0A/00/2013

72:.I9:2'l FAJ' 213249999A

N A T I O N W I D EL E G A L

o(00iPY
SUMMONS (crTActoNJUDtctAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AWSOAL DEMANDADO): BEN DONONVAN, an individual; LISA DONOVAN, an individual; YOUARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTTFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDQ EL DEMANDANTE): SCOTT KATZ, an individual; DEREK JONES,an individual; WILL WATKINS, an individual; and DANNY ZAPPIN, an individual
You have beensued.The @un mav youWlhout agalnsi yourbeingheardunless you Additional PartiesAttachment form is lsoaoP t uso Dt coFr9
FOR COUR' USE O'{IY

OF

5?0r3
John A. Clarke, Execr.rtive ByAmber Hayes. Deputy

You have 30 CAENDAR DAYSafler this srmrnonsand legatpapersare servedon you to 6tea writtenresponseat lhjs courl and havea copy servedon lh plaintilf.A bner or phonecell \Nillmt protectyou. Your w'itlen response;L6t b in properlegatform if you want tl|e colrl ro naryour You canfnd thesecourt foms ard m-ore idorm;tion al the Catitornia co{,rts 9a19 Tlere maybe a coun tormthal you can usetor your response. C"ll", (wwetcourlinlo.ca.govl5enre/p), your countylaw libfary,or the courthouse nearestyou. tfyou cannolpay lhe fting fee, ask Yl"T Ylt--!,:! lhe coun derKlor a lee waiver rorm. lf you do not file your responseon tide, you may lose lhe caseby uefail, arxi your wagei, nrcney,ano property may be takenwilhoutfurtherwamingfromthe coui. You maywantto crll an aitomeyrbht away.tf you do not know an attomey,you may wart to cal an aflorney - There are other legal requhements. refenal seMce lf you cannol affordan alloroey,you may be eligiblefor hee tegaliervices from a nonpront tegd #riices program.you can l@ate groups.althe CalitornraLegalServices thesenonp_rofit Web sita (wvr^rl.lawle lpcatitotnia.oql,ltg Calif;miaC;uds OnlirE Se[:LHelp Center ca gov/sei[ie/p) or by conlactin-g your local courto( counly bar associalioo. \vtww.countnto NoTE: The courl has a stahJtory lien ior w?ivedfees and costson any sttlernerior arbitralionawatdot $10,000or morein a civil case.lhe courfs lien mustb paidberorelhe coui wifl dismissthe c6se. iAwsol Lo handenadacb si no rcsponckdentrode 30 dtas,ta coie pte* decdir en su contta sin escueha, su @rsi6n. Leata inlotmacpna Tiene30 DlAs DE 'ALENDARI' despLds de que b entreguenesta cit*i5n y pepebs tegalespata presenlatuna respuesta pot escnto en esta cqte y hacerque se entegue una copia al denadante. I)na cafta o una llMlada tebl6nicano b r,t/i&en Su respuesi por eicrito Erc que estar s, dese, guerlocesen su cesoen ta corte.Es Ftosibte que heydun totmiratu que uaea iueda isa, $n su n"p*"t". 1! l!!:y enconiar F:l Pry"19 ruede estosfotmulanosde h coie.y nes en el Canbodc AyEa de tas Coftes& Catilotni (vvww.gucr[te .ca.govt,en E .infonnacian bibliotecd de leyesde su condab o en la coie quele quede mes cerca.Si nopuede pag la cuotade prcsfitaci5n, pba al sacqtafi a" u *rt" que.9 d6..un fomuFlo * exenciSn pago ale ctecuofas.si ro p.rserla su re sprcsta6 Enpo, prcaeper*r et caso potircumplimienloy b cottete pod6 quitat su sueldo,dinercy bienessin mes advertencie. Hay otros tequisitoslegales Es econehalableque tlamea un abogadoinmediatamente, si no ranoce a un abagealo, puecte ltamar e un sa.ydb de remisi6na abogados si no puedepagar a un ebc6/acto, es posibl, quecunpta con tos rcquisnosparaobtenerseibios tegates gntuitostb un ptwrama de seNicitss I'egalassin frnesde lucto. Puedeencontar estosgtv\s sin fircs ie lucroen et sitb webde Calto;ta LeAatSeNrces, r t.fawhefpcafifomia on), en el centro de AWdade tas coftes de caifomia,l\ry$rw.sucorte.ca.gov.) 11^ o poni4dose en cont*t;con ta coneo et Autso: Por tev,ta cotle tienederechod reclamarias crrctasy bs c&t& er entosporimprcr w gravalnensobte i!:9::,!::ryyt,b"abs. gl0.o0o cuaquer rccupeBcbn de 6 mes(k vabr tecibic,,medianteun acuerdoo una concesi6n de annaie in un csaae *-recho cvil. T'rJne que pqar et gravemenclela cone an/sde que la coftepueda desechar el caltr..

FFI

\JJ

Fn

The nameandaddress of the courtis:

tr::,},X,"trg CS13Z g4

(f_ot proof of seNiceof lhis summonquse proof of5e@ (Para pruebade antega de estacitatjdn proolof Servic useellotmutatio ofSummons, (pOgOtO)). you areserved NOTICE TO THEPERSON SERVED: ISEAL] 1. as an individual debndant. 2. E as the personsued underthe fictitous nameof (specit)r 3. E on behalfol (specit); CCP416.60 (minor) CCP416.70(conservatee) (authorized person) CCP416.90

25 ?013 JuN
Fm Adoptedt6 Mandetqy Us Jrldiciarctunor ol calrffia suM-roo iRv.Jlry 1, 20091

under:E CCp 416.t0 (corporation) E (detunct Ccp 416.20 corporation) fl E (association CCP416.40 or pa.tnership) E f] other (specit)i E 4. E bypersonat detivery on (dafd: SUMMONS

Cod ot CNit Prdrbr

55 412 20,465

Le'i' Ne,8s AutonaIe.tc aV- ^' ", * ifi V;Y,[!i F3ii3' "a

o a/ o a/ 2 a 1 3 1 2 : 7 9 : 2 ' l F P J . 2 \ 3 2 4 9 9 9 9 0

NATIONI"iI DE LEGAL

Katz, et al. v. Donovan,et al.

INSTRUCTIONS FORUSE ) Thisformmaybe usedas an attachment to anysummons if spacedoesnotpermit the listing of all parties on the summons. is used,insert + lf thisattachment the following in the plaintifi "Additional statement or defendant boxon thesummons: Parties Attachment formis attached." List addilionalparties(Check onlyonebox.Usea separate pagefor eachWe of party.):

euintitt

Defendant f]

cross-complainant E

CroseDefendant

YNON KREIZ, an individual; MARK SUSTER. an individual: DANA SETTLE,anindividual; RACHEL LAM, an individual; MICIIAEL DISANTO,an individual; DONALD LEE, anindividual: GRPPARTNERS, L.P.,a Delaware LimitedPartnershiD: GRPIII, L.P.. a Delaware Limited Partnership: GRPIII INVESTORS. L.P.,a Delaware Limited Parrnership; MIDA HOLDINGSCALIFORNIA,INC.,a Califomia corporation; ANGULO VENTURES Il, LTD., an Isleof Mancorporation; MAKER STUDIOS, INC.,a Califomia corporation; andDOES I through 50,

Page
Folin Adoptedtd Mandabry u* Judidal Cootrir of Carilmia St]lr,i.2oqa) lRev Jatusry r, 2oo4

of

ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT

Attachment to Summons
LdisNertt@,lutonakd Col{ornto Judi. ial Council Fortu

elrld.a1rl\llllar

i-ira,rt

I t

(rM,at

llllU&&.IrD

NOTICE OrcAsE ASSICNMENT.I'INIIIi{ITED CIvrL C SiE(NON-CI1\SS ACTTON)

CercNurabcr
Yotlf cttGlt lttlrcd for dl lotlorlt to ti. lrdldrl ofaltr hrlqbd bclot c,ocrl Rrlc !{cD. Tlcrc lr rrllldout bforordor or tt rr'?rrc drlc-ot6L forE.

r'lrgElrEm,f,Es*vqownarmspMlroNs^rrpcoi,p,^,*r B C5 1 3 Z g q
DEPT
I

ASSIG'NED 'I.'DCE Hor. Drdcl Bucllry

Hoo. BnbNn.A" Mcicrs

ROOM 511 636 300 107 309

ASSIGINED II'DGE l!on. Mc,hecl Johuon IIoo. Rrlph w' Dau llon Rolf M. Trar Hoo.Mchrcl L. Stcrn Hon.Mrrt Mooocy Hon W'rllianF.Fahcy Hon Soussr!C. Brugucra Hon.RuthAu Kwrn Hon.Tcrcse Srnclrcz-Gordoo

DEPT 56 57

ROOM 511 517 515 600

12

,,llon TcnyA Grcoo Hoo.RicnrrdFruin

llol. Rita Millcr

A
tt)
l6

5E 6t 6t
69 7l 72 74

6t7
621 729 7tl 135

Hoo Ri&ardE Rico Hon.KcvinC.Brazilc Hon.Robcrt L. tlca: Hon MaryAm Murphy

Hotr. YYctlG M. Prlizrclos

t7
20 21 25

309

3r0
314 317

2t 30
12

3tr
400 406 4t2 4t{ 411 416 529

Hoa Bubrra Sc,hcpcr Hor Mtry lL Stobl Hon lvlaurcco Dufr -l,awi:
Hoo. Michcllc & Roscobld

Hon. Emilie H. Eliac

t24
321

ccw
ccw

3t
40 4l 12 45 17

Hou. Elihu M. Berle*

OTI{ER

l|or tromldltL Sohigi& Ho!. Ho[y E.Kcodig Hon.Mcl Rcd&ccrna

Ho!" DGbr"Kltz Wcirrr8ub

sqt
506
J0!)

Ho!. Eliz!ffi Allcn Whitr Hon Dcirdrc Hill

Hou loh L Scgrl HoD.AbnhrD Xhln Hoo" Su$n Br',&t-Dc8so[ Hotr. Stcvcot Kleificld

4t
49 50 JI 52 53 51 55

50t

5n
510

5r3
5t2 515

Ho[" Encrt tvl Hirosbitp Hon Mrlcolmll Ma&y

l! c!.lhrtl*d r conptr (o[r [nn cht| ,.dootr|.t_frlhfyrdt- b JraF E&r I. ffi h Oryrlt:r ta oldi. Crtd Chl h.t Coul|out 8. Gor comltnii-Avr" ll Alt h.lto+ Thr-rrrbitdt b tu c.-FrDo;r. otrrrr;lr!firo?nloicr.E-corfrf,rhn;l5a dcrbrnt i!r! o, c!{4 nt lro. o?rrlht c| ri. o{tson ofrn-rrnurrt prqii a,-.tiJlrr iii nry r nc$l r cn dr. t|t- dd; aE;titd; mdodtb r adrth ir hd oltlcl

Givon to thc Pl'inrifi/Cro$4onphimdAttomcy of Rrcordon

l cN cclt.t90 (R.Y. o.t/12) |ItlC Apprlwld 03{! Foroilbnrlthr

JOHN A. CLARKE, Exccrnivc OEccr/Clat

P|e lof 2

NOTICE OFCASE A8SIGI{HENT. UNUTITEDCMLCASE

INSTRUCTIONSFOR EANI'LING I'IILMITED

CTVIL CASES

Thc followingcriticalptovisions of thc Chapter ThrccRules, asopplicablc in thc Cenral Distric! aresunmarizcd for yourassistanc. APPLICATION ThChaptdThrccRulca werocffcctivcJanuary l, 1994.Thcyapplyto all gencral civil casas.

PRIORpY OVEROTmR RITLDS

Thc Chaptcr Tbrec Rulcs priorityoverall oftcr LocalRules shallhave to thc oxtcntthc others areincongistoni. CEALLENGE TO ASSICNEDJI'DGE A challn8c undcrCo& ofCivil Proccdurc scction 170.6 nust bc mado within 15 daysafternoticcof assigamat for sll purposr to ajudgc,or if a partyhas notyct appcard within 15rlays of thc 6r3tappcanDce. TIME STANDARDS Cascs assigncd to thcIndividual Calendaring Courtwill bc subject to procG$ing urder thc followingtimostandards: COMPLUNTS: A[ conPhintsshallbc served within60 rtays of filing audproof of scrvice shallbe filcd within90 rlays of firing. CROSS-COMPIIIINTS: Withoutleaveof coudfirst bcingobtained', no cross-complaint nay bc frlodby anyparg afrcrthcir shallbe servcd within30 rlays of thc filiry dateandi proofo*crvicc nd witliir 60Aays orru ll:wcr. is filcd. Cros*omptaints filing datc. A Status Confcrcocc will bc schcthrled by tho assigncd Indepcrdcnt Calcndar Iudgcno laterrhan270 daysafrcrtbc fiting of th6 'n'st bc fully prcparcd Coungsl to discuss thc following issues: altcrnative disputc resolution, bifilc*ion, ,aiu."ot, :9Tp.l"iot tisl datc,andcxpcrtwitncsscs. FINAL STATUSCONtrT,RENCE Thc.Couft will rcquircthc prdica at a stans confercnce not Dorcthatrt0 daysbcforE thc tial to havctimlyfilcd rnd scrvcd all motions in liminc,bifurcation notio,ns, staiemrts ofmajor cvidcntiary issues, dispositivc motions, rcqueocdJuyinrtuCions, anrf jury vcrdicts, Thesc andspccial mattcrs maybo heardind rcsolvcd at tis ionrorcircJ.At lea* i'days lPTitl lYy instuctions beforpthis conftrcnco, couBcl mustalsohavecxchrngcd lists of cxiribig and wibcsscsaudhavosubmittod to Oc courta kicf statcmrot oftho case to bcreadto thejury panclasrcquired by Chrptor Eigbtofthc LosAngeles Supcrior CourtRulcr. SANCTIONS Thocourtwill imposc smctiorsfor lhc failurcor rcfisal to conplywith ChrptcrThrccRulcs, rypropriatc ordcm mratc bythcCour! ad timc rtandtrd8 c dcadlinos cstablishcd by thc court or by tc Ctapti'ftrcc nUir. Suchsanctions nay t" on a p"rty ot ii approprialc on coutrsol for tbc party. Thk k not r complctcdclherdo! of tbe Chrptcr Thrcc Rulcs,rnd rdhcrcncc onl5r lo thc abovcprovklonr lr thcrcforc rot r Su.nntcc agrinrt tte lnporition of crncdon! undcr Trirt Court Dcley Redncfiol. Cucthl rcrding and complirnce with thc rcturl Chrptcr Rulcr h ibsolutcly impcrrfivG.

tACtVCCH tgo (Rry.0l/t2) t^ltC Apglovld 05.06 Fo. O0lbn.l U|.

NOTICE OF CASEASSIGNTENT UNLIT|TEDCMLCASE

P4.2ol2

VOLUNTARY EFFICIENT LMGANON STIPUI.ATIONS The EarlyOrganizational Meeting Stipulation, Discovery Resolution Stipulation, andMotions in Limine Stipulation are voluntary stipulations entered intobytheparties. Theparties may enterinto one, two, or all three of the stipulations; however, they may not atter the stipulations as written, because the Court wants to ensure uniformity of application. These stipulations are meantto encourage cooperation between the parties and to assistin resolving issuesin a manner thatpromotes economic caseresolution andjudicial efficiency. The following organEationsendonsethe goal of promotingefficiencyin litigationand ask that counsel considerusrng fhese stipulations as a voluntaryway to promotecommunications and procedures among counsel andwiththecouttto faifly resotue issues ih theircases. OLosAngeles County BarAssociation Litigadon SectionO
SogirT|r c|lro.||b D.i|[. Co||rul

gsFrbr Counof crltto|nh

Co||nly d L'6 Al|i.l..

La Arf0|r Co||nly &a lraocdo0 Lltlfrto|t S.cdon La Anirh. Gounty E|r^raocllbn lrbor |nd Eitpbyrr.nl bu S.ctlon

conMar Atio.rrya AraocLlbn of Lo3Ar|!.N-

Ti-Ll$

-5U:
AtaocLaloo ol Eurlmaa Tfil lrty.[

I LosAngelee County BarAssociation LaborandEmployment [-awSecflonO OGonsumer Attornys A$ocia0onof LosAngelesO OSouthem Callfomla Defense CounselO OAssoclatlon of Business TrlalLawyersO lcallfomia Employment Lavr4yer AssoclatlonO

brrt-orr

ar lQ

IELCPHO{E M).I E{r |LlmnE88 (Otlo.d] AITOfifiEY Fm rtrl:

COURI}IOUAE ADRSES:
Frt tll|fFl OGfE OA{T:

FrJ(r|(,. |o!dod!

SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA" COUNTY OF LOSAI{GELES

- EARLY STIPULATIOI.I ORGANIZATIONAL IIEETING

crsEra.|aB

Thb :tlpuletlon lr Intended to encourag.coop.ra8onemongfre par{er at an e.rly tt.g. In thc lhlgauonandto ar:lrt the prrtl.s ln efrlclentcere relolutlon. The pardo. ag.eethrt: 1. The parties commltb conduc{an initial conbrence (in-pe6on or vla teleconfererrce or vla videoconference) withln 15 daysfrom the dab thls sdpulation ls slgned,to discussaN @nstdef wllitl7r therccenb gf//,emant on the follovving: a' Ars motlom to challengeo| plesdings necessary?lf the issue can b rssotvdby amendrnent as of dghl or lf the court would allow leav to amend,could an amended complsint rsolvemostor all of th lssuosa demurrer mlgtrto0rerwlse rabe? lf so,th6pertios agreeto workthroughpleadhglssuesso that a ddnurr ndontyraislssug5theycannot rssdve. ls th lssuethatth defsndmtseekato ralseamenable to-rsolutbn on demuner. or would someo'0lrtypo of motbn be preferable? could a volurfiary targetedexctungeof dotlments or lnbnmdon by any partycrrae an uncertalngin the pleadlngsi b. Inltlal muhlalo(changEsof documentrs at tho 'cors' of the li0gauon. (For xample,in an employmor case, th employmen! records,p.sorml ffe and 'core.' ln a prsonatdodimonts rotatingto th6 conduc{h queston coutd be considered Injurycase. an Ini{dentor police ropott medlcal records,and repair or malntenance recordscouH be consHEred 'cors.'); c. Erchange of namsandcontact lrforimtlon of wilrpsses; d. Any insurance_ agreomer|t 0rat may be avalhHe to sadsfypart or alt of a judgmant, or to indemnfi or eimbursofor payments .n8deto satisfya judgmnt; e. Exchange of atry oiher informatlon that mightbe helpfut to hdfitate urderstandhg.hendting, or resoludon of the caseln a manner that prsrrcs obFlms or prlvlleges by agr&menr; f' Conlrolllng lssuesof lil that, lf aesotved early,wll pro.not eftderrcyand economy in other phases of thacase. Arso,wftenard rrowsictrr$us canb presenH to tre court; g. whother or when the case,should b 8chdutd sritha so sner officr,what discweryor courtrullngon legallssuesls reasonadylequirodto makosatttement disanssions meaninjful, and whetherth parih wlsh b uso a sltdngjudgeor a privalemadlator or otheroptiorsas

tgrrmt:

c Itn

dls@ssed ln the :Altema0ve Dbprte RecoMlon(ADR)InbrmationPactag'sotvd wih the comdalnt h. Computrthnof damages, Inctudlng documenbnot pfullegedor proteci8d fromdbcbsure,on wtrlchsuchcomputadon ls b$ed; l. Whelherhe case ls sultablofor tre Expedibd Jury Trlat procsdures (se inlbmatlon at ws.l.suo.dotco,trlom under'Ctvlt ard thonunder'Gerrst lnfomatlufl. Tho ltrnotor s dehndingpartyto rspond to a oomdalntor cross-complsint will b6 xbnded tor tho complaiGand br lhe cross. {|r6Eit o^rEl (ntCiT D rEl comdaht,whichls comprlsd of tha 30 daysto rcspondunderGovomrneflt CodeS6861qb), and lhe 30 days permitted by Codeof ClvXprocedure goodcausehaving secdon10$4(a), beenfourd by the CM Supwlslng Judgedue b Orecasmanagomnl provHad benetita by lhls Stpdallon.

to

3.

4'

Th Pard6 wll prcparsI Jolntrgottti0ed'Joint Stata ReportRrlsuantto InltlalConferorrce and EarlyOqanlzdoml MeetingSfputadon, a.d f deskd,a p.lpocd ordrsummarldng resullsof hdr metand conferand advlslngth court of any way lt may asslsthe par es; fficiet conductor rssolutbnof th. cas. Th padbs sha0ettech0lo JointStafusRportto the Case Manegff|ont Conferencestatsmont,and file the documnts whn th CMC statament b due. Refercnces to 'dap' meancalendar days,unlessolherwlse nobd, tt th d8b br perfoming anyacl pursuadto thls stpulationfalls on a sat rdey,sundry or court holhay,thenthedmL br performlng thet aci shallbe xterddto the nexlCcrrt day

Thfollillng par$6 stiputate:

Dat : Oat :

CTYPEoRPRftT|-wEJ(rYPEORP]MIAME -

(IYPEORPR|NTNAilI)-

(ATTORNEYFMoEFE|\m
(ATTORNEY FOROEFEMANT)

Dala: (TYPEORPRI|\TNAME Oab: (ATTORNEYFOR

@ Oele:
r.lAitE)-fiYP ORPRrNT

(ATTOR}YFOR
(ATTORNEYFOR

I
)
W.2aI2

rlLa |lar rrl..l(t

Attltltr

q t.|ti{nacn

AnQft

l|l^lrr|r5

hl6lEt-

IEIEPHO{E O.: pdon 0: |LAOoRESS AlTfirCY FOR tta.|rl

FAf ||O. (Ordqd!

SUPERIOR COURTOF CALIFOR}IIA" COUNTY OF LOSANGELES

PIANNFFi OEFETq^!|I: ct6EaatER

. DISCOVERY SNPULATIO!{ RESOLUNON

Thlr ltlpulailon |r lntended lo provldo a fart and lntorm.l rerotutlon of d6covery l:suct through llmltcd paperwork and rn tnforunrl conference wlth thc court to rld ln the resolutlon of the lr:uet. The partler agree that: 1. Prior to the disooveryqrt-off in thls action,no disovery nrotionshall be filed or hearduntess the.mgvtngpady first makesa wdttenrequstfur an lnfuirnatDiscovery pu6uant Confersnog to the terms of this stipulation. 2. At !h9 lnfonlal DiscoveryConference the Gourtwill consklerthe dlsputepresented by partios and determinowhetherit can b resolvedinformally. Notring set forh h'ereln wilt precludea p"t!-y fto|n maftinga record at the condueion of an InfornralDiscovryConferenoe, either orallyor in writhg. 3. Followlnga reasonabland good faith attemptat an inbrmal rcsolutinnof eadt issu to be prsenled,a pady rnay rquostan InformatDiscoveryCmference pursuantto the followlng procedures: a. The partyrequostingth lnformalDiscoveryConference will: i' File a Requast for tnbrmal Drscoveryconference wlth the derk's office on the appoved fom (copy attached) and ddlver a couriosy, confonned copy to th aseigned depariment; lncludea brlef summaryof the disputeand specifi the relief requested; and $rve the opposingparty pursuantto any auttprized or agreedmethodof service lhat ansuresthat the opposingparty receivesthe ReqwJt for InformalDiscovery Confornc no laterthan the next court day folowlng the filing.

il. ili.

b. Any Answrto a Requestfor tnformalOiscorrery Conferenca must l. ii. Also be fild on lhe approvedform (copy attached); Includea brief summaryof why lhe requestadreliefshouldba denM;

90lll'|r&

c^llrn

ill. iv.

Be filed withintwo (2) courtdaysof recelptof the Request; and party F,rsuant to any authorizedor agreed upon Be served on th3 oppoGing method d servlcethat ensursthat the opposingparty ,scives the fursfler no laterthan th nod courtday followingthe fillng.

c. No oh6r pleadings, indudingbut not limited to exhibiE,declaraUons, will or atladrrnents, be accaptd. d. lf the Coud has ncrtgrantedor denied the Requestfor lnformatDiscoveryConference within ten (10) days followingthe ffling of the Request,then it shalt be deemedto have been denled, lf the Court acls on tho Request,the padies will be notifed whetherthe Requestfor lnformal DiscoveryConferencehas been grantedor dnid and, if granted, the date and time of the InformalDiscovery Conference, which must be wilhin twonty(20) days of fte fillng of the Requestfor InformalDiscovery Conferance. e. lf the conferencels not hetd within twenty (20) dalls of the filing of the Requestfor Informal DlscoveryConfrence,unless extendedby agreementof tre parties and lhe Cou( then lhe Requestfor the lnformalDiscoveryConferencesha be deemedto haw beendenied at thattime. lf (a) the court has denleda conferenceor (b) one of th tim deadlinesabove has expired withoutthe corrt havlngacted or (c) the tnfiormal Dlscovery conferenceis concluded wilhout esolving the dlepute,then a party mayftle a discororymotionb addrs unresolved issus. The partes hereby further agree that the lime for rnaking a rbtofl to compet or other 9t""g"erv motion is tolled from th dat6 of fiting of tha Request br lnfonnal Discovery conferenceunlil (a) the requestis deniedor deemeddeniedor (b) twenty(20) daysafter the fflingof the Requestfor InformalDiscoveryGonference, whidrevei is earliei, uirbs! extended by Orderof the Coud.. It is the undersliandirgand intnt oJ the partiesthat this stipulatbn shatl, for eadr discovery dlsputelo whidl lt applles, consttut a writing rnernorlalizing a 'spocific tater dato to whictr the progoqnding party hav6agreod in lor d.nsndingor requestinglpartyand the responding rwifing,'-wihin the meaningof Code Civil procedursec-tions 2030.300('c), iOSt.eeOlcl,anO 2033.290(c). Nothinghereinwill pndude any party ftom apptyir ex pa a for app,opriatretief,inc-tudirB an otder shortening time for a rnotionto be head concamlngdiscovoi.

7. Any party may tsrmlnate this stipulationby giving twonty{ne (211 dayenotice of intent to
terminatethe s$pulatlon. 8. References b'days' mean calendardayt, unlessothorwisnoted. lf th date for performing any act pu6uant b thls stipulationfalls on a Saturday,Sundayor Courtholiday,then the time for parformlng that act shall be extandedto the neld Courtday

ffU^ffiLnt

- DlscOvERY SnPULATION REsoluTlot{

P.!r2d3

atrttfi|&

CAIIIE!

Thc followlng parllet rtlpulatc:

FORF|.^AT'FI GTT(NNEY

(flPoR PRr t r{^rF)

(^rr(nreY Fd oEFEr|xrTi
( rTGt{EVFoRoFEl{o$tD

Date:

(IYFEfi PnNt l{rrG)

(rtPEoRPfl r rurr)

06fE oarirt l TroorEYFoR

(ATTORIEYFG I

Date:

GYPeORFRr|ttarEF -__-

(lYPe Fnhlt tmE

GrroanYFoR

-T ----

il5i'fi,lii'wrr

SnPULAnON-D|SGOVERYRESOLUnON

P.C. 3 ol3

|9E rro^ltf,]ta(t

rll

ry|! a^r|tll

ut^ltrat

Ia.r-nrn I

hlGlltts

cotJRmouaE ^DoREs&
FIAIIITIFF:

suPERloR couRT oF qALtFoRiflA, COUNTY oF LOS AI{G|ELES

ftrPffrlE ro.: E A[rooiEeg (Olbtt.t] AITSIIEY Fori {fLrt

frlx XO.(Otabd}

DEFE 4l|T:

(prnsuant to he qFcowry R$oluton Stipttadmof th6partie3)

INFORIIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

rolateslo:

c -rlrB

1. Thb

2. Deadllne for court to dedde on Roqust

ll|R.q|t!tl.

E U

Requecn br lnbrrnal Dbcovry Confererrce fuiswer to Roqitost for Informat Discovery Conference
d firsr d.b r0 dr.t . d.r roro*rer,fire
{lt!n d|b 20 c.brd.r

3. Deadlln for Courtto hold tnbrmatDbcoreryConference:

drF lblo.rhe fr|e of h fbqr[ll

4. For r Rqued for lntorm.l Dlrcovery conference, lgtgft dorcrtbc tho netun of tho dlrcovery dltpu!9, Includlng the frc{a end legal argulnentr at t!.u.. For an Anawer to R.quo3t ior Infonnel Dbcovery confonnco, !dg0r dercrtb. why the court rhould dcny the r.qu$t d dl.covery,Includlngthefactr and lcgil argumentrit lsur.

(puFuentto hc DbcovoryRosolutiatS0plation of tn parties)

r.^f aD Aqlla

c rttoatc

t rtYrrflc,t

Inhtt

b-rldrtl-

[_

E{r^|-AmRE$r |o*.d} AtTdrY Fm 0arDt

ADORESA COIJR?HOIJEE

1EIEPHOG O.:

FX(i|o.(ryrd}

SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA,. COUNTY OF LOSANGELES

rrE|ao xr

- IJ|OTIONS SNPULATIONAND OROER II{ UMINE

Thfe stlpulatlon ls Intended to provlde fact and Informal resolutlon of svldentlary lilue3 lhroughdlllgenteffortsto dellne8nd dlscuri such lseuosand limit paperwork. Thepartlesagreethal: 1. At least days beforethe final stahrsconference, sscfi party will provideall other pafllee with a llet contalnhga on paragraph explanation of each proposedmotionln limine. Eachoneparagraph explanation mustldentify the substance of a singleproposd grounds motionin limineand the for h6 propossd rnotion. 2. The partiesthereaftarwill m6et and confer, either In prsonor via teleconference or vidooonference, concomlng all proposed motions in limine. In that meetandcmfer, the partleswlll determln: a. Whetherthe parUes can stipulatsto any of he proposedrmtions. lf the partbs so stpulat,theymay llle a sdpulation andp'roposed orderwiththe Court. b. Whetherany of the poposed motionscan be Mefed and submittedby meansof a chortjolnt statemsnlof issues. For sacft motionwhicfrcan be addressed by a short of issues,a shortjoint statemnt of issuesmustbe f,ledwlththe Court Jcintstatement 10 dayEprior to the linal status conference. Each side's portion of the shortjoht slatement of issuesmaynot exceedthreepgges. The partes will meetand conferto agreeon a date and mannerfor exchanglng the parties'respectiveportlonsof the shortjoint stiatemnt of issuss and the pmoossbr filing the shortJointstatement of is6ues. 3. All poposedmotions In liminsthat are not eitherthe subjoctof a stipulatbnor briefedvh a shortJolnt statement d lssueswill be briefedandfitedin accordanoe with the Catifornia Rulesof Courtandthe LosAngelesSuperlor CourlRules.

ffiyrifilffiL,,

snputAnoNAt{D oRDERitonorrsrt LrrtNi

.".rn"

actlln^

c l||rta

Thefollowlngpartlesetlpulate:
OaL:
fiYPE ORPRINTMME)

(ATToRNEY FoHPI^NNFF' (ATTORNEY FOR OEFENbMT (^TTORNEY FORDEFilDAMT(ATTORNWFOFEEFENDA^'T)

NAME fiYPEoRpFrr,f

D8t :

@
Oato: t\iArr/iEFYPEORPRINT ORPRINT NE'E GYPE -

(ATTORNFTFOR

6rveeonnarNiWfTHECOURTSO ORDERS. Date:

(ATToRNEYFOR

JTI)ICIAL OFFICER

Pq.2oa2

0O/40/2073

72:.19:21 Ftrx 2132499990

NATION!i]DE LEGAL

nfDOPvz ._.__.,\9VU_ U
rsffL'Ido t.:?ftRffi ".'ffi f pg16'Jy''T8$l'dff "-"*, MICF{ELMAN& ROBINSON. t-t-P
l5?60 Venrura Blvd., 5thFlr., Encino, CA 91436 Encino,CA 91436 rerecrore ro, (818)783-5530 raxxo.(818)?93_550? ArroRNE FoR Plaintiffs.Scott a,vM): Kalz,; DerekJones; Will WatkiDs: andDannvZabDin suPERroRcouRT of cAuro ntn,cou,gry oaffi srRET amREss: I I I N. Hill StMATUNGAoDRESS: I I I N. Hill St. crrY aNo zrp cooE: LOS AnSeleS 90012 aaelcn lr,,ue, Centralbistrict - Stanley Mosk Courthouse
CASE NAME:

Tffimff,
JUN 2 5 2013
John A. Clarke, Execudve Ollicer/i ByAmber Hayes. Deputy

Katz, et al. v. Donova!, et al.

E CIVIL CASE COVERSHEET unri.n"d limrtea I (Amount (Amount demanded demanded |s exceeds $25,000) $25.000 or tess) ComplexCaseDeslgnatlon

tl

CounGr

T]

Jolnder

Filed with first appearanceby defendant J U D G E \ J v Y r r b L (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) Items 14 below must be comDleted kee instru.Jions 1. check one box below for the case type that lest CEicriOes ttris case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally ComploxClvll Lltlgadoo eu,o 1uz; n Breadrof contractA&arranty E (06) (Cal.Rulesot Court rulos 3,400-3,403) Uninsured L-l molorisl (46) Ll Rute3.710 co eaiors tOgt AntitrrstrrraOe fl reoulatron {03) OrherPUPDMD(Prsonal lnl!ry/prope.ry (O9l E Other mflect,ons con.,r"ton c"t"a ttot f] DamagMrong{ut Death}Ton ,n.ur"n"" -uur"ou,,u, E (lo) D u""" to.t ote,"*r,"a1oi' fl (28) Scurities lirhation f] H 1*:''::(*] (24) liabilily L--l Prodrrcl RealproDertv Environmentarfoxrc E tort(:ot malpractic L-J Medical (,r5) E-.nin;l domain/tnveEe fl Insurance Ll coveraqe datms arstnotromthe Other P|/"D/WD (23) condemnation (14) LJ aboveIsted pfouaronally _ cornpteicase (41) types (Othe.l To.t eviction(33) L---l Vvtongful PE-PIIPD/WD L-l Otherreal properly(26) Businesstoruunfairbusiness praclice(04 Ll p{rcement of JuOgrnent L-l Clvil rights(08) l-J Entorcemenl of judgmenl(20) !!!!w'ut Deratner L-J Defamatton (13) fl Commerciat(31) l{iscellaneous Civll Comptaint LXJ Fraud(ro) Residenriat(32) fl (zzt n nrco propeny L-l Intettectuat (1g) orugs1:ay fl E Othercompfainl(not spe<ified abo) (42) LJProfessionalnegtigence{25) JudiciatReview l/ll3cellaneou3 Civil Potitlon Ll Othernon-PTTPDAAD lort (3S) Asset forfeiture (OS) E p"nn r"t'tp rno *rporate govmance f]] (zr) Employmnt pelition Ll re arbitrauon awa.d(11) petitionfrol sp*j6ed abwe) l43t Other L___l Wongtuttermination (36) y\rrit L-l of mandate (02) E L_l Otheremployment {15) (39) Other f] iudiciatreview 2. This I nrs case x is case [-l I 'rs s t ls not not [-2!J compler under rule 3-400of the califomia Rules of Court. It the case is cornplex,mark the tactors requiringexceptionaliudicial management

l.-l \/

=1

Largenumber of separately represented parties d. E Extensive practice motion raising difficlltor novel e. E lssues thatwillbe timeconsuming to resolve r------1 c. l-J Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. E

a. Lj b L-j

Largenumber of witnesses coordination withrelated aclionspending in oneor morecourts in othercountjes, siates, or counlries, orln a bderarcou[ posqudgment judiciat Substantial supervision

3 . Remedies sought (check attthat appty): a.@ monetaryb.S nonmonetary; dectaratory orinjunctive retief 4 . Number ofcauss of aglgl (spec,t.)r EIGHTEEN (l g) 5. This case L_i is LI_l is not a ctass aclron suit 6. lf thereareany knownrelated cases, file andservea notjce of lated case.

c.E]punitive

usefotmCM-015.)

Date: June25, 2013 SanfordL.

' Plaintiff mustfile thiscoversheetwith the firstpaperfiteainitrJ aaio-n or proceeorng smal ctaims casesor casesfited lexcept underthe P^robate code, Famity code, or welfareandInstitutions coaey.'(Cirnuljs'ot cJuri, ;; ard ii;li; ti-file mayresutt in sanclions.

. File this cover sheet In additionto any cover sheet requiredby local court rute ' lr Inls case |s complex under rule 3 400 et seq. of the CalifomiaRules of Court,you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other partiesto the action or proceeding.

' Unless thisis a colleciions caseunderiule 3.740or a complex case,thiscover sheet willbe usedfor statstical ourDoses

CIVILCASECOVER SHEET
Le'isNerir@

cd srfrt-(a Auonated

0t rd<i,

a.rnt ist rbn. s|d 3 to Fams

Collonn

Judk ial Conc

OO /A0/2013

72:I9:2'l

FAX 2132499990

NATION!.iIDE LEGAL

@GOPY
SHORI TI'LE:

Katz, et al. v. Donovan,et at.

.l

CIVILCASECOVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION (CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FORASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION)
This form is required pursuant to Local Rule 2.0 in all new civil case filings in the Los Angel$ Supedor Court

ir ll i.

i
f, .:
,:i

Item I checkthe typesof hearing andfiflin the estimated rength of hearing expecled for thiscase: "a" "LA"" Item ll. Indicatethe correct district andcourthouse location (4 steps- lf you checked "Limited Case',skipto ltemlll, pg. 4): Step 1 : Afterlirstcompleting the CivilCaseCoverSheet form,tindthe mainCivilCaseCoverSheet heading tor your casein the leftmargin below, and,to the rightin Column A, the CivilCaseCoverSheet caseiypeyousetected. JURY TRIAL? ff o"TtoN? tr yEs LmrED cAsE? D".s 3- 7 E HouRS/gpAys r,"e EslulrED FoR TRIAL

' .

I
Step 2: Checkone Supelior Courttypeof actionin Column B belowwhichbestdescribes the nature of thiscase. Step 3: In columnC, circlethe reason for the courtlocation choice thatapptres to the typeot action you have checked.Foranyexception to the courtlocation, seeLocalRule2.0. .ll1
1. Classaclions mustbe litedin the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, central districl. z M_ay oe_nEo n cedrat (othercounty,or no bodilynjury/propedy damage). 4. Locationurherebod-ily in ury, dealh or damaqeoccuned. a. Locanon wnereperlormarrce required or defendant resides
J. LOCaIOn Wnere CAUSeol action arose I

w'

ti

i:

6 / 8. \l 10.

Locafton ol p.oprtyor pennanenUy garaged veticte. LOCatOnyvhete oet&onet tesitles Localion wtEreih delend Vrespofldent functrons whofiv. ' LOCe[On!!/here one or more of lhe oan;es reside Localion of Labor Commissioner Olfice

l-

il

._xt

step 4: Fillin the information requested on page4 in rtemlll: comprete ltemrv. sign the declaration.

B
Typeof Action (Checkooly one) 9E O A710O Molo. Vehicte- Personatlnjury/prope.ty Oamage/Wrongful Death O A71'l0 Personalhjury/Property DanEgeMrongfu Death- Urir6ured Molo{ist tr A6070 AsbestosPropertyDamage br

IE

D A7221 Asbestos- Personat Injury/lt/rongtut Oeath O 47260 ProductUatttily (not asbestosor loxialenvjronrnentat) - physicians tr A7210 Medicat Matpraclk- & Su.geons O A7240 Othr Professional Heetth CareMalDractice Olher Peisonal Injury PropertyDamage \4'onqdulDeath (23) E A7250 Premases Liabatily (e.g., slip6ndfa ) fl A7230 Intentionat Bodity Iniury/propeny Damage/wrortul Death(e.g.. assaull, vardalism, elc.) 't.,2,3.,4.,8.

dii EO

3= +F
5o

EE

EF

D A727O Intenlional Inlliction of Ernolbnat Distress D A7220 Olher Personat Injury/property Damage/WrorEftrt Oeath

LACIV109(Rev.03/11) IASC Approved03-0,1

CIVIL CASECOVER SHEET ADDENDUM

AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

L o c a l R u2 le .0 Page1 of 4

A 0/ A O /2013

7 2 : . 7 9 : . 2 ' 1F . A , \2 1 3 2 4 9 9 9 9 0

N A T I O N WD I E LECAL

Kalz, et al. v. Donovan,el al.

A
Civil Cas Cot/er Sheet Catgory No.

B
Ty?eot Adion (Chec|(only one)

Alptaable ReasorBSeStep 3 Above 1.,3_ 1.,2.,3.

Business Tort(04

tr

A6029 OO|e{ Cornmercial/Business To.t (not fraud/b,reach of contrad)

FE F': Ea
E9 6=

o- b:

0'

(08) CivilRaghts Delamation('l 3) (16) Fraud

D A6005 Clvil Rightsi DiscrimlMtbn (slander/libel) O 46010 Defamation E 46013 Fraud (noconlract) tr A6017 LegalMalpractice O A6050 OtherProfessioialMalpracfice (not rnediaal or hgal)

't.,2.o
1.,2.,3.

gE

a! E' 2,6

P,otessional Negligence (25)

Ottter(35) WongtutTermination {36) Olhermployrnent (15)

tr

46025 Olher Non-Personal Injury/Property Oamage lort

2.,3.

D 46037 l^,tongtulTemlnatioa D A6024 OtherEmploynEr Complaint Case ! A6109 Labor Cornrnissioner ADoeats 1.,2..3. 't0.

O A6004 Ereach of RentauLease Conl.acI (noi untaMi delainr or wrongful avicljon) Breachof Coniracl/Warranly D A600g Contract/Wananty Breach,SetterPlain{iff(no haud/negt(pnce) (06) (not insurance) O A6019 NegligenlBreachof Contracl/Waranty(m haud) O A6028 OIherBreachof Cmtracuwananty (not fraudor negtigence)
Collections(09)

O A6002 Collections Case-Selter Plaintifi O A60'12 OltrrPromisso.y Nobrco eclionsCas

2.,5.,6.

Insurance (18) Goverage

E 46015 Ins{rrance (nolcomplex) Coverage D 46009 Contracllal Fraud

1 . , 2 .5 , _8 ,.

(37) olher Contracl

tr A6031 TortiousInterlerence D 46027 OtherContraclDispute(rptbreacMnsurance/fiaud/negligence)

1.,2_. 3..5. '1 ., 2.. 3.,8.

Eminent Domairvlnverse O A730O EminentDomairvcoft,emnation Condemnauon (14)

Nurnber of oarcels

P e
.E

|||/ronglulEvictioi (33)

46023 l r'rongfi.d Evidion Case 2..6.

tr 46018 Mortgage Forectosure OlherRealProperty (26) O A6032 QuietTiIe

tr A6060 other RealProperty(not enjrEnl domain,tandlorctftenant, forectosure) 2 . , 6 . UnlawlulDetainer-Coanrnercial o A6021 Unlawflj Oetainer-Comriercial (not drugsor wrongfuleviclion) (31) o Unlawful olainecResidentiat o A6020 UnlawfulDelainer-Residentiat (not drws or wrorEfulevictjon) (32)
Unlar'!^l DetalneF PoslForeclosure (34)

2.,6.
2.,6.

O A6020F Unlawful Detainer,Post-Foredosur e tr A6022 Unlawlul DetajneFDrugs

UnlaMul DetaineFDrugs (38)

2,6.

LACIV109(Rev.03/11) LASCApproved03{4

CIVILCASECOVER SHEET ADDENDUM ANDSTATEMENT OF LOCATION

Local Rule 2.0 Page2 ot 4

O 0/ 0 0 / 2 0 1 3

12t19t21 Ft\x 2132499990

NATIONWIDE LEGAL

sHoRt-rIlG:

Katz, et al. v. Donovan,el al.

CASMJ BER

A
CMI Case CoverSheet Category No. Asset Forfelture(05)

B
Typeof Mion (Checkonly on) tr 46108 AssetForfeiture Case El A6115 Petitionto ComoeLconlirm^y'acate Arbitration D 46151 l.,i'it- Administralive Mandamus El A6'152 Wril - MardamtAon LimitedCourtCase Matler D A6153 y*lt - OtherLinitedCourt CaseReview

Apdicable Reasons See Slep 3 Above 2..6.

3 .9 e. '6

(11) Pelition re Arbilration

Vvrilof Mandate(02)

2 2. 2.,4. 1.,2.,8. 1,2.,3.

1.,2.,4.

OtherJudlclal (39) Review

tr 46150 Other}'lirit /JudicialReview

(03) tr 46003 Anlilrust/TradeRegulation Antilrusylrade Regulation

Conslruction Detecl (10)
J

D A6007 Construction Defect

E (,

Claims tnvoMng MassTort (40) (28) Seclrrities Litigallon (30) Envtronriental

46006 ClairnslnvolvingMassTort Utoation 46035 Secudties Case

1.,2.,8. 1.,2.,3.,8. 1 . .2 . . 5 . , 8 .

tr A6036 ToxicTorvEnvionrnental

Insurance Coverage Claimg lrom Complex Case(41)

(camplercase ooly) A6014 lnsuranceCoverage/Subrogation

B A61/t1 SlsterSlaleJudgrnenl

ge
ruo

B A6t60 Abstracl of Judgrnenl Enforcement ol J'rdgrnent(20) (non-donsticrelations) O 46107 Confessionof Judgment (notunpaid tr 46'140 Adminiskative Agency Award taxes) tr A6114 Pelition/Certilicete for Entry ol Judgment Tax on Unpaid B A8'112OtherEnforcement ol Judgmenl Case

2.,6. 2..9. 2..A. 2..8. 2.,8.,L 1.,2..8. 1.,2.,8. 2.,a. 1.,2.,8. 1.,2.,4. 2..8 2 . , 3 .L . 2 , 3 . ,9 . 2.,3,9. 2. 2.,7. 2.,3.,4.,8. 2 . ,L

Rlco (27)

+E 3o

3 -oP

tr

(RICO) A6033 Racketeering Case

tr A6030 Oeclarato.y ReliefOnly OtherComplalnls (Nol SpcitiedAbove)(42) tr A6040 InjunctiveReliefOnly (nol domstic/harassrnent) O A60'11 OtherComrnercial Complaint Case(non-lorunon-complex) D A6000 Olher Civil Complaint (non-lort/non-complex) Parlnership Corporation (21) Govemance tr A6113 Pannershap andCorDorate GoverMnce Case tr 46121 CivilHarassrnent D A6123 WorkplaceHarassrnent

T: .9.2

Ft

= (-,

OlherPetitions (NolSpecilied Above) (43)

n fl

A6124 Eld,erlDeperdenl Adult AbuseCase A6190 Election Conlest

tr A6'110Petition for Cha.Eeof Name tr A6170 Petilionfor Relleflrom LateClaimLaw B A6100 OtherCivilPetition

LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11) LASC Approved 03-04

CIVILCASE COVERSHEETADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

Local Rule 2.0 Page 3 ot 4

0A/00/2A73

l2:I9:21

FIx 2|3249gggo

N A T I O N W T DL EE G A L

.l

SHORT TIiL

Katz, et al. v. Donovan,et al.

r
I

Itemlll- Statement of Location: Enterthe address party's of theaccident, residence performance, or place of business, or other circumstance indicated in ltemll., Step 3 on Page1, as the properieason forfilingin the courtlocation youselecied.
AODRESS:

REASON:Checkthe appropdatobores to.lhe numbeB shown undorColumnC for thg type of actlonthat you haw selected for thls caso.

3562Eastham Dr.

t]'1. D2. A3. 84. A5. 86. A7. 88. E9. O1o.
STATI' ztP c@:

Culver City

CA

90232

Iternlv ' Declaration otAssignmertI deciare penalty under of periury under thelawsof the State of catifomia thattheforegorng rslrue and correctand that the above-entited matteris propedy filed for assignrnent to the StanleyMosk courthouse in the Central District ofthe superior courtof cariiemia, countyof LosAngeres lcode civ. proc..s 392et seq.,andLocal Rule2.0,subds.(b),(c) and(d)1.

Dated. June25,2013
(SIGIATURE Of ATTOR',IEY/FILING PARTY)

PLEASE HAVETHE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILEDIN ORDER TO PROPERLY COMMENCE YOURNEWCOURT CASE: '1. Original Complaint or petilion. 2. lf filinga Complaint, a completed Summons formfor issuance by lhe Clerk. 3. CivilCaseCoverSheet, Judicial Council formClVl_ol0.109, 4. CivilCaseCo\]er Sheet Addendum andStatement of Location form,LACTV LASCApproved 03{4 (Rev. 03/11). 5. Payment in full of thefilingfee,unless feeshavebeenwaived. 6l,"lglgggtdgl"ppointingtheGuardianadLitem,Judicialcouncitformctv-olo,iftheptainrifforpetirionerisa mrnor under18yearsof agewillbe required by Courtin orderto issue a summons. T Additional copies.of documents to ba conformed by the Clerk.Copies of the coversheetandthis - addenoum -mustbe served alongwiththe summons andcompraint, orotheriiitiatingpleaoing in th;;s.

LACIV 109(Rev.03/11) LASCApproved0$M

CIVIL CASECOVER SHEET ADDENDUM ANDSTATEMENT OF LOCATION

LocalRule2.0 Page 4 of 4

A 0/ 0 O / 2 0 1 , 3

12i19t21

F.J

2132499990

N A T I O N W I D EL E G A L

@GOPV
SANFORDr.:MICHELMAN, ESQ.,SBN 179702 (mhanna@mrllp.com rMRANHAYATaFSQ.. -' SBN2244s8 (ihayat@mrllp.coia) MICHELMAN & ROBINSON.LLP 15760VenturaBoulevard, 5b Floor Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818)783-5530

"l{*_*w*ff"
JUN 25 2013
John A. Clarke, Executive OfficeriClerk Byfunber Hayes, Deputy

., sBN 131439

4 5 6 7 I
q

Facsimile: latglzg:-ssoz

Attomeysfor Plaintiffs, SCOTTKATZ, an individual; DEREK JONES.an individual: WILL WATKINS, an individual;and DANNY ZAPPIN,an individual. SIJPERIORCOURT FOR TTIE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COLNTY OF LOS ANGELES- CENTRAL DISTRICT

10 1t 12
l)

JURISDICTTONI IUNLTMITED

l4
SCOTTKATZ, an individual;DEREK JONES, an individual;WILL WATKINS, an individual: DANNY ZAPPtN, an individual. CASENO.

8c5132s4

t6
't1

18
10

20 2l 22

24 25 26 27 28

COMPLAINT FOR: ( 1) Direct Cause of Action for Breachof plaintiffs, Fiduciary Duty; (2) DerivativeCause of Action for Breachof vs. Fiduciary Duty; (3) Direct Cause BEN DONOVAN, an individual;LISA of Action for Constmctive DONOVAN, an individual;YNON KREIZ, an Fraud; individual;MARK SUSTE& an individual; (4) DerivativeCause of Action for Constructive DANA SETTLE,an individuat;RACHEL LAM; Fraud: anindividual;CRPPARTNERS. L.P..a (5) Direct Cause of Action for Fraudulent Delaware LimitedPartnership; GRp IIl, L.p.,a Concealment; DelawareLimitedPannershib: GRPlll (6) DerivativeCause ofAction for Fraudulent PARTNERS,L.P.,a DelawaieLimited Concealment; Partnership; cRP III INVESTORS,L.p., a (7) Direct Cause of Action for Fraudulent Delaware Limited Partnershio: MIDA HOLDINGS CALIFORNIA;INC., a Califomia Misrepresentation; corporation; ANGULO VENTURESII. LTD.. (8) DerivativeCause of Action for Fraudulent an lsle of Man corporarion; MAKER STUDIOS, MisreDresentation: INC., a Califomiacorporation: andDOES I (9) DerivativeCause ofAction for Conversion; through50, (10)A DerivativeCause of Action for Civil Conspiracy; Defendants. (l l) Removalof Directorsfrom Maker'sBoard ofDirectors(Corp.Code,g 304);
COMPLAINT

A O / A O / 2 A 1 3 1 2 : 7 9 : 2 ' t F A X 2 1 3 2 49 9 9 9 0

N A T I O N W I D EL E G A L

(12) To Invalidate Elections to Maker's Board (Corp,Codeg 709); (13) DerivativeCause ofAction for Breachof FiduciaryDuty AgainstMichaelDiSanto; (14) DirectCause of Action for Professional Negligence AgainstMichaelDiSanto; (15) Declaratory Relief; (16) DerivativeCause of Action for Violations ofBusinessandProfessions Code$ 17200; (17) Direct Cause of Action for Violationsof Business andProfessions Code0 17200

COMPLAINT

AA/AA/2AI3

12tI9t2't

rM

2132499990

NATIONWIDE LEGAL

I 2 3
4

In support of their claims against DefendantsBen Donovan, Lisa Donovan, Ynon Kreiz, Mark Suster,Dana Settle,RachelLam, Michael DiSanto,GRP II, LP, GRP Partners, LP, GRP lnvestors,LP, Mida HoldingsCalifomia,Inc., and Angulo InvestorsII, Ltd, and namescorporate Nominal DefendantMaker Studios,Inc., in their nominal capacity,plaintiffs scott Katz, Derek Jones, Will Watkins,andDannyZappinaverandallegeas follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Maker Studios, Inc. ("Makei') is a mediacompany foundedin and around June2009

5
o ,7

8 9 l0 l1 12
I.'

by Daniel Zappin(Zappin"), Lisa Donovan, Ben Donovan,KassemGharaibeh, ShayButler, Scott Katz, DerekJones, will watkins, and Philip DeFranco ("plaintiffs"). Makerprovidesits partners a full range of vertically integrated services including development,production, promotion, distribution, sales, marketing and merchandising services. 2. So thatthey could fulfill the visionof companythey built from the groundup, it was

alwaysthe intent of the founders to maintaincontrol of Maker's strategic and operational decision makingby ensuringthat the majority of Maker's common Stock shareholders, i.e., the founders,

l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22
z)

elected the majority ofthe directors comprising Maker'sboardofdirectors(..Board,'). 3 consislent with that intention,in the original and all subsequent amendments to

Makers' articles of incorporation(excludingthe most recent fraudulentamendments discussed hereinandpurportedly approved in earlyMay 2013)authorized assuch. 4. However,motivated by greedandunfazed by the eitherthe illegality or repercussions

of their actions, membersof Maker's Board, Ynon Kreiz, Mark Suster,Lisa Donovan, Ben Donovan,RachelLam andDanaSettle(excluding DannyZappin)(,.lnterested Directors"),with the assistance of Maker'spurported chief Legal officer and chief operatingofficer, MichaelDiSanto of BinghamMcCuttchen, LLP andpurported "specialcounsel" to Maker'sboardandsimultaneously

.,Interested 24 counselfor GRP Partners LLP, DonaldK. Lee of LKp Global Law, LLp (collectively,

25 Padies")conspired and agreed to usetheir powerto line their pocketswith Maker's assets, to deny 26 Mr. zappin,Maker'sthenchief Executive officer ("cEo") ofall ofhis powers, andto gut the rights 27 ofCommon Stockshareholders to controlMakerandits corDorate activiries.

z8
COMPI-AINT

00/o0/2013 I2,l9t2'7

Flix 2132499990

NATION!{IDE LEGAL

11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
q

5.

Indeed, the Interested Directors, including those representing Maker's preferred

Stockshareholders, fraudulently, and in a transparent breachof all their fiduciaryduties,including thoseof careand loyalty,they owedto Maker.its shareholders entered into a seiesof quidpro quo agreements, includingemployment agreements, whereby they eithercaused slockto be issued to one or more of the Interested Parties; allowedone or more of the Interested Partiesto exercise, sell or vestcertainstockrights early; agreed to sell stockto the otherlnterestPartiesor thosealignedwith the Interested Partiesto createa favorablevoting blockl and,/or awardedemployment and money, amongotherthings,to one or moreoflhe Interested Parties in exchange for their directorseats with the purpose and intent of diluting the CommonStock;decreasing the rights of the common Srock,

1 0 including to relegatethe CommonStockto minority status,increasing the right of the preferred

ll

Stock, including obtaining majority statusfor purposeof electing dircctor seats;voted on each other'scontracts while beingan interested parly to the transaction at issue,andto denythe Common Stockshareholders of their rights. 6. In addition,the Interested Parties, furtheramended Maker's aniclesof incorporatron,

t2
IJ

t4 l5
16

amongother govemingdocuments, therebychangingthe compositionof rhe Board, diluting the power and authorityof Maker's common Stock shareholders, and bolsteringthe power,authonty

't7 and control of Maker's PreferredStock shareholders over Maker's Board. The actionsof the l 8 InterestedParties, who represented a majority of rhe prefened Stock shareholders and now 1 9 purportedly represent a majorityofthe common Stockshareholders, werenot permitted by Maker's 20 goveming documentsor law. Even worse, they appearto have been directed by Mr. DiSanto, and 2 1 Maker's current purported "chairman of the Board," ynon Kreiz, for their own bnefit and at
the

22 expense of Maker,Maker's shareholders, andMr. Zappin.

ZJ

THE PARTIES 7. Plaintiff ScottKatz is an individualwho resides in Los Angeles, California. He is a

24

25 cofounder of Maker anda holderof CommonStock. 26

8. Plaintiff DerekJones is an individualwho resides in Los Angeres, califomia. He is

27 a cofounder of Maker anda holderof CommonStock. 28

COMPLAINT

^|a/^i/)il

1 ). I q. )?

t r nv

,l

l),4oooon

NATION!"JI DE LEGAL

9.

Plaintiff Will Watkinsis an individualwho reiides in Los Angeles, Califomia. He

2 3

is a cofounder of Maker anda holderofCommon Stock 10. Plaintiff DanielZappinis an individualwho resides in Los Angeles, Califomia. He

is a cofounder of Maker,hasheld variousexecutive positions with Maker,from time to time was a

5 6 7 8 9

memberof Maker'sBoard,andis a holderof CommonStock. 11. Upon informationandbelief,Defendant Ben Donovanis an individualwho resides

in Los Angeles,Califomia. He was a cofounder of Maker and,at the time of the fraudulent and/or illegal activitiesallegedherein committedby him and/or which he aided and abettedthe other Interested Partiesin committing,purportedto be memberof Maker's Board and held vanous

1 0 positionsasan o{ficerof Maker.

1r

12-

Upon informationandbelief,Defendant Lisa Donovanis an individualwho resides

1 2 in Los Angeles,Califomia. Shewasa cofounder of Maker and,at the time of the fraudulent and./or 1 3 illegal activitiesallegedherein committedby him and./or which he aided and abettedrhe other t4
Interested Parties' in committing,purportedto be memberof Maker's Board and held vanous

1 5 positions as an officerof Maker. t6

13. Upon information andbelief,Defendant Ynon Kreiz is an individualwho resides in

1 7 California. He is the currentpurported Chairman of Maker'sBoardand,at the time of thefraudulent 1 8 and/orillegalactivitiesallegedhereincommitted by him and/orwhich he aidedandabefted the other t9
Interested Parties'in committing,purported to be memberof Maker's Board and held variousother

20 positions as an officer of Maker. Prior to Kreiz joining Maker, he was the chairmanand cEo o 2 l Endemol worldwide Distribution, a Dutch-based entertainment programmingcompany. Kreiz 22 resigned from Endemolin June201I amid reportsfrom insiders that therewereissues with the wav
he ran the companyand the decisions that he made, losing the supportof many employees.In

24 addition,it was allegedthat Kreiz created seriousdebt issues within the companyand forced rt go
2J zo

througha financialrestmcturing.He alsodemanded andreceived a hugepayout,which was alleged to upset stockholders. Kreiz appears not to be unfamiliar with controversyassociated with his

27 management style, nor the lack of confidence by employees. Rather,Kreiz is continuingwhat 28 appears to havehappened at Endemol at Maker;that is, a disruptive management styleandapproach
COMPLAINT

0 A/ o o / 2 O ! 3

12.7912't FAX 2732499990

NATIONWIDE

that in the end serveshis own personalfinancial interestsabovethat ofanyone else. 14. Upon information andbelief,Defendant Mark Suster is an individualwho resides in

2 3 4 5
o l 8

California. At the time of the fraudulentand/orillegal activitiesallegedherein committedby him and./orwhich he aided and abettedthe other InterestedParties' in committing, he purported to be member of Maker'sBoard. 15. Upon information and beliei Defendant DanaSettleis an individualwho resides rn

Califomia. At the time of the fiaudulentand/orillegal activitiesallegedherein committedby her and/orwhich sheaidedand abetted the other Interested Parties'in committing,shepurported to be member of Maker'sBoard.

l0
't1

16'

Upon information andbelief,Defendant RachelLam is an individualwho resides in

Califomia. At the time of the fraudulentand/orillegal activitiesallegedherein commirted by her

1 2 and/orwhich sheaidedand abetted the other Interested Parties'in committing,shepurported to be

1J

member of Maker'sBoard. 17upon informationand belief, DefendantMichael DiSanto is an individual who

14 l5 t6

resides in Califomia. At the time ofthe fraudulent and/orillegalactivitiesallegedherein,purported to be legal counselfor, amongothers,Daniel Zappin,the Interested parties and Maker and held

1 7 variouspositionsas an officer of Maker includingthat of Chief OperatingO{ficer at all relevant l8 l9

times. 18. Upon information and belief,GRPPartners L.P. Isa DelawareLimited Partnership.

20 It owns certain sharesof Maker stock and is the agentand alter-egoof and doing businessas, GRp 2 1 III, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership; GRP III partners, L.p., a DelawareLimited partnership; 22 GRP IV, L.P., a DelawareLimited Partnership; GRp IV partners,L.p., a DelawareLimited
Padnership;GRP III Investors,L.P., a DelawareLimited partnershipwho also own certain

24 (collectively"GRP"), who each,at the time ofthe fraudulent and/orillegal activitiesalleged herein 25 committed by it and/orwhich it aidedandabetted the otherInterested Parties'in committing, owned 26 certainshares of Maker stock. 27
19. Upon informationand beliei Mida HoldingsCalifornia, Inc. (..MidaHoldings")is
-o-

28 a California corporation. At the time of the fraudulentand/or illegal activities allegedherein

COMPLAINT

oo/oo/2aI3 12t19t21 Fex 213249999A

NATION!'IDE LEGAL

1,4

i 2 3 4 5
o

committed by it and/or which it aided and abetted the other InterestedParties' in committing, it owned certaininterestin Maker stock. 20. Upon information and belief,Angulo Ventures II, Ltd. is an offshore entity

incorporated in the Isle of Man andis wholly owned,controlled, operated by, andthe agentandalter ego of Ynon Kreiz. At the time of the fraudulentand./or illegal activitiesallegedhereincommitted by him and,/or which he aided and abettedthe other Interested Parties' in committine.it owned certain interestin Maker stock2lPlaintiffsdo not know the true names and capacities, whetherindividual,corporare,

7 8 9 l0
1l

associate, or otherwise, of Does I tlrough 50 and, therefore, suessaid Doe Defendants by those fictitious names.Plaintiffsareinformedand believe,and based thereon allegethat eachof the Doe Defendants was intentionally, negligently, or in someothermannerthe cause, or contributingcause ol or,-otherwise responsible for the events and happenings alleged in this complaint and for Plaintiffs' injuriesand damages.Plaintiffswill amendthis complaintto allegethe true namesand capacitiesof each such Doe Defendant,together with such additional allegationsas may be

l2
IJ

t4

1 5 appropriate, whentheir names, capacities, andthe natureoftheir involvement havebeenascertained. l6

22 Upon informationand belief, eachof the defendants was or is the co-conspiraror, partner,joint venturer,director, officer, managingagent, employer,employee,principal, agent,

1 8 representative and alter ego of eachof the other defendant and in connections with the conduct l 9 allegedhere, was acting with the scopeof such capacities and with the authorization, consenl 20 control, direclion, knowledge, and ratification of the other defendants. The defendants are 2 l vicariouslyandjointly andseverally liablefor the damages claimedherein. 22
23. NOMINAL DEFENDANT Nominal DefendantMaker Studios, lnc. is a califomia comoration with its

24 principalplaceofbusiness in Los Angeles County,Califomia. 25 26

24. VENUE Venueis properin the superiorcourt of california, county of Los Angelesunder

27 Codeof Civil Procedure the wrongfulactsthat arethe subject $ 395 because ofthis actiontook place 28 in this judicial district,and theobligations and liability that arethe subiect ofthis actionarisein this

aa/ao/2073 12: 19: 2'1 fM

2732499990

NATIONVi] DE LEGAL

15

2 3
A

DEMAND

25.

ln light ofthe factualallegation contained herein,Plaintiffsdid not makea demand

on Maker'sBoardto bring an actionon thederivative claimshereinbecause sucha demand would be fuiile. Eachofthe directors on Maker'sBoard,exceptfor Zappin,arenamed defendants in this actionandeachofthem, individuallyandcollectively, hatched and orchestrated the scheme alleged herein. Accordingly, eachof thosedirectors is an interested party to thetransactions underlying the derivativeclaimsand,therefore, noneareindependent. These factsestablish the futility of any demand. Moreover, on information andbelief,Maker's Boardhasformeda special litigation committee, which makes anydemand unnecessary. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS Upon informationandbelief,Makerwas foundedin and aroundJune 19.2009and filed articlesof incorporation ("Original Articles") with the Califomia Secretary of Stateon that

5 6 7 8 9 t0 1t l2
l_t

1 4 date. The OriginalArticles did no1create a boardof directors. However,Maker's First Amended
t)

Articlescreated a boardofdirectorsandsetthe numberof members at five (5), with three(3) slotsto be electedby the Common Stock shareholders, one slot to be electedby the preferredStock shareholders, and the last slot elected jointly by CommonandPrefenedStockshareholders. Under Maker's Second AmendedArticles, therewere still five (5) board members, but common stock

l6 t7 l8

1 9 shareholders elected three(3) andPrefened Stockshareholden elected two (2). The Third Amended 20 Articles addeda sixth memberto the board,with common Stock shareholders electingfour (4)
zl

membersand preferredholderselectingtwo (2). The Fourth AmendedArticles, filed with the

22 califomia secretary of stateon or aboutDecember 10, 2012,addeda seventh memberto the board, 23 with common Stock shareholders electing four (4) members,including one (l) nonemployee
director,Series A andB Preferred Stockshareholders electingtwo (2), and Series C preferredStock
ZJ

shareholders electing one (1). 27. upon informationand belief,as of December10,2012,the directorsrepresenting

26

27 the common Stockshareholders wereDanielZappin,Lisa Donovan, Ben Donovanand ynon Kreiz 28 who was onenon-employee director,andthe preferred StockSeries A, B andc wererepresented by
-8-

ao/oo/2013

1 2 7 9 ] . 2 ' 7 F A , X2 . 132499990

NATTONWlDH LEGAL

16

tl

I 2 3

Mark Suster,Dana Settleand RachelLam, respectively. 28. Upon information and belief, the venturecapital firms that investedin Maker, GRp

t.

(represented on the boardby Mark Suster), Greycroft(represented on the Boardby Danasettle)and Time wamer Investment (represented on the Board by Rachel Lam) (collectively,"VCs") were

unhappywith their inability to control lhe companyas a result of the existing methodology for electingdirectorsas set forth in Makers' articlesof incorporationwherebythe common Stock

7 8 9 l0

shareholders were ableto selecta majorityof the directors on the Board. Specifically, amongother things,the VCs wantedto rapidly create a "liquidity event"so that they could sell Maker and obtain significant retumson their investments inespective ofthe bestinterests of Maker. 29. Upon information andbelief,Kreiz, a formerCEO of otherlargemediacompanies,

1 1 wasdissatisfied by just beinga Boardmemberandwantedto become the CEO of Maker andtouteo 1 2 to suster,Senle,and Lam ("vc Board Members")that he could turn Maker into a $1,000,000,000 t3 t4
company in threeyears;but, in orderto do so he, wouldneedto be assured, amongotherthings,that he couldnot be fired from his positionofCEO shouldthe VC BoardMembers be ableto secure such

1 5 a positionfor him. 16 l7
30. Upon information andbelief,Kreiz andthe vc BoardMembers alongwith DiSanto

and Lee orchestrated a plan wherebythey would approach holdersof significantcommon Stock,

1 8 i.e., Lisa and Ben Donovan, parties to conspire to createa scheme wherebytogether, the Interested l9
would agree to usetheir collectivepowerto line their pocketswith Maler's assets,misleadand lie

20 to Mr. zappin,Maker's then cEo abouttheir intentions, cover up their..scheme", and intentionally 2 1 wit}hold documentsfrom Mr. Zappin to control corporateactivity. 22
31. Indeed,the Interested Directors,including the VC Board Members,fraudulenrly,

andin a transparent breach ofall their fiduciaryduties, includingthoseofcare and loyaltythey owed
1^

to Maker and its shareholders, enteredinto a series of quid pro quo agreemenrs, including

25 employmentagreements, wherebythey either causedstock to be issuedto one or more of the 26 Interested Panies;allowedoneor moreoflhe Interested Parties to exercise, sell or vestcertainstock 27 rights early; agreedto sell stock to the other InterestPartiesor thosealignedwith the Interested 2 8 Parties to createa favorable voting bloc; andawarded employment and money,amongotherlhings,
-vCOMPLAINT

0 A/ O 0 / z O 1 3 : "

12:19t2'1 FM

2l124qqqgO .-"'-

N A T I O N W I D EL E G A L

1 2 3 4

to one or more of the InterestedPartiesin exchangefor their director satswith the purposeand intent of diluting the Common stock; decreasing tle rights of the common Stock, including to relegate the CommonStockto minority status, increasing the right ofthe PrefenedStock,including obtaining majoritystatus for pwposeofelectingdirectorseats; andvoteon eachother'scontracts. 32. Upon informationand belief, Maker enteredinto employmentag.eements with

6 7 8 o l0 ll l2
I-t

manyof its employees includingLisa Donovan, BenDonovan, and ynon Kreiz. 33. Upon informationand belief, Lisa Donovan'semployment provides:(1) agreement

the titl co-Founderreportingdirectly to the cEo; (2) basesalary;(3) a discretionary bonus;(4) right to earlyexercise up to 50olo of unvested stockcommon stock; (5) waiverofsecondtranche of a loan;and(6) the right to sell over I million shares ofCommon Stock. 34. upon informationand berief,Ben Donovan's employment agreement provides:(l)

the title co-FounderPresidentof Talent, reportingdirectly to the cEo; (2) base salary; (3) a discretionary bonus;(4) right to earlyexercise up to 5004of unvested stockcommon;(5) waiver second tranche ofa loan;and(6) theright to sell overhalf a milrion shares ofstock.

I)

35.

Upon informationand belief,Kreiz's employnentagreement with Maker provides,

l6 l7 l8

in relevant part:(l) title of Executive Chair ofthe Board,effectivefunrnediately, and CEO,effective after startdatei.e., after Kreiz getsa work visa and moveshis famiry to Los Angeles;(2) a board

seat;(3) basesalary;(4) grantofover one r,000,000 shares ofcommon; and (5) a bonusofan option 1 9 grantof over4,000,000 shares of CommonStock.

20 2l

36.

Lisa and Ben Donovan put their interests above those they had duties and

obligations to represent i.e., the common Stockshareholders. By way of example,Lisa and Ben

22 Donovan obtainedlucrative employnent agreements for themselves as wel as other personal

benefits in exchange for voting in favor on Kreiz's mploymentagreement and se ing their

24 common Stock sharesin order to dilute the value purposeand intents of the common Stock
L)

shareholders. In sum, Lisa and Ben Donovaneffectivelysold their Board seatsand the common

26 Stockfor their own personal self interest and gain. Moreover, they did so in secret. 27
37. upon informationand belief,on May 10, 2012,by unanimous written consent, the

28 Boardapproved the issuance of 1,058,930 shares ofrestrictedCommonStockwith Maker,sstandard

COMPLAINT

O 0/ O 0 / 2 0 1 3

12t19t2'7 FAX 213249999A

N A T I O N ! . i I D EL E G A L

18

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll

vestingschedule andvestingcommencement dateof May 10,2012. 38. Upon informationand belie{ on July 23, 2012,by unanimous written consent, the

Board approved the issuance of equity grants. Among other grants,DiSantowas granted200,000 shares of restricted common Stock with Maker's standard vesting schedule and vesting commencement dateof Jme l, 2012. 39. Upon informationand belief, on December10, 2012, the Board approvedthe

issuance of Prelbned Seriesc Stock and the series c Stock purchaseAgreementresultingin GreycroftPartners II and GRP III owning 8.80% and 8.59%;Kreiz's (throughAngulo ventures) owning .49%andTime Wamerowning54.78%of that stockclass. 40. Upon informationand belief, on April 16,2013, the Board approveda grant o

1,200,000common Stock options to Disanro, but Disanto agreedto take 300,000 sharesof

1 2 restricted stockinstead of optionsin orderto furtherdilute the pool of CommonStockshareholders l3 t4 15 in orderto prevent the CommonStockshareholders from blocktheir .,scherne". 41. 42. Upon information andbelief,DiSanto's optiongrantwasrevised to 600,000shares. Upon informationand belief, on May 3,2013 the Board approvedMr- Zappin's

1 6 separation agreement.Amo4g otherthings,Zappin'sseparalion agreement providedhim with: (l) 1 7 an option grantfor 60,000shares at s.87 per share; and (2) an opportunityto sell up to 1.6million l8 19 20 2l 22 shares of CommonStock. 43. Upon information and belief, on May 3, 2013, the Board approved Kreiz's

employment agreement, whichprovidedhim wirh: (l) a grantof shares of common Stock;(2) an optiongrantof shares of CommonStock. 44. upon informationand belief, on the sameday, the BoardapprovedLisa and Ben

Donovan'semployment agreements, which providedfor them with the right to sell over 2 million 24 z) 26 27 28 shares of common Stock,combined, to Mida Holdings. The employment agreements also provide the right to immediately exercise 500/o of all unvested shares ofstock, which right both Lisa and Ben exercised.

ao/a0/2013

t. : 9:21 FAX 21 t2499e9A

19

I 2 3
A

5
o

7 8 9

Zappin Ben Lisa Ynon DiSanto Holt Crevcroft GRP Time Wamer Mida Holdinqs

Common Options 3,588,956 61,909

Series A

Series B

Series C

I,859.862 3 3 5.138
1.216.945 258,055 2.509.180 4,707,148

289,820

57.294

1.000.000 600.000 22s,680 225.680 2,100,000

1.858.150 3,467,790 2.90t.220 qqs qo{ 3.467,190 2,901,220 1 . 3 0 6 . 6 0 1 6,352,t42 694,451

45'

Upon informationand belief, the foregoingand following actswere committedin

Lo squeeze 1 0 the courseof scheming out and strip the CommonStock shareholders of their majority
1l

statusand in connection with eachof theseactionthe Interested Partieshad a duty to, but failed to discloseto Zappin and all other affectedshareholders the purpose,and effect of the agreements they enteredinto, written or otherwise. 46. Upon information and belief, the employmentagreements with Lisa and Ben

I2
It

14 l5 l6 t7 l8

Donovanwere a critical part of the scheme to oust zappin flom Maker and strip the rights of the common Stockshareholders. Specifically, the right to sell 2,100,000 shares of common stock to Mida Holdingscombined with the simultaneous immediate vestingof 5070of all unvested shares of stockensured that significantcontrolof the CommonStockremained in the hands ofpeople adverse

t 9 lo Zappin,namely,Lisa Donovan, BenDonovan,andMida Holdings.

)n

47.

Upon information and belief, tl'ough these agreements,Lisa and Ben Donovan

2l

mademillions of dollarsthroughthe saleof their common Stock,but the share of common stock

by Lisa Donovan, Ben Donovan, 22 controfled - from 33.23yo and Mida Holdingsreduced by only2o/o pre-saleto 31% post sale. At the sametime, the Board waived Maker's right of first refusalto

24 pwchaseLisa and Ben Donovan'sstock,ensuring that the stockwould fall into the handsof those
adverse to Zappinand other common Stock shareholders whom they had prearranged to purchase theseshares.Lisa and Ben Donovan put their interests abovethosethey had dutiesand obligations i.e., the common Stock shareholders.By way of example,Lisa and Ben Donovan 27 to represent

28 obtainedlucrative employmentagreements for themselves as well as other personalbenefits in

COMPLAINT

AO/AO/2013 I2:I9:2'1 FAX 211249qqq0

N A T I O N W I D EL E G A L

exchange for voting in favor on Kreiz's employment agreement and selling their CommonStock

2 shares in orderto dilutethe value,purpose, In sum, and intentsof the CommonStockshareholders3 Lisa and Ben Donovaneffectivelysold their Board seatsand the Common Stock for their own
personal self interest andgain. Moreover, they did so in secret. 5
Ct

48.

At the same providedhim with the right to time, Mr. Zappin'sseparation agreement

sell 1,600,000 shares of Common Stock. Mr. Zappin, as a result of the tumult sunoundinghis positioninitially felt compelled to sell certainof his shares in Maker; however,when he informed DiSantohe may not sell any shares, he wasforcefullytold thal he had to sell at least600,000 shares or he would not get favorable treatment from the board. Moreover, DiSanto and the Interested

7 8

1 0 Parties secretly kept their "scheme" from Mr. Zappin,and in fact, stated that hadMr. Zappinknown

u
t2
t-t

oftheir "scheme", he would not signthe separation agreement. 49. Upon information and belief the DiSanto and other Interested Partiesrequired

and/ortricked Mr. Zappin to sell at least600,000shares of his ComrnonStock in an atremptto furtherdilutehis sharcof Maker'sCommonStock. 50. Indeed, Zappin sold 600,000 sharesof Common Stock to GRP III, reducing

t4 15 l6

Zappin'scontrolof CommonSlockto 2l.47yo andincreasing GRPIII's controlto 4.99/o. 51. Upon informationandbelief,at the sametime, the Boardaccelerated the vestingof

t7

1 8 key CommonStockshareholders' rmvestd stock. In addition,to the acceleration of Lisa and Ben l9 20 2l 22
ZJ

Donovan'sunvestedcommon Stock discussed above,it appears that the Board accelerated the vesting of Kreiz's and Disanto's restrictedcommon shares,which were originally issuedwith Maker'sstandard 4-yearvestingschedule.Upon informationand beliel the Board'sacceleration thesevesting rights resultedin grantingKreiz's control of 15.01%of the common Stock and DiSanto's controlof 5.98%ofthe sarne. 52. Upon informationand belief, thus, the Interested Partieswent from controllins

24

2 5 39.03%of CommonStockto controlling58.6%of rheCommonStock. 26

53. Upon information andbelief,in additionto the above, the Boardapproved a limited

27 guarantyin favor of Lisa and Ben in connection with the sale of tbeir common stock to Mida 2 8 Holdingsin exchange for Lisa's and Ben'swaiver,on behalfofall cor non shareholders, of certain
-lJ-

nn /nn /)n]

1r. r o. r?

FAX 2 7 3 2 4 9 9 9 9 0

NATION!{IDE LEGAL

27

I 2 3

nominating and election rights of common directors to the Board; without the Common ' knowledge. Shareholders Lisa and Ben Donovan's purportedwaiver had the effect of transferring the right lo designate commondirectors to the Boardunderthe 2012 voting Agreement from the majority of common Stockheld by all holdersto the majority of shares held the Key Holders. In connection with the 2012 Amendments to that agreement, discussed below, this had the effect

strippingthe CommonStockshareholdets' ability to electany CommonDirector. 54. Upon informationand belief, as discussed above, on May 3, 201J, the Board

7 8 9 l0 ll

approved the 2013Amendment to thevoting RightsAgreement.The amendment providedthat:(l) the Key Holden, owning a majority of Key Holder shares of common Stock,may designate two common directors, initially Lisa Donovanand Mr. Zappin; (2) in any electionfor an Independent Director, the majority holdersof PreferredStock may designate such a director, subjectto the

t 2 approvalof I Commondirector;and(3) the majorityholdersof Preferred Stockshall electthe CEO

IJ

director. The amendment also addedDiSanto as a kev holder. 55. Upon informationand belief, this amendmentcombinedwith the acceleration

14 l5

Disanto's 1,000,000 shares of common stock, wrested majority controlofthe commonshares held

1 6 by Mr' Zappin and the Common Stock shareholders and transferred it to the Lisa Donovan, Ben 1 7 Donovanand Disanto cabal. Indeed,prior to addingDisanto as a Key Holder,Zappin controlled t8 approximately 3,600,000 shares of theapproximately 6,665,000 shares of common Stockhetdby all

1 9 the Key Holders. But after addingDiSantoas a Key Holder and accelerating his shares,zappin's 20 2l 22
ZJ

3.6 million sharescontrolledless than half of the 7.65 million sharesnow.held by all the Key Holders. 56. Upon informationand belief, underthe 2012 voting Agreement, the removalofa

director,except for cause, canonly be effectedby thoseentitledto electthat director. Accordingly,

24 althoughthe 2012 Amendment namedZappin as a director,the Lisa Donovan,Ben Donovan,and 25 Disanto cabalcouldremovehim at anytime withourcause by voting together to do it. This appears 26 to preciselybe the intendedeffect of the 2013 Amendment; thus, the namingof Mr. Zappinas a 27 directorwasdesigned asa ruseto getMr. Zappinto go approve the 2013Amendment, whichhe did. 28
COMPLAINT

0A/O0l2A\3

12.19 i 2-l FpJ. 213249999A

NATIONWTDE LEGAL

22

I 2 3
A

57.

Finally, the Board approved the Fifth Amendment Articles on May 3,2013. All

classes of shareholders, including Zappin,also appear to haveapprovedthoseamendments. The amendments radically changedthe cornpositionof the Board. Specifically,they reducedthe commonsseats from 4 to 2; increased the "preferredseats"by 2, with preferredSeriesA, B & C voting together to electthe seats; and kept the 2 seats elected by Preferred Series A and B together and the I seatelecledby Prefered SeriesC. Theseamendments thus transferred conhol of the Board from the commonto the preferredshareholders. 58. Mr. Zappinwas fraudulently inducedto approve theseamended articles.But, upon

5
o

7 8 9 l0
ll

infomation and belief, even without Zappin's approval, it appears that there existed enough common stock votesto approvethem. This, too, is part ofthe scheme to oust zappin and deprive the CommonStockshareholders of theirmajorityrights. 59. Upon informationand belief, on or about June 22, 2013 the relevantInterested

t2
I.f

Partiesconspiredto, and purportedly did, vote to remove Mr. Zappin from the Maker Board with a vote in which a an alleged majority of MakersKey Holdersand common Stockshareholders. The votewasobtained througha lack ofdisclosure. 60. Upon informationand belief, the Certificateof Amendmentof Maker's Articles

l4 l5 t6
1',7

indicatesthat a majority of the 14,258,368 sharesof common Stock voted to approvethe amendments. The numberof shares of oulstanding CommonStockindicated on the certifrcate does It is thus plain that the stated

l8

1 9 not match the actual number of outstandingshareso such stock.

20 number of outstandingshareson the Certificate is misstatedin furtheranceof the InterestedParties' 2l 22

scneme. 6lupon informationand belief, DiSantorepresented both zappin and Maker as their

attomeyand,asa result,owed both the highest dutiesof fidelity andhonestybut failed to obtainthe

24 requisite consent or waiverfrom eitherof these conJlicted clients. 25

62. Mr. Zappin soughtlegal advice fiom DiSanto,and DiSanto repeatedly provided

26 legaladviceto Zappinand told Zappinto trusthim. But Disantoprovidednegligent legaladviceto 27 Zappin- Despiteknowing about, and in fact being complicit in the Interested parties, scheme, 28 DiSantoadvised him to sign the separation agreement with Maker. Upon informationand belief,
-l )-

COMPLAINT

A 0 / A O / z O li

1 2 : 1 9 : 2 1 F A A ,2 I 3 2 t 9 9 g g o

NATI ONV.II DE LEGAL

I 2
J

Mr. DiSanto was appointedby the InterestedPartiesto act asthe "handler" for Mr. Zappin to ensure that,basedon DiSantolegaladvice,Mr. Zappinwould not question t}reactivitiesin furtherance o the Interested Parties Scheme but would instead acquiesce to lhe same. 63. Upon informationand belief, believingthat he was eitherto be excludedfrom the

4 5
o

Interested Parties Scheme or so that he may furthergainthe trustof Mr. Zappin,DiSantocreated and caused to be executed by all partiestherctoan agreement wherebyDiSantoreplacedKreiz as a directorelectedby the CommonStock.Thus,in the eventthe scheme partieswm of the Interested foiled,he would be aligned with the majorityCommonStockshareholders. 64. Upon information andbeliel LKP simultaneously actedas "specialcounsel"to the

7 8
o l0
ll

Board,aswell asGRP(a preferred shareholder) andthenlaterexpanded its representation to include Maker without obtainingthe requisiteconsent or waiver from any ofthese conflictedclients. LKp placedGRP interests abovethat of Maker. In addition,LKP actedas specialcounsel to the Board; bul yet, acted in secretand adverseto the Board's interests. Further,as set forth above.it was parties. complicitin the scheme ofthe Interested FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breachof FiduciaryDuty) (Directclaim by PlaintiffZappinAgainstAll Defendants andDoesl-50, excludingNominal DefendantMaker) 65' Plaintiff DanielZappinherebyincorporates by reference eachand everyallegation

l2
IJ

t4 l5

r6 't7
l8 19 20

containedin paragraphI to 64 as ifset forth in full herein. 66. By reason of their positions asdirectors, officers,and/orfiduciaries of the Company

21

22 andbecause of their ability to controlthe business, corporate and financialaffairsofthe Company,

z)

eachof the defendants owed the Companyand its shareholders the duty lo exercise due care and

24 diligencein the management and administmtion of the affairs of the Companyand in the use and 25 preservation of its propertyandassets; the duty of loyalty,to put the interests of the Company above 26 their own personaland financial interests;and the duty of candor, including fulr and candid 27 disclosure of all material factsrelated thereto. 28

0 0 / 0 0/ 2 0 7 3

IZt19t21. FpJ' 2132499990

NATIONI'iIDE.LEGAL

24

I 2

61.

Uponinformation andbeliefeachofthe individual defendants breached theirfiduciary

dutiesto Mr. Zappinby enteringinto a seriesof quid pro 4rroagreements, includingemployment agreements, whereby they eithercaused stockto be issued to one or more of the Interested Parties; allowed one or more of the Interested Partiesto exercise, sell or vest certainstock rights early; agreedto sell stockto the other InterestPartiesor those alignedwith the InterestedPartiesto createa favorable voting bloc; and awarded employment and money,amongotherthings,to one or more of

3
4

5 6

7 the lnterested Parties in exchange for their directorseats with the purpose and intentof diluting the 8 9
Common Stock; decreasing the rights of the Common Stock, including to relegate the Common Stock to minority status,increasing the right of the PrefenedStock,includingobtainingmajority

1 0 status for purpose ofelectingdirectorseats; andvoting on eachother'scontracts. 11

68. Upon informationandbelief all defendants failed to providethe required disclosure

1 2 to Zappin.
It

69.

As a direct and proximate resultof eachdefendants' actions,Mr. Zappinhas been

t 4 damaged individuallyin an arnount to be provenat trial.

lf

70.

Upon informationand beliel the actionsof the Individual Defendants have been

l6

andcontinue to be malicious, oppressive andwillful, andengaged in with conscious disregard for

1 7 Mr. Zappin'srights,thusjustifuing an awardof punitiveandexemplary damages. l8 l9 20 2l

71. SECONDCAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of FiduciaryDuty) (Derivative Claim by Atl PlaintiffsAgainstAll Defendants andDoesl-50) Plaintiffsherebyincorporate by reference eachand every allegationcontainedin

22 paragraph I to 70 asif setforth in full herein.

z.J

72.

By reason of their positions asdirectors, officers,and./or fiduciaries ofthe Company

24 and becauseof their ability to control the business,corporateand financial affairs of the Company,
2J

eachof the defendants owed the Companyand its shareholders the duty to exercise due care and

26 diligencein the management and administration of the affairsof the company and in the use and 27 preservation of its propertyand assets; the duty of loyalty,to put the interests of the companyabove 28
COMPLAINT

0 a/ 2 0 1 3

I2tI9t21

FI'X 2732499990

NATIONI{IDELEGAL

25

I 2 3
4

their own personal and financial interestsl and the duty of candor, including firll and candid disclosure of all materialfactsrelated thereto. 73. Upon information and belief each of the individual defendants breached their

fiduciary duties to Maker by entering into a series of quid pro quo agreements,including employmentagreements, wherebythey either causedstock to be issuedto one or more of the Interested Parties; allowedone or moreof the lnterested Padiesto exercise, sell or vestcertainstock rights early; ageed to sell stock to the other InterestPartiesor thosealignedwith the lnterested Parties to createa favorable voting bloc; and awarded employment and money,amongotherthings, to one or more of the Interested Padiesin exchange for their directorseats with the purposeand

5 6 7 8 9

1 0 intent of diluting the common Stock; decreasing the rights of the common Stock, including to
1l

relegate the CommonStockto minority status, increasing the right ofthe Preferred Stock,including

1 2 obtaining majority status for purpose ofelectingdirectorseats; andvotingon eachother'scontracts. 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8

74. Upon information and belief all defendants failed to providethe requireddisclosure

to Maker's shareholders. 75. As a direct and proximateresult of each defendant,s actions,Maker has been

damaged in an amountto be provenat trial. 76. Upon information and belief,the actionsofeach defendants hasbeenandcontinues

to be malicious,oppressive and willful, and engaged in with conscious disregard for Maker'srights,

1 9 thusjustiffing an awardofpunitive andexemplary damages. 20 2l 22

z)

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (ConstructiveFraud) (Directclaim by ZappinAgainstAll DefendansandDoes 1-50,excluding Nominal Defendant Maker) 77. Plaintiffs herebyincorporate by reference eachand every allegationconlainedin

24

25 paragraph I to 77 asifset forth in full herein. 26

78. By reason of theirpositions asdirectors, officers,and/orfiduciaries ofthe Company

27 and because of their ability to controlthe business, corporate and financialaffairsof the Company, 2 8 eachof the defendants owed the Cornpany and its shmeholders the duty to exercise due careand
-18-

O0/O0/2A73

12t19.2'l

F?lX 2132499990

N A T I O N W I D EL E G A L

26

1 diligence in fie managementand administrationof the affairs of the company and in the use and 2 3
4 5
o

preservation of its property and assts; the duty of loyalty, to put the interestsof the company above their own personaland financial interests;and the duty of candor, including full and candid disclosueofall materialfactsrelated thereto 79. Upon informationandbelief,eachofthe individualdefendants entered into a senes

of quidpro quo agreements, includingemployment agreements, wherebytheyeithercaused stockto be issued to one or more of the Interested Parties; allowedone or more of the Interested Partiesto exercise, sell or vest certainstockrights early; agreed to sell stock to the otherInlerestPartiesor thosealignedwith the Interested Parties to createa favorable voting bloc; andawarded employment and money, among other things, to one or more of the Interested parties in exchange for their directorseats with the purpose and intentof diluting the CommonStock;decreasing the rights ofthe common stock, includingto relegate the common stock to minority status, increasing the right

7 8 9 l0 1t

l-)

the Prefened Stock, including obtaining majority satus for purpose of electing director seats;and

1 4 oustMr. ZappinasMaker's CEO. l5

80. Eachof the defendants breached their fiduciarydutiesby engaging in the foregoing

t 6 action and concealed materialfacts and made materialmisrepresentations il connection with the 't7 i8
the facts in order to obtain Zappin and the other Comrnon Stock shareholders acquiescence to

foregoingactionsto Zappin,other CommonStockshareholders and Maker.Defendants concealed

1 9 defendants' scheme andhad Zappinknownthe true intentsof defendants, he wouldhavetakensteps. 20 includingseeking reliefto stopthoseactions. 21
81. As a direct and proximateresult of each defendant'sactions,Zappin has been

22 damaged in an amountto be provenat trial82. Upon informationandbelief,the actions ofeach defendants hasbeenand contrnucs

24 to be malicious, oppressive andwillful, andengaged in with conscious disregard for Zappin'srights, 25 thusjustifoing an awardofpunitive andexemplary damages. 26 27 28
COMPLAINT

0O/A0/2A13

72:.79l.21 FAil' 2732499990

I l-"-'----'-

NATIONWI DE L E C A L

21

I 2 3
A

FOIIRTH CAUSE OF ACTION (ConstructiveFraud) (Derivative Claim by All PlaintiffsAgainstAll Defendants andDoesl-50) 83. Plaintiffsherebyincorporate by reference eachand every allegation containedin

5
o

paragraphI to 82 asif set forth in firll herein. 84' By reason of their positions asdirectors, oflicers,and./or fiduciaries ofthe Company

7 8 9 l0
l1

and because of their ability to control the business, corporateand financial affairs of the Company, each of the defendantsowed the Company and its shareholders the duty to exercisedue care and diligence in the management and administrationof the affairs of the Company and in the use and preservation ofits property and assets; the duty of loyalty,to put the interests ofthe companyabove their own personaland financial interests;and the duty of candor, including ftll and candid

1 2 disclosure ofall material factsrelatedthereto

tl

85.

Upon informationandbelief,eachofthe individualdefendants entered into a series

1 4 of quidpro q o agreements, includingemployment agreements, wherebythey eirhercaused stockto 1 5 be issued to one or more of the Interested partiesto Parties; allowedone or more ofthe Interested 1 6 exercise, sell or vest certainstock rights early; agreed to sell stock to the other IntereslPartiesor
1.,

thosealignedwith the lnterested Parties to create a favorable voting bloc; and awarded employment and money, amongother things, to one or more of the Interested parties in exchange for their directorseats with thepurpose and intentof dilutingthe CommonStock;decreasing the rightsofthe common stock, including to relegatethe common stock to minority status,increasingthe right of the Preferred Stock,includingobtainingmajority statusfor purposeof electingdhectorseats; and

t8 l9 )n 2l

22 oustMr. ZappinasMaker'sCEO.
86. Eachof thedefendants breached their fiduciarydutiesby engaging in the foregoing

24 action and concealed materialfacts and made materialmisrepresentations in connection with the
ZJ zo

foregoingactionsto Zappin,other CommonStockshareholders and Maker. Defendants concealed the facts in order to obtain Zappin and the other Common Stock shareholders acquiescence to

27 defendants' scheme andhadZappinknownthe true intentsofdefendants, he would havetakensteps, 28 includingseeking reliefto stopthoseactions.
:20COMPLAINT

1?:]e:21F . A x2 r 3 2 4 9 9 9 9 0

NATION'iIDE LEGAL

2B

.'..

I 2 3
4

87.

As a direcl and proximate result of each defendant's actions, Maker has been

damaged in an amountto be provenat trial. 88. Upon information and belief,the actions of eachdefendants hasbeenandcontinues

to be malicious, oppressive andwillfi.rl,andengaged in with conscious disregard for Zappin'srights, thusjusti$ringan awardofpunitive andexemplary damages. FII'TH CAUSE OF ACTION (FraudulentConcealment) (DirectClaim by ZappinAgainstAll Defendants andDoesl-50, excluding NominalDefendant Maker) 89. Plaintiffs herebyincorporate by reference eachand every allegationcontained in

5 6 7 8 9 l0

1 1 paragraph I to 88 as ifset forth in firll herein.

t2
I )

90.

Upon information and belief, eachofthe individualdefendants entered into a seles

of quidpro qao agreements, includingemplolrnentagreements, wherebytheyeithercaused stockto be issued to one or more of the Interested Parties;allowedone or more of the Interested Partiesto exercise, sell or vest certainstockrights early; agreed to sell stock to the other InterestPartiesor thosealignedwith the Interested Parties to createa favorable voting bloc; and awarded employment

t4 l5 l6

1 7 and money, among other things,to one or more of the Interested Partiesin exchange for their l8
director seatswith the purposeand intent of diluting the Common Stock; decreasing the rights ofthe

1 9 common Stock,includingto relegate the common Stockto minority status, increasing the right 20 the PreferredStock, including bbtaining majority statusfor purposeof electing director seats;and 2l 22
oustMr. ZappinasMaker'sCEO. 91. Each of the defendants concealed materialfacts in connection with the foregoing

actionsfrom Zappin, defendants concealed the facts in order to obtain Zappin and the other Common

24 Stockshareholders acquiescence to defendants' scheme and had Zappinknown the true intentso 25 defendants, he would havetakensteps, includingseeking reliefto stopthoseactions. 26
92. As a direct and proximateresult of each defendant's actions,Zappin has been

27 damaged in an amountto be provenat trial. 28

COMPLAINT

NATION!"iIDE LEGAL

29

I 2 3
i

93.

Upon information and belief, the actionsof eachdefendants hasbeenand continues

to be malicious, oppressive andwillful, andengaged in with conscious disregard for Zappin'srights, thusjusifoing an awardof punitive and exemplarydamages. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraudulent Concealment) @erivativeClaim by All PlaintiffsAgainsrAll Defendants andDoesl-50) 94. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by referenceeach and every allegation containedin

5 6 7 8 9

paragraph I to 93 as ifset forth in full herein. 95' Upon information andbelief,eachofthe individualdefendants entered into a serres

r0
ll

of quidpro qLo agreements, includingemployment agreements, wherebythey eitler caused stockto be issued to one or more of the Interested Parties;allowedone or more of the Interested Partiesro

t 2 exercise, sell or vest certainstockrights early; agreed to sell stockto the other InterestPartiesor 1 3 thosealignedwith the lnterested Parties to create a favorable voting bloc; and awarded employment
1 4 and money, amongother things, to one or more of the Interested parties in exchargefor their 1 5 directorseats with the purpose andintentofdiluting the CommonStock;decreasing the riglts ofthe 1 6 common Stock,includingto relegate the common Stockto minority status,increasing the right of t7 the PrefenedStock,includingobtainingmajority statusfor purpose of electingdirectorseats; and

1 8 oustMr. ZappinasMaker'sCEO.
lo

96.

Each of the defendants concealed materialfacts in cormection with the foregoing

20 actions from Zappin, other Common Stock shareholderand Maker. Defendantsconcealedthe facts 2 1 in order to obtain Maker's, Zappin and the other common Stock shareholders acquiescence to 22 defendants' scheme andhadZappinknownthe true intentsofdefendants, he would havetakensteps.
z)

includingseeking reliefto stopthoseactions. 97. As a direct and proximateres,lt of each defendant's actions,Maker has been

24
z.)

damagedin an amount to be proven at trial. 98' Upon information and belief, the actions ofeach defendantshas been and continues

26

27 to be malicious, oppressiveand willful, and engagedin with consciousdisregard for Zappin's rights, 28 thus justifuing an award ofpunitive and exemplary damages.
COMPLAINT

OO/AO/2013

12;19:2t

F 1 , 82 , t 32499990

NATIONWIDE LEGAL

30

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraudulent Misrepresentation) (DirectClaim by ZappinAgainstAll Defendants andDoes1-50,excluding NominalDefendant Maker)

2 3

5 6 7 -8 9 l0

99.

Plaintiffs herebyincorporate by reference eachand every allegationcontained in

paragraphI to 99 as if set forth in full herein, 100. Upon information andbelie{ eachofthe individualdefendants into a series entered

of quidpro quo agrements, includingemployment agreements, wherebythey eithercaused stockto be issued to one or more of the Interested Parties;allowedone or more of the Interested Parties to exercise, sell or vest certainstockrights early; agreedto sell stock to the other InterestPartiesor thosealignedwith the InterestedPartiesto createa favorablevoting bloc; and awardedemployment

1 2 and money, among other things,to one or more of the Interested Partiesin exchange for their
l.)

directorseats with the purpose andintentof dilutingthe CommonStock;decreasing the rightsofthe

Common Stock, including to relegatethe Common Stock to minority status, increasing the right o

t4
l)

the Preferred Stock,includingobtainingmajority statusfor purpose of electingdirectorseats; and oustMr. ZappinasMaker'sCEO. 101. Eachofthe defendants willfully failed to disclose and/ormateriallymisrepresented

t6

l8

the purposeof eachof the foregoingactionsto Maker, defendants represntations were false and

1 9 madein order to obtainZappin'sacquiescence to defendants' scheme and had Zappinknown the 20 true intentsof defendants, he would havetaken steps,including seekingreliefto stop thoseactions. 2l
102. As a direct and proximateresult of each defendant's actions,Zappin has been

22 damaged in an amountto be provenat trial. 23

103. Upon information andbeliel the actions ofeach defendants hasbeenand continues

24 to be malicious, oppressive andwillful, andengaged in with conscious disregard for Zappin'srights, 25 thusjustifying an awardof punitiveandexemplary damages. 26 27 28

0q/00/2A73

12:.I9 2'1 Ft;x 2132499990

-1

NAT]ONWIDE LEGAL

31

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraudulent Misrepresentation) (DerivativeClaim by All PlaintiffsAgainstAll Defendants andDoesl_50) 104. Plaintiffs herebyincorporate by reference eachand every allegationcontained in

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l1

paragraph I to 103asifset forth in full herein. 105. Upon infomration and belief,eachof the individualdefendants entered into a serres

of quidpro quo agreements, includingemployment agreements, wherebythey eithercaused stockto be issued to one or more of the lnterested partiesto Parties; allowedone or more of the Interested exercise'sell or vest certainstockrights early; agreed to sell stock to the other Interestpartiesor thosealignedwith the Interested Parties to create a favorable voting bloc; and awarded employment and money, among other things, to one or more of the Interested Partiesin exchange for their

1 2 directorseats with the pupose andintentof dilutingthe CommonStock;decreasing the rightsofthe

TJ

common Stock,includingto relegate the common stock to minority status, increasing the right the PrefenedStock, includingobtainingmajority statusfor purpose of electingdirectorseats; and oustMr. ZappinasMaker'sCEO. 106. Eachofthe defendants willfully failedto disclose and/ormateriallymisrepresented

l4
l) lo

the purposeof eachof the foregoingactionsto Maker, defendants representations were false and l8 t9 20 2l 22
ZJ

made in order to obtain zappin's acquiescence to defendants' schemeand had Zappnknown the trueintentsof defendants, he would havetakensteps, includingseeking reliefto stopthoseactions. 107. As a direct and proximateresult of each defendant's actions,Maker has been

damaged in an amountto beprovenat trial. 108 Upon infomration andbelief,the actions ofeach defendants hasbeenandconlinues

to be malicious,oppressive andwillful, andengaged in with conscious disregard for Zappin'srights, 24 thusjustifuingan awardofpunitive andexemplary damages.

25 26 27 28
COMPLAINT

O0/00/2013
,::":

'

72:.19:21 FPX 2132499990

::t t"--'--'

NATIONWIDE LEGAL -

32

I 2 3
4 5 6 7 8
o

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Conversion) (DerivativeClaim by All PlaintiffsAgainstAII Defendants andDoes l-50) 109. Plaintiffs herebyincorporate by reference eachand every allegationcontained in

paragraph I to 108asifset forth in full herein. ll0. Upon information and belief, all defendants conspiredwith one another,and

potentiallyothersto secretlytake assets and propedybelongingto Maker and/or its affiliatesand wrongfully awardedthemselves, and othersalignedwith them, employment contracts, stock and stockoptionsin firrtherance oftheir scheme assetforth herein. l1l. As a direct and proximateresult of each defendant,s actions,Maker has been

10 l1 12

damaged in an amount to be provenat trial. '112. Upon informationandbeliel, the actions ofeach defendants hasbeenandcontinues

1 3 to be malicious,oppressive andwillful, andengaged in with conscious disregard for Maker'srights, 1 4 thusjustifying an awardofpunitive andexemplary damages. 15 16
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Civil Conspiracy) (Derivative Claimby All PlaintiffsAgainstAll Delendants andDoes l-50)

l8 l9 20

113.

Plaintiffs herebyincorporate by reference each and every allegationcontained in

paragraph I to 112asifset forth in full herein. 114Upon informationand beliefl all defendants formeda conspiracy with one another,

2 1 and potentiallyothers,to secretlytake assets and propertyblongingto Maker and,/or its affiliates 22 andwrongfullyawarded themselves, and others aligned with them,employment contracts, stock,and
ZJ

stockoptionsin furtherance oftheir scheme as setforth herein. 115. In fact, all defendants actedtogether, and potentiallyothers, in furtherance of the

24

25 conspiracy,to secretly take assetsand property belonging to Maker and./orits affiliates and 26 wrongfully awmdedthemselves, and othersalignedwith them, employment contracts, stock,and 27 stockoptionsin furtherance oftheir scheme assetforth herein. 28

A0/O0/2OI3

12:79:21 FAX 2132499990

NATION!.iI DE LEGAL

116.

As a direct and proximateresult of each defendant'sactions.Maker has been

2 damagedin an amountto be provenat trial. 3

4
117. Upon informationandbelief,the actions ofeach defendants hasbeenand contilues

to be malicious, oppressive andwilltrl, and engaged in with conscious disregard for Maker's rights, thusjustifuingan awardofpunitive andexemplary damages.

6 7 8 9 l0
ll

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (For Removalof Lisa Donovan, Ynon Kreiz, Mark Suster, DanaSettle, andRachelLam from Maker'sBoardof DirectorsPursuant to Cal. Corp.Code$ 304) (AgainstDefendants Lisa Donovan, Ynon Kreiz, Mark suster,DanasettleandRachelLam) 118. Plaintiffs herebyincorporate by reference each and every allegationcontained in

paragraph 1 to 117asifset forth in full herein. I 19. l2O. Plaintiffsaretheholdersof recordfor morethan I 0% of Maker'scommon Stock Upon informationand belief, all defendants againstwho plaintiffsassert this cause

t2
IJ

1 4 of action conspired with one another,and potentiallyothersto secretlytake assets and property
1)

belonging to Makerand/orits affiliatesandwrongfirllyawarded themselves, andothersalignedwith them, employment contacts, stock and stock optionsin furtherance of their schemeas set ibrth

l6

1 7 herein. 18 l21 As suchdefendants have committednumerousdishonest acts and grosslyabused

1 9 their authority as directorsof Maker by committing the breaches of fiduciary duty and other 20 2l 22
z5

wrongful actsallegedherein. 122. Upon informationand belief, the conductof defendants will continueif thev are

allowedto remainasmembers of Maker'sBoardof Directors. 123. Therefore,plaintiffs respectfirllyrequestthat Lisa Donovan,Mark Suster.Dana

24 Settle,and Rachel Lam be removed from Maker's BoardofDirecrors.

z)

26 27 28
COMPLAINT

OO / A O/ 2 0 7 3

72179127 Fttx 2L3249999A

NATTONWIDE LEGAL

I 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 124.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (To set AsideElectionofDirectors,Related Agreements andActions,andfor other Equitable ReliefPursuanr to Cal. Corp.Codeg 709) ynon Kreiz, and Lisa Donovan) (AgainstDefendants MichaelDiSanto, Plaintiffsherebyincorporate by reference eachand every allegationcontained in

paragraph 1 to 123asifset forth in full herein. 125The purported electionor appointment of defendants was,and is, withoutany force

or effect,and suchelectionor appointment is presumptive void underCalifomiaCorporations Code section310, and is thereafter null and void, or voidable,on the basisthat the purpo(ed electionor

1 0 appointrnent was infectedwith fraud and wasnot disclosed to eitherMaker'sBoardof Directorsor ll to Maker's CommonStockholders,deprivingsaid shareholders of their right to vote for Maker's

1 2 directors.
t-t

126.

Plaintiffsallegethat, as a resultof the foregoingcircurnstances allegedherein,no

l4 l5

"safeharbor"or otherlegalprotection provides for any polentialvalidationofthe purpo(edelection ot appointrnent. However, asa matterof pleading, plaintiffs furtherallege,if suchproof be requrred,

I 6 that the appointment and election,and all matters derivedtherefrom, werenotjust andreasonable, t 7 andwerenot fair to, or in the bestinterest of, the Companies. l8 t9
127. Plaintiffs, as shareholders, maintain this action individuatly and derivativelyon

behalf of Maker to protect the interestsof the company in its operation by a duly composedand

20 appointed Boardof Directors. 2l

128. Plaintiff requests that the court set a hearingwithin five (5) days as providedin

22 califomia Corporations code Section709,or suchothertime as the court deems appropriate, for a
determination of the invalidity of the electionor nominationof defendants to Maker's Board of

24 Directors,and for relatedequitable reliel includingthe making of an order voiding eachand every 25 purported actiontakenby Maker's improperly composed BoardofDirectors. 26 27 28

AO/0O/2AI3

12t19t2'7 FAX 2132499990

N A T I O N W I D EL E G A L

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of FiduciaryDuty) (DerivativeClaim by All PlaintiffsAgainstDefendant Disanto) 129. Plaintiffs hereby incorporateby referenceeach and every allegation contained in

2 3
A

5 6 7

paragraph I to 128asifset forth in full herein. 130. DefendantDiSantorepresented Maker, as its Chief Legal Officer, in comection

with companybusiness.As such,Disanto owed Maker the highestfrduciaryduty of loyalty and

8 honesty. 9
l3l. DiSantobreached this duty in the mannerallegedherein,includingsimultaneously

1 0 representing Zappin. ll
132. As a direct and proximate result of Disanto's unfaithful acts, Maker has been

individuallyih an amountto be provenat trial. damaged

IJ

133.

Upon information andbelief,the actions of eachdefendants hasbeenandcontinues

l4 l5 l6 17 18 19

for Maker's rights, to be malicious,oppressive andwillful, and engaged in with conscious disregard thusjustifing an award ofpunitive and exemplarydamages. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Professional Negligence) (DirectClaim by ZappinAgainstDefendant DiSanto) 134. Plainti{f Zappin hereby incorporates by referenceeach and every allegadon

20 containedin paragraphI to 133as if set forth in full herein. 21

135. Defendant Disanto represente with, among d Zappn as his attomey,in connection

22 other things, Zappin's separationagreementas Maker's CEO. Zappin sought and obtained
DiSanto'sadviceregarding that agreement. told Zappinto trusthim. DiSanto

24
zt

136.

DiSanto'sadviceto Zappinin connection wilh that agreement wasnegligent, falling

well below the skill, prudence anddiligence asotherlawyerspossess and exercise.

26 As a direct and proximateresultof DiSanto'snegligence, individuallyin Maker hasbeendamaged 27 an amout to be proven at trial. 28

00/0a/2a13 12: 19:2'1 rpx 273249999A

NATIONWIDE LEGAL

36

FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (DeclaratoryRelief) (AgainstDefendants Lisa Donovan, Ben Donovan, Mark suster, Danasettle,andRachelLam) li7. Plaintiffs herebyincorporateby referenceeach and every allegationcontainedin

2 3
4 5 6 7
6

paragraph I to 136asifset forth in full herein. 138. An actualcontroversy has arisenand now existsbetween Plaintiffs and Defendants conceming the validity of electionsof directors, the validity of certainamendmenls to shareholder voting agreements, andamendments to Maker'sarticlesof incorporation, amongothers. 139. Plaintiffs desire a judicial determinationof the validity of these actions and fundamental operating documents. 140. A judicial declaration is necessary andappropriate at this time so that Maker may go aboutits business with certaintythat the actionsit undertakes at the directionof its boardare valid corDorate acts. SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unfair Competition Law, Businesses andprofessions Code,section17200) (Derivative Claim by plaintiffs AgainsrAll Defendants) 141. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by referenceeach and every allegationcontainedin

9 i0 1l 't2
t-)

14
l)

t6
lt

t 8 paragraphI to 140 asifset forth in full herein. 19

142. In committingthe actsandomissions described herein,eachof the named defendants

20 hasviolatedcalifomia Business and profession code $$ 17200, et seq.,the Unfair competitionLaw 2l

C'UCL'). The acts and omissionsdescribed above are unla*ftl, in that they violate a staure,

22 ordinance,or an established rule of commonlaw. The acts and omissionsdescribed above are
fraudulentwithin the meaningof the ucl- because they are deceptive, and likely, if not certainto

24 deceive the members ofthe general public,includingplaintiffs.

ZJ

143. Each defendant named in this causeof action has benefittedfinancially in some

26 marurer,either directly or indirectly, as a result of the UCL violalions statedin this complaint. 27 Plaintiffs havederivativestanding to proceed underthe UCL because Maker hassuffered injury rn 28 fact as a resultofthe UCL violationsstated herein.
COMPLAINT

. \2:.I9:21

FAX 213249999A

N A T I O N W I D EL E G A L

3l

144. Defendant's actionsand,/or omissions described hereinareaimedat harmingMaker's business by usingMaker's assets for improperpurposes andin furtherance ofDefendants'fiaudulenl schemeand constituteunfair competitionagainstMaker. By way of this complaint,plainti demands that Defendants cease anddesisttheir wronsfulconduct. 145- An injunctionunderthe UCL is appropriate because the unlawfulactsdetailed herein arecapable of repetition, arein fact repeated regularly, andareon-going. All of the Defendants who participated in the unlawful and deceptive acts detailedhereincontinueto occupythe positionso power that allowed them to commit the wrongful acts describedherein and are unrepentantof their actions. 146. As a proximateand foreseeable result of Defendants'past and tkeatened unfair competition, Maker has sufferedand will continueto suffer ineparableharm and other damagesrn excessof the jurisdictionallimits of this court. Maker is thereforeentitled to ordersin equity

2 3 4 5 6 7 8
o

10
ll

t3 t4 l5 l6 l7 l8 l9

restoringthe statusquo prior to the time Maker was harmed by Defendant'sUCL violalions, requiring the voiding of all agreements enteredinto in comection with Defendants'fraudulent scheme andrestitution of monies received asa resultof thatscheme. SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unfair Competition Law, Businesses andProfessions Code,section17200) (DirectClaim by PlaintiffsAgainstAll Defendants, excludingNorninalDefendant Maker) 147. Plaintiffs herebyincorporateby reference each and every allegationcontainedin

20 paragraphi to 146 as ifset forth in firll herein. 2l

148. In committingthe actsand omissions described herein,eachof the nameddefendants

22 hasviolatedcalifornia Business andProfession code $g 17200, et seq., theUnfair competitionLaw

z)

('UCL").

The acts and omissionsdescribed aboveare unlawful, in that they violate a starute,

24 ordinance, or an established rule of common law. The acts and omissions described abovc are 25 fraudulentwithin the meaningof the UCL because they are deceptive, and likely, if not certainto 26 deceive the members ofthe general public,includingPlaintiffs. 27
149. Each defendant namedin this causeof action has benefittedfinancially in some
-30-

28 manner,either directly or indirectly,as a result of the UCL violationsstatedin this complaint.

0 A / 0 A / 2 0 7 3 1 2 | 1 9 : . 2 ' 1F ? \ x 2 1 3 2 4 9 9 9 9 0

N A T I O N W I D EL E G A L

I
I

Plaintiffs have derivative standingto proceedunder the ucl- becauseMaker has suffered injury in fact as a resultof the UCL violationsstated herein. i50' Defendant's actions and./or omissions described hereinareaimedat harmingPlaintiffs

':

2 3
A

by diluting the common Stock;decreasing the rightsofthe common Stock,includingto relegate the Common Stockto minority status,increasing the right of the PreferredStock,includingobtaining majority status for purpose of electingdirectorseats and denying the CommonStockshareholders oftheir rights. 151. An injunctionunderthe UCL is appropriate because the unlawfulactsdetailedherern arecapable ofrepetition,arein fact repeated regularly,andareon-going. All of the Defendants who

5 o 7 I 9

1 0 participated in the unlawful and deceptive acts detailedhereincontinueto occupythe positions ll power that allowed them to commit the wrongful acts describedherein and are unreDentant oftheir

1 2 actions.
I )

152- As a proximateand foreseeable result of Defendants'past and threatened unfair competition, Plaintiffshavesuffered andwill continue to sufferirreparable harmandotherdamages

t4

1 5 in excess of thejurisdictionallimits of this court. Plaintiffsaretherefore entitledto ordersin equrty t6

restoringthe statusquo prior to the time Plaintiffs were harmedby Defendant,s ucl- violations,

1 7 requiring the voiding of all agreements enteredinto in connectionwith Defendants'fraudulent l 8 scheme andrestitution of monies received asa resultof that scheme. 19 20
PRAYERFORRELIEF Plaintiffs Scott Katz, Derek Jones, Wilt Watkins and Danny Zappn pray for judgment

2 1 againstDefendants Ben Donovan,Lisa Donovan,ynon Kreiz, Mark Suster,Dana Settle,Rachel 22 Lam, Michael Disanto, GRp IlI, Lp, GRp parrners,Lp, GRp Invesrors,Lp, Mida Holdinss 23 Califomia,Inc.,Angulo Investors II, Ltd, andMaker Studios, Inc. asfollows: 24 25 26
l. 2. 3. 4. For compersatory damages in an amountto be provenat the time oftdali For punitiveor exemplarydamages in an amountto be provenat thetime of trial; For a temporary restraining orderandotherinjuncriverelief; For an accounting; For a constructive trustoverMaker:
COMPLAINT

28

5.

A0/00/2073

72 i79 | 2.t FFa. 2732499990

NATIONINIDE LEGAL

l9

For disgorgement; For an ordervoiding the eachand every action takenby the Board of Directorsafter April 20,2013;

2 3
4

8. 9. 10.

For removalof members ofthe BoardofDirectors; For rescission; For attomeys'feesandcostsof suit incurred herein; For interest to the extentallowable by law; and

5
o

7 8
q

12.

For suchotherand furtherreliefas the Courtdeemsjust andpro;rcr.

t0 II 12
It

Dated: June25,2013

MICHELMAN & ROBINSON. LLP

l4 l5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
z)

SanfordL. Michelman, Esq. Mona Z- Harura,Esq. IrnranHayat,Esq. Atlomeysfor Plaintiffs

24 25 26 27 28