pseudonym Randy used for the rest of his life.

15. Not only did Jimi Hendrix recognize the talents of Randy, but so d

Jimmy Page, having been influenced by Randys use of the Theremin, delay, an

distortionas well as other mind-bending and mood-altering psychedelic effec

that are now common in rock and pop music.

Formation of Spirit

16. In 1967, guitarist Randy Craig Wolfe (aka Randy California), started

band named Spirit with four other musicians: Mark Andes (bass), John Jay

Ferguson (vocals), John Locke (keyboard), and Ed Cassidy (drums). Randy was ju

16-years old at the time.

17. Spirit was an eclectic band with an amazing group of musicians th

developed the psychedelic rock sound. Spirit was one of the first bands that fuse

rock and jazz by enhancing the audio palette by incorporating mind-mending an

mood-altering effects such as the theremin, delay, and distortion into their songs an

live sets.



25/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18. Spirit released its self-titled debut album Spiritin January 1968, whic

broke Billboards Top 40.

19. After the release of the album Spirit, Spirit went on to release more tha

twenty albumsalbeit in different configurations of the bandincluding thcritically acclaimed The Family that Plays Together, Clear, and Twelve Dreams

Dr. Sardonicus(which went Gold).

Creation of the Song Taurus

20. On Spirits self-titled album was a unique 2 minute and 37 secon

instrumental titled Taurus which was written by Randy California in the summe

of 1967. The song has an ethereal, distinct plucked-guitar line and melody. Randwrote the song as a tribute to his bandmates who he loved and cared for deeply

some of them sharing the astrological Taurus sign.

21. Spirit played Taurus at almost all of their concerts in the late 1960

and at many of their concerts in the early 1970s, where the song played a key role

the bands set list. The song often followed an up-beat and heavier tune, and th

allowed the fans an emotional and expressive break in the set.

Spirit and Randy Sign Songwriting & Recording Contracts

22. On August 29, 1967, Randy (16 years old) signed an Exclusiv

Songwriters and Composers Agreement with Hollenbeck Music.

23. The song Taurus was written by Randy before the August 29, 196

Songwriters Agreement and is not and cannot be considered a work for hire.

24. On August 29, 1967, Randy signed an artist recording contract wi

Ode Records, Inc., along with Mark Andes (19 years old), Jay Ferguson (20 yea

old), John Locke (24 years old), and Ed Cassidy (44 year old).

25. By the express terms of the Songwriters Agreement and Recordin

Contract the contracts were not valid unless approved by the court.

26. No court ever approved these contracts and are therefore void.



26/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27. Furthermore, the age of majority in California in 1967 was 21 (Stat

1973, ch. 278, 1, p. 674 [former Civil Code section 25.1]).

28. Randy, Mark, and Jay were minors at the time these contracts we

signed and they are void.29. Randy, Mark, and Jay did not have the legal capacity to enter into thes

contracts and are therefore void.

30. In addition, all assignments and subsequent assignments of the rights

these contracts are void as they were not approved by a court.

31. Moreover, both the Songwriters Agreement and Recording Contra

have been superseded in many ways by the provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976

32.

To the extent Hollenbeck Music claims to retain any interest

Taurus, it has abandoned, forfeited, and waived these rights by failing to protect o

enforce the Taurus copyright.

33. The publisher who allegedly contracted with Randy, Hollenbeck Musi

has no rights or interests in Taurus becausethe contracts are void for a number

reasons, some of which have been already stated.

34.

The copyright registration of Taurus lists Randy California as th

author and copyright claimant. Taurus was registered with the Copyright Offic

on 02/05/1968 (Reg. No. EU0000035222), and renewed on 01/11/1996 (Reg. N

RE0000725888).

Led Zeppelin was Opening Act for Spirit in 1968

35. In late 1968, a British band named Led Zeppelin played its first conce

in the United States.

36. Not yet immortal rock legends, Led Zeppelin opened for Spirit o

December 26, 1968. Spirit played Taurus at this show, as it did in most of i

concerts that year.

37. In 1969, Spirit and Led Zeppelin performed together several mor

times. Spirit played Taurus at many of these shows.



27/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

38. Jimmy Page and Led Zeppelin were fans of Spirit, were aware of the

album, and were influenced on an emotional level by their performances an

recordings, so much so that they would go to watch Spirit perform in concert.

39.

One such example is on February 6, 1970, when Robert Plantanpossibly other members of Led Zeppelinattended a Spirit concert. Following th

show, members of Spirit and Plant met up to play Snooker in a pub. Later that nig

Plant was injured in a car crash and hospitalized for facial injuries.

Spirit Influenced Led Zeppelin and Jimmy Page

40. Zeppelins guitarist, defendant James Patrick Page (Jimmy Page

commented in a 1972 interview that Spirits performances were very good anstruck him on an emotional level. See Pete Frame, My Back Pages, Recor

Collector Magazine p.74 (May 2008), originally printed in Zig Zag Magazin

(1972).

41. Due to the bands close relationship in 1968 and 1969, and Page

comments, it is beyond reasonable dispute that Defendants heard Spirit perfor

Taurusnot only in concert but also from Spirits album.

42. Not only did Zeppelin hear Spirit perform Taurus and other origin

songs, Zeppelin actually covered Spirits song, titled Fresh Garbage in a medle

called As Long As I Have You, at concerts during this time.

43. The book Get the Led Out: How Led Zeppelin Became the Bigge

Band in the World by Denny Somach details how Zeppelin started to use Spirit

material.

December 26 All four members of Led Zeppelin met up inDenver, Colorado, where their first show on American soil wasto take place. They were opening for the bands Spirit andVanilla Fudge. Led Zeppelin was not even listed on the bill forthis show.

. . . .



28/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

December 30A concert with Vanilla Fudge and Led Zeppelintook place at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington . . . .An audience tape of Led Zeppelins performance from that

showthe earliest audience tape of a Led Zeppelin show incirculation among bootleg collectorsreveals that John Paul

Jones had already begun playing the bass line that SpiritsMark Andes played during the song Fresh Garbage.Thetwo groups had shared the bill in Denver four days earlier.Jones was using it in part of a heavy rock medley Led Zeppelinextended on a near-nightly basis over the following months.Page 19.

44. Merely 4 days after opening for Spirit, Zeppelin had already lifte

Spirits material for their live sets. Zeppelin continued to use Spirits song Fres

Garbage in many of their live shows in 1968 through 1970 including it as part of

medley.

45. Spirit and Randy Californias influence on Defendants was by n

means limited to one or two songs. After having witnessed Randy use th

Etherwave-Theremin in concert, defendant Page was determined toand eventual

purchase onewhich in addition to delay and distortion-type effects, helped Pag

develop Zeppelins distinctive unearthly and psychedelic sounds.46. In When Giants Walked the Earth: A Biography of Led Zeppelin b

Mick Wall, it is noted:

Sometimes [Zeppelin] would even purloin material from one of

the other bands on the bill, as when Spirit joined the VanillaFudge tour for a few dates and Zeppelin took to incorporatinginto their set snatches of Fresh Garbage from the debut,

eponymously titled Spirit album. Page was also taken with

Spirit singer-guitarist Randy Californias use of a theremin,which he had mounted atop his amplifier or sometimes down byhis foot pedals. . . . . It wasnt until he saw Randy Californiausing one that he decided he wanted one too , buying his firsttheremin in New York at the start of the bands second US tourlater that year and initially using it to enhance the extended jam-section finale of Dazed and Confused, and later a more famous

effect on the recording of Whole Lotta Love. (Vanilla Fudge

drummer Carmine Appice would later claim that Page also



29/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

adapted a section of another, less well-known Spirit number,Taurus, from their first album, for the five trademark chords ofStairway to Heaven, an allegation we will return to in due

course.). Pages 99100.

47.

Led Zeppelin recorded the albumLed Zeppelinin October 1968, befohaving encountered Spirit and Randy California.

48. Led Zeppelin conceived of and recorded Led Zeppelin IIin 1969, aft

playing with Spirit.

49. There is a noticeable difference between the two albums as Le

Zeppelin II made heavy use of psychedelic audio effects, delay, and distortion

especially in Whole Lotta Lovethat characterized Spirit and Californias musi

These effects were largely absent from Led Zeppelin I, and almost entirely abse

from Pages prior recordings before Led Zeppelin.

50. There is thus an overwhelming amount of evidence that Spir

contributed not insubstantially to the development of Led Zeppelin as a band

helping them create and carve out their distinct soundand especially with the son

Stairway to Heaven.

Jimmy Page & Robert Plant Write Stairway to Heaven

51. Having toured with Spirit, and after Zeppelin completed their fif

American concert tour in April 1970, Jimmy Page and Robert Plant sat fireside in

remote cottage in Wales called Bron-Yr-Aur and allegedlywrote the song Stairwa

to Heaven.

52. Defendant Jimmy Page is on record commenting how he alleged

created Stairway to Heaven. In short, Page has stated that he always kept

cassette recorder around, and the idea for Stairway to Heaven came together from

bits of taped music:

I had these pieces, these guitar pieces, that I wanted to puttogether. I had a whole idea of a piece of music that I reallywanted to try and present to everybody and try and come to



30/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

terms with. Bit difficult really, because it started on acoustic,and as you know it goes through to the electric parts. But wehad various run-throughs [at Headley Grange] where I was

playing the acoustic guitar and jumping up and picking up theelectric guitar. Robert was sitting in the corner, or rather

leaning against the wall, and as I was routining the rest of theband with this idea and this piece, he was just writing. And allof a sudden he got up and started singing, along with anotherrun-through, and he must have had 80% of the words there ... Ihad these sections, and I knew what order they were going to goin, but it was just a matter of getting everybody to feelcomfortable with each gear shift that was going to be coming.

See National Public Radio, Guitar Legend Jimmy Page (June 2, 2003).

53.

Defendant Jones claims he first heard Stairway to Heaven after Pagand Plant returned from the Welsh cottage:

Page and Plant [came back] from the Welsh mountains with theguitar intro and verse. I literally heard it in front of a roaringfire in a country manor house! I picked up a bass recorder and

played a run-down riff which gave us an intro, then I movedinto a piano for the next section, dubbing on the guitars.

See Chris Welch, Led Zeppelin, pp. 6061 Orion Books (1994).

54.

The song began recording at Island Records studio in London

December of 1970, and was completed in 1971.

55. The song was released on an untitled album in 1971, commonly calle

Led Zeppelin IV.

56. It quickly became Led Zeppelins most famous song, and is universal

acknowledged as one of the greatest songs ever written.

57.

Parts of Stairway to Heaven, instantly recognizable to the music fanacross the world, sound almost identical to significant portions of Taurus.

58. Any reasonable observer, when comparing Taurus and Stairway

Heaven, must conclude thatat the very leastsignificant portions of the song

are nearly identical.



31/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

59. Stairway to Heaven was registered with the Copyright Office o

01/20/1972 (Reg. No. EU0000301137), and renewed on 01/05/2000 (Reg. N

RE0000819939).

*****



32/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THE PARTIES

Michael Skidmore Skidmore

60. Plaintiff Michael Skidmore is the Trustee for the Randy Craig Wol

Trust.

61. Skidmore is a resident of Quincy, Massachusetts.

62. Randy Craig Wolfe died in 1997 saving his son from being swept out

sea. The Randy Craig Wolfe Trust was established by Bernice C. Pearl, the moth

of Randy Craig Wolfe, as conservator of his estate by court order on February 1

2002. Upon her death, Michael Skidmore, in his capacity as Trustee, continued th

administration of the Trust.

63. Mick and Trust preserve Randys memory by supporting the music

aspirations of children in public schools and by developing Randy California

music portfolio, the proceeds of which buy children in need musical instruments.

64. After the Trust was formed Randys son received a large sum of mone

as a settlementwhich allowed the Trust to continue helping children.

65.

The Randy Craig Wolfe Trust retains 100% of the interests to Randy

intellectual property, inclusive of but not limited to copyrights, music

compositions and sound recordings, and all pecuniary benefits related theret

inclusive of the right to the copyrights, interests, and benefits from the exploitatio

of the song Taurus.

66. Funds obtained from a favorable resolution of this lawsuit will go to th

Randy Craig Wolfe Trust, which is run by Trustee Mick Skidmore, who ha

selflessly dedicated years to preserving and promoting Randys spirit, includin

releasing 12 previously unreleased albums featuring Randy California.

Led Zeppelin Zeppelin

67. The English rock band Led Zeppelin formed in 1968. The ban

consisted of Jimmy Page (guitarist), Robert Plant (singer), John Paul Jones (bassi



33/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and keyboardist), and John Bonham (drummer). The group's guitar-driven soun

rooted in blues and folk music, is considered by many to be a key influence in th

emergence of heavy metal.

68.

Originally called the New Yardbirds, Led Zeppelin signed with AtlantRecords in 1968. Zeppelin achieved significant commercial success with album

such asLed Zeppelin(1969),Led Zeppelin II(1969),Led Zeppelin III(1970), the

untitled fourth album (1971), Houses of the Holy (1973), and Physical Graff

(1975). Their fourth album, featuring "Stairway to Heaven," is revered by th

musical world and helped to cement the popularity of the group.

69. Page composed most of Led Zeppelin's music early onin addition

being the bands producerwhile Plant wrote the lyrics, including the words f

Stairway to Heaven. The latter half of the band's career saw a series of recor

breaking tours that earned them a reputation for excess and debauchery.

70. Led Zeppelin are widely considered one of the most successfu

innovative and influential rock groups in history. All nine of the bands stud

albums reached theBillboardTop 10 with six peaking at number one. Rolling Ston

magazine described them as unquestionably one of the most enduring bands in roc

history. Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1995, the museum

biography states that they were as influential in that decade [the 1970s] as th

Beatles were in the prior one.

71. Zeppelin infringed upon the composition of Taurus when ban

members Page and Plant allegedly wrote Stairway to Heaven.

72. Zeppelin profited from the infringement and exploitation of Tauru

when Led Zeppelin released Stairway to Heaven to the public and failed to cred

compensate, or remunerate Randy.

73. Zeppelin exploited the musical composition of Taurus witho

authorization.

74. Zeppelin exploited the musical composition of Stairway to Heaven.



34/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

75. Zeppelin exploited the sound recording of Stairway to Heaven.

76. On information and belief, Zeppelin does substantial, continuous, an

systematic business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

James Patrick Page Page77. Defendant James Patrick Page is the guitarist and the lead and foundin

member of the rock band Led Zeppelin.

78. Page is listed as a writer for the song Stairway to Heaven.

79. Page infringed upon the composition of Taurus when he and Plan

allegedly wrote Stairway to Heaven.

80. Page profited from the infringement and exploitation of Taurus whe

Led Zeppelin released Stairway to Heaven to the public and failed to cred


81. Page exploited the musical composition of Taurus witho

authorization.

82. Page exploited the musical composition of Stairway to Heaven.

83. Page exploited the sound recording of Stairway to Heaven.

84.

On information and belief, defendant Page resides in Kensingto

London, England and in the United States.

85. On information and belief, Page does substantial, continuous, an


Robert Anthony Plant Plant

86. Defendant Robert Plant is the singer and member of the rock band Le

Zeppelin.

87. Plant is listed as a writer of the song Stairway to Heaven.

88. Plant infringed upon the composition of Taurus when he and Pag

allegedly wrote Stairway to Heaven.



35/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

89. Plant profited from the infringement and exploitation of Taurus whe

Led Zeppelin released Stairway to Heaven to the public and failed to cred


90.

Plant exploited the musical composition of Taurus withoauthorization.

91. Plant exploited the musical composition of Stairway to Heaven.

92. Plant exploited the sound recording of Stairway to Heaven.

93. On information and belief, defendant Plant resides in the United State

in Austin, Texas and in England.

94. On information and belief, Plant does substantial, continuous, an


John Paul Jones Jones

95. Defendant John Paul Jones is the bassist and member of the rock ban

Led Zeppelin.

96. On information and belief, Jones aided and encouraged th

infringement of the composition of Taurus when Page and Plaint allegedly wro

Stairway to Heaven.

97. On information and belief, Jones profited from the infringement an

exploitation of Taurus when Led Zeppelin released Stairway to Heaven to th

public and failed to credit, compensate, or remunerate Randy.

98. Jones exploited the musical composition of Taurus witho

authorization.

99. Jones exploited the musical composition of Stairway to Heaven.

100. Jones exploited the sound recording of Stairway to Heaven.

101. On information and belief, defendant Jones resides in England and

the United States.

102. On information and belief, Jones does substantial, continuous, an




36/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Super Hype Publishing, Inc. Super Hype

103. Defendant Super Hype is a publishing company which exploits music

worksmusical compositions.

104.

Super Hype was formed and is 100% owned, operated, controlled, anmanaged by defendant Page.

105. Super Hype is the publishing company responsible for publishing th

musical compositions of defendant Led Zeppelin and defendant Page.

106. Super Hype exploited the musical composition of Taurus witho

authorization.

107. Super Hype exploited the musical composition of Stairway

Heaven.

108. Super Hype exploited the sound recording of Stairway to Heaven.

109. On information and belief, Super Hype is a New York corporation.

110. Super Hypes catalog of songs is administered by defenda

Warner/Chappell Music, Inc.

111. Super Hype does substantial, continuous, and systematic business in th

Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Warner Music Group Corp. WMG

112. Defendant WMG is a large music industry powerhouse that provides a

services related thereto which comprise three main divisions: recording, publishin

and artist services.

113. WMG owns defendants Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., Atlant

Recording Corporation, and Rhino Entertainment Corporation.

114. WMG exploited the musical composition of Taurus witho

authorization.

115. WMG exploited the musical composition of Stairway to Heaven.

116. WMG exploited the sound recording of Stairway to Heaven.

117. On information and belief, WMG is a Delaware corporation.



37/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

118. WMG is the parent of defendant Warner/Chappell Music, Inc.

119. WMG is the parent of defendant Atlantic Recording Corporation.

120. WMG is the parent of defendant Rhino Entertainment Company.

121.

WMG does substantial, continuous, and systematic business in thEastern District of Pennsylvania.

Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. Warner/Chappell

122. Defendant Warner/Chappell is a global music publishing company th

exploits musical works.

123. Music publishing involves the acquisition of rights to, and licensing o

musical compositions (as opposed to recordings) from songwriters, composers o

other rights holders.

124. Warner/Chappell holds one of the worlds largest collections of music

compositions, ranging from well-known standards to new songs by emerging artist

Warner/Chappell is home to a wide array of legendary songwriters and a rich catalo

of contemporary hits and influential standards. With a history that dates back mor

than 200 years and offices in more than 40 countries, Warner/Chappell provide

expertise across a range of creative services and the most innovative opportunitie

for songwriters and copyright holders.

125. Warner/Chappell currently publishes and administers music from Barr

Gibb, Beyonc, Bruno Mars, Eric Clapton, fun., Gamble & Huff, Green Day, JA

Z, Katy Perry, Led Zeppelin, Lionsgate Films, Madonna, Miramax Films, Mus

Radiohead, Red Hot Chili Peppers, R.E.M., Roc Nation, Stephen Sondheim, T.I

Timbaland, and Wayne Hector, among many others.

126. Warner/Chappell exploited the musical composition of Tauru

without authorization.

127. Warner/Chappell exploited the musical composition of Stairway

Heaven.



38/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

128. Warner/Chappell exploited the sound recording of Stairway t

Heaven.

129. Warner/Chappell is a subsidiary of defendant WMG.

130.

Defendant WMG is the parent of Warner/Chappell.131. Warner/Chappell administers defendant Super Hypes catalog of song

132. On information and belief, Warner/Chappell is a Delaware corporation

133. Warner/Chappell does substantial, continuous, and systematic busine

in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Atlantic Recording Corporation Atlantic

134. Defendant Atlantic is a record company engaged in the business o

developing artists, and in the business of creating, manufacturing, selling, an

distributing musical works compositions and musical sound recordings.

135. Led Zeppelin, Page, Plant, Jones, and John Bonham (decease

drummer) were all signed to Atlantic and Atlantic was the record company wh

develop the band Led Zeppelin and assisted the band in creating, manufacturin

selling, and distributing the musical compositions and sound recordings of Le

Zeppelin.

136. Atlantic manufactured, sold, and distributed Led Zeppelins four

album, known as Led Zeppelin IV, which included the musical composition an

sound recording of Stairway to Heaven which infringed upon the music

composition of Taurus.

137. Atlantic owns the master recording(s) of the albumLed Zeppelin IV.

138. Atlantic owns the master recording(s) of Stairway to Heaven.

139. Atlantic was founded in 1947 by Ahmet Ertegun and Herb Abramso

(later joined by Jerry Wexler, Nesuhi Ertegun, Tom Dowd, and Arif Mardin) as

one-room operation in New York City that was dedicated to finding, recording an

promoting independent R&B and jazz. The label had its first hit single in 1949 wi

Stick McGhee's "Drinkin' Wine Spo-Dee-O-Dee" and soon after was catapulted int



39/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

one of the pre-eminent companies in the rapidly evolving music industry. Today

remains recognized and revered around the world as being synonymous with artistr

and quality.

140.

Through the years, Atlantic recordings have had a profound impact othe development of modern music, while entertaining and engaging listeners wit

songs that have rooted themselves in our collective consciousness. Atlantic's ric

history is distinguished by an array of legendary artists who broke new ground an

set new musical standards, among them such icons as Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin

John Coltrane, and Led Zeppelin.

141. Atlantic continues to be marked by musical diversity, embracing

spectrum of chart-topping performers who span the contemporary pop, rock, R&B

and hip-hop landscapes. Today the company is home to many of the world's mo

popular recording artists, among them Bruno Mars, fun., Flo Rida, T.I., Wiz Khalif

Portugal. The Man, B.o.B., Halestorm, Trey Songz, James Blunt, Phil Collins, Dea

Cab for Cutie, Lupe Fiasco, Kid Rock, Matchbox Twenty, Jason Mraz, O.A.R

Plies, Sean Paul, Shinedown, Staind, Rob Thomas and many more.

142.

Atlantic exploited the musical composition of Taurus witho

authorization.

143. Atlantic exploited the musical composition of Stairway to Heaven.

144. Atlantic exploited the sound recording of Stairway to Heaven.

145. Atlantic is a subsidiary of defendant WMG.

146. Defendant WMG is the parent of Atlantic.

147. On information and belief, Atlantic is a Delaware corporation.

148. Atlantic does substantial, continuous, and systematic business in th


Rhino Entertainment Company Rhino

149. Defendant Rhino develops defendant WMGs vast catalog o

extraordinary artists in the United States, as well as providing support and assistanc



40/65


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to the company's frontline labels. The division, which includes Rhino Record

WMG Custom Products, and WMG Film, Television & Commercial Licensing, als

develops new catalog-related business opportunities across Warner Music Grou

and with third-party companies.150. Rhino exploited the musical composition of Taurus witho

authorization.

151. Rhino exploited the musical composition of Stairway to Heaven.

152. Rhino exploited the sound recording of Stairway to Heaven.

153. Rhino is a subsidiary of defendant WMG.

154. Defendant WMG is the parent of Rhino.

155.

On information and belief, Rhino is a Delaware corporation.

156. Rhino does substantial, continuous, and systematic business in th


Flames of Albion Music Limited Albion

156a.Defendant Albion is a company jointly used by defendants Jimmy Pag

and Robert Plant to collect and disburse funds associated with their publishing righ

derived from the infringing work, Stairway to Heaven.

Succubus Music Limited Succubus

156b.Defendant Succubus is company used by Defendant Jimmy Page

collect and disburse funds associated with his publishing rights derived from th

infringing work

Sons of Binion Limited Binion

156c. Defendant Binion is the company used by Defendant Robert Plant t

collect and disburse funds associated with his publishing rights derived from th

infringing work.

Super Hype Tapes Limited Super Hype Tapes

156d.Defendant Super Hype Tapes is company used jointly by Defendan

Jimmy Page, Robert Plant and John Paul Jones to collect and disburse fund



41/65

23PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAI

Documents

Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin - motion to amend complaint.pdf