Roc Nation Wants To Make Dez Lawsuit Disappear

Case 3:15-cv-02199-B Document 7 Filed 06/30/15
Page 1 of 17 PageID 81
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
OFFICIAL BRANDS, INC.
Plaintiff,
V.
ROC NATION, LLC AND
ROC NATION SPORTS, LLC
Defendants.
APPENDIX
1.
Exhibit A: Declaration of Juan Perez
2.
Exhibit B: Plaintiffs Original Petition
Gardere01 - 6771998v.1
CIVIL ACTION NO.
EXHIBIT A
Page 1

DALLAS DIVISION
Plaintiff,
V.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
ROC NATION, LLC AND

Defendants.
DECLARATION OF JUAN PEREZ
I, Juan Perez, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:
1.
My name is Juan Perez. I serve as President for Roc Nation Sports, LLC ("Roc
Nation Sports"). Based on my work with Roc Nation Sports, I have personal knowledge of the
facts stated in this declaration. I am over eighteen years and have never been convicted of a
felony. I am of sound mind and competent to make this declaration. The facts stated herein are
true and correct.
2.
Roc Nation Sports is a limited liability company organized under the law of the
State of Delaware, and is a sports agency that works on behalf of premier sports figures and
professional athletes. Roc Nation Sports maintains its principal office in New York at 1411
Broadway 38th Floor, New York, New York 10018. Roc Nation Sports is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Roc Nation, LLC, also a Delaware limited liability company with no offices or
employees in Texas.
3.
Roc Nation Sports has never been incorporated in Texas or been authorized to do
business in Texas. Roc Nation Sports has never sought registration with the Texas Secretary of
State, or any other state agency or entity, and has not been required to pay any taxes or fees to
Texas or any of its agencies, political subdivisions or governmental units.
4.
Dez Bryant is the only client of Roc Nation Sports that resides in Texas.
5.
Roc Nation Sports and Dez Bryant entered into two agreements on October 30,
2014. The first contract was a Standard Representation Agreement, entered between Tom
Condon and Kimberly Miale and Dez Bryant. The second contract was a management
agreement entered between Dez Bryant and Roc Nation Sports. I signed the management
agreement on behalf of Roc Nation Sports. Both contracts contain New York choice of law
provisions and forum selection clauses that do not designate Texas as the forum. Specifically,
the management agreement requires that any dispute be resolved by arbitration in New York.
The Standard Representation Agreement contains a dispute provision that requires any dispute to
Page 2
be resolved exclusively through the arbitration provision 5 of the NFLPA (National Football
League Players Association) Regulations Governing Contract Advisors, which provides that the
arbitrator select the forum once the dispute arises.
6.
Roc Nation Sports first discussed entering into an agreement with Dez Bryant in
New York, New York. Subsequent negotiations leading up to the signed contracts were handled
either in-person in Roc Nation Sports' New York office or by phone or e-mail from Roc Nation
Sports' New York office. No employee or representative of Roc Nation Sports ever traveled to
Texas in connection with business with Dez Bryant, except for a single meeting on October 30,
2014 at which his initial engagement agreements were signed. At the October 30, 2014 meeting
in Texas, none of the representatives of Roc Nation Sports, including myself or Kimberly Miale,
had any conversations with Dez Bryant regarding Official Brands, Inc. ("Plaintiff').
7.
Since the signing of the contracts on October 30, 2014, no representative or
employee of Roc Nation Sports has traveled to Texas. Since October 30, 2014, all in-person
conversations with Dez Bryant have occurred in New York, and all other conversations between
Roc Nation Sports' employees or representatives and Dez Bryant have been by phone in which
Roc Nation Sports' employees or representatives have been in New York or otherwise outside
the State of Texas and have called Dez Bryant's cellular phone.
8.
Roc Nation Sports did not meet with any agencies, companies, or other entities
that had contracts or were seeking contracts with Dez Bryant or his related entities in Texas.
Any meetings with such agencies, companies or other entities were held in New York, including
Roc Nation Sports' meeting with the Plaintiff.
9.
Roc Nation Sports did meet with a representative of Plaintiff on one occasion in
New York, but never met Plaintiff in Texas.
10.
Roc Nation Sports does not currently maintain an office in Texas, and has never
in the past maintained an office in Texas.
11.
Roc Nation Sports does not and has never maintained employees in Texas.
12.
Roc Nation Sports does not and has never recruited Texas residents, directly or
through an intermediary located in Texas, for employment outside of Texas.
Roc Nation Sports does not and has never placed any advertisements of its
13.
services in Texas.
14.
Other than Dez Bryant, Roc Nation Sports does not have and has never had any
clients, customers, or contractual relations with persons or entities that were domiciled in Texas.
15.
Roc Nation Sports does not maintain and has never maintained a bank account in
Texas.
Page 3
16.
Roc Nation Sports does not have and has never had a telephone listing in Texas.
17.
Roc Nation Sports does not own and has never owned property in Texas.
18.
this suit.
Roc Nation Sports has never been a party to any lawsuit filed in Texas prior to
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct. Executed in
day of June 2015.
Juan Perez
Page 4
EXHIBIT B
Page 5
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
412112015 10:51:34 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLEF
Tonya Pointer
DC-15-04480
NO
OFFICIAL BRANDS, INC
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintffi
$
$
DALLAS COLINTY, TEXAS
ROC NATION, LLC.

And
ROC NATION SPORTS, LLC.
Defendants.
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
$
$
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

Plaintiff, Official Brands, [nc. ("Official Brands") files its Original Petition and states as
follows:
I.
1.
DISCOVERY LEVEL
Plaintiff intends to seek discovery in this suit under Level 2, as defined in Rule 190
of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
II.
2.
PARTIES
Plaintiff is a Florida corporation with extensive ties to the State of Texas, and in
particular Dallas County, based on its many business ventures in that county and State, including,
but not limited to, its prior business and contractual relationship with Dez I Enterprises, Inc. and
Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Dez Bryant.
3.
Defendants are Delaware limited liability companies with extensive ties to the State
of Texas, and in particular Dallas County, based on their many business ventures in that county
and State, including, but not limited to, their current business and contractual relationship with
Dez I Enterprises, Inc. and Dallas Cowboys wide receiverDez Bryant.
a.
The Secretary ofState ofTexas is the agent for service ofprocess,
b.
Defendants, non-resident corporations, engaged in business in Texas.
Plaintiff
Original Petition
Pago
ofll
Page 6
c.
Defendants do not maintain a regular business office in Texas.
d. Defendants,
as far as Plaintiff can determine, does not have a registered agent
for service ofprocess in Texas, and
e.
This lawsuit arises from Defendants' conduct of business in Texas.
Defendants' address, as best as Plaintiff can determine, is 1411 Broadway (at 38th Street), New
York, New York 10018. The only officer Plaintiff has discovered is the founder, Shawn (Jay
Z Carter). Defendants are Delaware
corporations and their registered agent for service of
process in that state is Corporate Creations Network, Inc.,3411 Silverside Road, Suite 104,
Rodney Building, Wilmington Delaware 19810.
Plaintiff
Original Petition
Page2ofll
Page 7
ilI.
4.
17,042
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants pursuant to, inter alia, Section
of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, because Defendants
(l) contracted
with Dez
Bryant and both Defendants andDez Bryant are to perform the contract in whole or part in Texas;
and (2) committed the torts of
inter aliatortious interference with contractual relations and tortious
interference with advantageous business relations.
5.
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Section 15.002 of the Civil Practice and
Remedies Code, as Dallas County is the county in which
all or a substantial part of the
events
giving rise to the causes of action occurred. Dez Bryant, the subject of the tortious interference
committed by Defendants, resided in Dallas County and was performing for the National Football
League's Dallas Cowboys at the time that the alleged acts of Defendants were accomplished.
IV.
6.
FACTS
Plaintiff is engaged in the manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale of
promotional merchandise and sports memorabilia.
7.
Dez Bryant is one of the best wide receivers in the National Football League.
Bryant was drafted by the Dallas Cowboys with the 24th pickof in the first round of the 2010 NFL
Draft. In July 2010,DezBryant
signed a five-year, $11.8 million contract with the Dallas
Cowboys. In March 2ls,DezBryant was offered
a one-year, $12.823
franchise tagby the same
team.
8.
a
ln2}l{,DezBryantand
Ryan Totka (Plaintiffls Vice President) began developing
friendly relationship.
9.
The friendly relationship between DezBryant and Ryan Totka developed into the
two engaging in business-related discussions.
Plaintiff's Original Petition
Page3ofll
Page 8
10.
Ryan Totka explained Plaintiff s business to Dez Bryant and Dez Bryant was
genuinely interested in learning more about how Plaintiff could assist him with his off-field
endeavors.
I
1.
Thereafter, Dez Bryant requested that Plaintiff begin formally representing him for
off-field endeavors, specifically expressing his interest in having Plaintiff develop a brand called
"Throw up the X," symbolizing a popular Dez Bryant gesture wherein he crosses his arms in an
"X",typically after accomplishing a positive feat on the football field.
12.
In early July 2014, Dez Bryant executed a contract (on behalf of his owned Dez I
Enterprises, Inc.) with Plaintiff whereby Dez Bryant and his corporation provided inter alia
Plaintiff with the right and license to utilize Dez Bryant's name, nickname, initials, autograph,
facsimile signature, photograph, likeness, video, and/or endorsement
in
connection with the
advertisement, marketing, promotion, and sale of Dez Bryant-branded promotional merchandise

and sports memorabilia product, that was bearing, displaying, or consisting of the "Throw up the
X"
logo/signage and X-88 products. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, the term was to run
from July 1,2014 through June 30, 2016.Plaintiffexecuted the agreement, which was reviewed
by State Senator Royce West, Dez Bryant's attorney.
13.
In reliance upon Dez Bryant's representations and the contract executed by Dez
Bryant, Plaintiff performed unprecedented services to build the "Throw up the
X"
brand and
invested substantial time and money for and on behalf of Dez Bryant. For example, Plaintiff and
Ryan Totka:
a.
Managed Dez Bryant's social media accounts (lnstagram, Facebook,

Twitter) for over two years on a daily basis, making required sponsor posts,
interacting with fans and building a positive image for Dez Bryant. Plaintiff
['laintiff s Original Petition
Page4ofll
Page 9
and Totka increased Dez Bryant's followers by over 200% during that time.
They also monitored and deleted any of Dez Bryant's negative tweets or rants.
b. Provided online reputation management for any negative stories that came out
regarding Dez Bryant. Media outlets often reported stories involving Dez
Bryant's outside relationships and rumors.
c.
Created, managed, marketed and personally incurred all costs for the offrcial
website of Dez Bryant, www.DezBryant.com., handled inquires, fan requests,
posted latest news and shipped signed photos and
"X"
stickers to various
charities and underprivileged fans.
d.
Provided Dez Bryant and his family with tickets to Dallas Mavericks games in
Mark Cuban's suite, Dallas Stars games, custom Dallas Mavericks jerseys, EA
Sports video games before release date and comedy show tickets when asked.
e.
Assisted with setting up, coordinating and marketing the Dez Bryant's lst Food
Giveaway and Turkey Drive at the Oak
Cliff YI\4CA during
Thanksgiving
2014.
f.
Negotiated for Dez Bryant to be on the cover of the 2015 ESPN Body Issue,
which was facilitated with magazine executive Stacey Pressman
- something
thatDez Bryant has been wanting to do for three years. Within a week of the
scheduled shoot, Defendants informed Dez Bryant not to do
it. ESPN said it
would not put him on the cover if Defendants were involved.
g.
Designed and incurred

o'Throw
up the
X"
all costs
associated
with creating all
assets
for the
brand.
Page5ofll
Page 10
h. Created and managed
the social media accounts for "Throw up the X," running
contests and maintaining positive interaction with fans.
i.
Created and incurred all costs developing the official website and online shop
for "Throw up the X" merchandise.
j.
Designed all "Throw up the
k.
Regularly sent out email newsletters/marketing to customers about specials and
X"
merchandise
upcoming "Throw up the X" product releases.
l.
Set up infrastructure
of "Throw up the X"
incoming orders, inventory
management, and customer service to handle high volume of customer inquiries

and purchases.
m. Regularly patrolled the Internet and social media platforms for "Throw up the
X"
merchandise bootleggers and took appropriate actions when found.
n. Provided "Throw up the X" shirts during training
camp and the regular season
to Dez Bryant's entire family, most Dallas Cowboys media, families in need
and sports celebrities such as LeBron James, Chris Paul, DeAndre Jordan, P.K.
Subban, Chandler Parsons, Mark Cuban, EA Sports, ESPN employees, the
entire Dallas Mavericks team and even sent Defendants all versions of the
design which Defendant employee Sarah Frances said all were scooped up right
away.
o.
Helped facilitate Dez Bryant meeting and greeting with underprivileged and
military families both pre and post-game.
14.
quickly
Plaintiff created the "Throw up the X" brand and ensured that it was established
as possible,
as
while not sacrificing any quality in the process. Totka and his partner Adam
I'laintiff s Original Petition
Page6ofll
Page 11
Alson devoted extraordinary and unprecedented efforts to grow the brand while keeping Dez
Bryant involved throughout the entire process.
15.
Plaintiff sent Dez I Enterprises, Inc. royalty payments, provided profrt &
loss
reports and presented all received offers to Dez Bryant. When Dez Bryant had a request for
apparel, Plaintiff provided same as quickly as possible.
16.
Plaintiffs contract with Dez
Enterprises, Inc., as
well as its tireless
and
extraordinary efforts on behalf of Dez Bryant, were widely reported in the media and known to
Defendants.
17.
[n particular, Defendants' employee, Kimberly Miale, who serves as a football
agent for the company, reached out to
Plaintiff s officers on multiple occasions seeking a copy of
the contract between Plaintiff andDez I Enterprises, Inc.
Official Brands Partners Ryan Totka and
Adam Alson met with Kimberly Miale at Defendants' corporate offices in New York City, about
one month before the contract was terminated, wherein Ryan Totka explained to Miale both the
current successes and future plans for the business.
18.
As a result of Plaintiffs efforts, which included two years of sweat equity, its
officers moving to Dallas County and putting their own personal capital into building the "Throw
up the
X" brand, the brand
started showing signs of real progress at the end
of 2014, and a royalty
check for tens of thousands of dollars was cut toDez I Enterpriseso Inc. from Plaintiff.
19.
Furthermore, and as a result of Plaintiff s efforts, there was an increase among
brands to associate
with Dez Bryant through the signing of lucrative endorsement
agreements.
Plaintiff received many such inquiries, which were each blocked by Defendants.
'}laintiff
Original Petition
PageTofll
Page 12
20.
As recently as the 2015 Super Bowl between the New England Patriots and the
Seaffle Seahawks, Dez Bryant and Ryan Totka were together discussing business opportunities
and how to continue growing the "Throw up the
21.
X" brand.
Following Defendants' signing (through Kimberly Miale) of Dez Bryant to
Standard Representation Agreement in November 2014,Defendant embarked upon a scheme to
utilize its employees to unlawfully induce Dez Bryant to terminate Dez
I Enterprises, Inc.'s
contract with Plaintiff and to shift all of his off-field business, including the "Throw up the X"
brand to Defendants. The tactics used by Defendants
to induce Dez Bryant to terminate Dez I
Enterprise, Inc.'s contract with Plaintiff included unsolicited contact with DezBryant and making
false and disparaging statements to Dez Bryant concerning Plaintiff and Ryan Totka, as well as,
upon information and belief, providing Dez Bryant with numerous improper enticements in order
to induce Dez Bryant to terminate the contract and relationship with Plaintiff and Ryan Totka.
22.
On February 24,2014, Dez Bryant and Dez I Enterprises, Inc. suddenly and without
prior notice or explanation ceased all contact with Ryan Totka and Plaintiff. Concurrently, Brad
D. Rose, a partner at the law firm Pryor Cashman LLP, sent a letter to Ryan Totka, on behalf of
Dez I Enterprises, Inc. andDez Bryant, attempting to provide written notice thatDez I Enterprises,
Inc. and DezBryant were terminating the contract with Plaintiff and demanding thatPlaintiff inter
alia
cease and desist
from any and all use of "Throw up the X." Brad D. Rose also serves as legal
counsel for Defendant.
23.
Upon information and belief, Defendants and their employees or representatives
(including but not limited to Kimberly Miale), made material false and disparaging statements to
Dez Bryant concerning Plaintiff and Ryan Totka, as well as provided improper inducements to
Plaintiff
Original Petition
PageSofll
Page 13
Dez Bryant in order to cause Dez Bryant to terminate the contract with Plaintiff and move all of
his off-field business to Defendants.
COUNT
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE \ryITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
24.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs l-23 herein.
25.
Plaintiff had a valid and binding agreement with Dez Bryant.
26.
Defendants had knowledge of the agreement between Plaintiff andDez Bryant.
27.
Defendants knowingly and
willfully induced Dez Bryant to terminate
the agreement between Plaintiff andDezBryant and
willfully
and breach
and intentionally interfered with that
contract.
28.
Defendants' conduct constitutes an unlawful tortious interference with Plaintiffls
contract with Dez
Bryant. Defendants' interference in the contractual relationship between
Plaintiff andDez Bryant was intentional, born of improper motivations, and perpetuated through
malicious and improper means.
29, But for Defendants'
purposeful interference with Dez Bryant's contractual
relationship with Plaintiff Dez Bryant would not have attempted to terminate and breach the
agreement between
Plaintiff and Dez Bryant. This interference proximately caused injury to
Plaintiff, resulting in actual damage or loss.
30.
As a direct result of Defendants' interference with Plaintifls contractual relations
with Dez Bryant, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined by this Court, together
with interest and costs.
Page9ofll
Page 14
COUNT
II
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH ADVANTAGEOUS BUSINESS

RELATIONS
Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-30 herein.
32.
Plaintiff maintained an active and on-going advantageous business relationship
3l
with Dez Bryant, which is described in more detail in Paragraph 13 of this Petition.
33.
Defendants knowingly and intentionally interfered with the advantageous business
relationship between Plaintiff
34.
an
d Dez Bryant.
Defendants' interference
in the advantageous
business relationship between
Plaintiff andDez Bryant was intentional, born of improper motivations and perpetuated through
malicious and improper means.
35.
As a result of Defendants' interference with the advantageous business relationship
between Plaintiff andDez Bryant, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined by
this Court, including interest and costs.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
36.
Plaintiffs injuries resulted from Defendants' malice or actual fraud, entitling
Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code g al.003 (a).
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
37.
The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues.
RULE 47 PLEADING
38.
are
Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P.47 (b), Plaintiff states the damages sought in this case
within the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. Under Rule 47 (c) (4), Plaintiff
Plaintiff
states
Original Petition
Page 10
of
Page 15
that the damages sought is monetary relief over $200,000 but not more than $1,000,000. Under
Rule 47 (d), Plaintiff further seeks all relief to which it is justly entitled.
39.
Plaintiffpraysthat,*ffiitreceivethefollowingrelief:
a.
Actual damages.
b.
Exemplary damages.
c.
Pre and post-judgment interest.
d.
Costs of Court.
e.
All
other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ lJohn D. Nation

John D. Nation
State BarNo. 14819700
4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75206
2 14-800-5 I 60
214-800-5 I 6 1 (facsimile)
n ati on lalvfi rml) gm ai l.0om
Darren A. Heitner
Florida Bar No. 85956
Heitner Legal P.L.L.C.
1108 Kane Concourse, Suite 305
Bay Harbor, Florida 33154
9s4-ss8-6999
9 5 4 -927 -333 3 (facsimile)
Qarren ff)he i tnerl ga l. com
(Pro Hac Vice pending)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Plaintiff
Original Petition
Pagellofll
Page 16

DALLAS DIVISION
$
$
Plaintiff,
$
$
V.
CNIL ACTION NO.
ROC NATION, LLC AND

$
$
$
Defendants
ROC NATION, LLC'S 12(bX6) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIM, OR ALTERNATIVELY' 12(e) MOTION FOR A
MORE DEF'INITE STATEME NT AND RRIEF'IN ST]PPORT
Defendant, Roc Nation,LLC ("Roc Nation"), hereby moves to dismiss all claims brought
by Plaintiff, Official Brands, Inc. ("Plaintiff'), under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) based on Plaintiff
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Roc Nation. Alternatively, Roc
Nation requests, pursuant to Federal Rule 12(e), that Plaintiff be required to provide a more
definite statement of its claims asserted in the above-captioned lawsuit.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
1.
No employee or representative of Roc Nation has ever had any dealings or
involvement with the Plaintiff, Dez Bryant, Dez
entity.
I Enterprises, Inc. or any other Dez Bryant
Nevertheless, Plaintiff brings suit against Roc Nation based solely on conclusory
allegations that fait
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs
Petition
purportedly asserts two claims of tortious interference against Roc Nation, but the Petition does
not identify a single act allegedly committed by Roc Nation. The only actor specifically
identified in the Petition is Kimberly Miale, a person who is not an agent, employee or
representative of Roc Nation. Moreover, no factual allegations exist (conclusory or otherwise)
oointended" to interfere with Plaintiffs contract. The

that Roc Nation or its representatives
Petition's complete lack of factual allegations with regard to Roc Nation requires dismissal under
12(bX6).
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
nv
Roc Nation bv not
failed to state a claim
with
interfere
to
interfering conduct bv Roc Nation or anv intent bv Roc Nation
Plaintiff
has
Plaintiffl s contract or business relationships.
2.
To survive a motion to dismiss under 12(bX6), "a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."'
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544,570 (2007). To be plausible, the complaint's "[flactual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level." In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC, 624 F.3d
201,210 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In deciding whether the complaint
states a
valid claim for relief, the court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true and construes the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. In re Great Lakes, 624 F3d at 210. The
o'conclusory allegations, unwaffanted factual inferences, or legal
Court does not accept as true
conclusions." Id.
3.
The elements of tortious interference with contract include: (1) existence of
contract subject to interference; (2) willful and intentional interference; (3) such interference is
the proximate cause of the plaintiffs
inj*y;
and (a) actual damages/loss. Allison v. J.P. Morgan
*
Chase Bank, N.A., I:1 1-CV-342, 2012 WL 4633 177 , at 1 1 (8.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2012) (citing
Powell Indus. v. Allen, 985 S.W.2d 455, 457-58 (Tex.
1998)). Similarly,
the elements of
tortious interference with prospective relationships include: (1) there was
reasonable
probability that the plaintiff would have entered into a business relationship with a third party;
(2) the defendant either acted with a conscious desire to prevent the relationship from occurring
or knew the interference was certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of the conduct;
(3) the defendant's conduct was independently tortious or unlawful; (4) the
interference
proximately caused the plaintiff injury; and (5) the plaintiff suffered actual damage or loss as a
result. Coinmach Corp. v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp., 417 S.W.3d 909, 923 (Tex.2013).
A.
All "factual" allegations against Roc Nation are conclusory.
4.
As an initial matter, Plaintiff s factual allegations do not identi$ any conduct that
would support the above elements for tortious interference. Plaintiff s Petition generally alleges
that "Defendants" tortiously interfered with (1) an agreement between Plaintiff andDez Bryant
and (2) an advantageous business relationship between Plaintiff andDez Bryant. See Plaintiff
Original Petition at
ll
24-35, pp. 9-10, attached as Exhibit
A.
Plaintiff bases its claims for
tortious interference on alleged acts and statements by "Defendants," which are broadly
described as "unsolicited contact," "false and disparaging statements" and 'oimproper
enticements." See, e.g., Exhibit A at n21,23, pp. 8-9.
5.
These conclusory allegations are deficient. Plaintiff has not identified a single act,
statement, contact,
or enticement by Roc Nation or any of its representatives or
Instead, Plaintiff alleges that all
ooDefendants" have committed these amorphous
accepted as true, Plaintiff does not allege any facts
employees.
acts. Even
if
to explain what type of enticements or
contacts were made or show why they were unsolicited or improper. Further, Plaintiff does not
identify what "false" statements were made, when such statements were made or by whom.
6.
Such facts are necessary, particularly with regard to Plaintiff s claim for tortious
interference with Plaintiff s prospective business relationships, which requires as an element that
the alleged interfering acts be "independently tortious or unlawful." Coinmach Corp.,
417
S.V/.3d atg23. Plaintiffls pleading that unidentified statements and contacts were "unsolicited,"
o'improper,"
or 'ofalse" is equivalent to alleging that Plaintiffs contacts or
"independently tortious or
statements were
unlawful." Plaintiff cannot simply seek out synonyms for
legal
concepts and hope to masquerade them as factual allegations. In sum, Plaintiff should not be
permitted to proceed on claims when no factual allegations have been pled to even connect Roc
Nation to the facts or parties involved in the case.
B.
No allegations (conclusory or factual) exist regarding Roc Nation or its

employees' intent.
7.
Importantly, in order to state a claim for tortious interference, the Plaintiff must
allege some facts that would plausibly suggest that Roc Nation's alleged interference was
intentional. Powell Indus.,985 S.W.2dat457-58; Coinmach Corp.,417 S.V/.3d at923. Failure
to do so results in dismissal of Plaintiff s tortious interference claims. Allison v. J.P. Morgan

Chase Bank,
N.A.,l:11-CV-342,2012 V/L4633177,at *11(8.D. Tex. Oct.2,2012) (grantinga
12(bX6) motion against plaintiffs tortious interference claim when the petition included
generic and formulaic recitation of the elements of the tort, but had not pled facts regarding the
willful intent on part of the defendants). In this instance, Plaintiff makes no factual allegations
regarding Roc Nation or any of its employees' intent other than a formulaic recitation of the
elements. Exhibit A at flfl 28,33, pp. 9-10.
8.
Moreover, to plead a claim for tortious interference with a prospective business
relationship, the Plaintiff must make factual allegations to support the claim that Roc Nation's
conduct was independently tortious or
example,
unlawful Coinmach Corp.,417 S.W.3d at923. Thus, for
if a plaintiff attempts to base its tortious interference claim
on fraudulent statements
made by a defendant about the plaintiff to a third person (as Ptaintiff does here), the plaintiff
must make suffrcient factual allegations to show that such statements "were intended to deceive"
in order for such statements to be actionable. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sturges,52 S.V/.3d
711,726 (Tex. 2001). Again, Plaintiff has not pled any factual allegations regarding the intent
of
Roc Nation or any representative of Roc Nation. Plaintiff s failure to plead any facts regarding
the essential element of intent requires dismissal of both of Plaintiffls tortious interference
claims.
il.
Alternatively. Plaintiff should be required to re-plead under 12(el.
9.
If the Court determines that Plaintiff s claims should not be dismissed
under Rule
I2(b)(6), Roc Nation respectfully requests that Plaintiff be required to re-plead its Petition to
allege specific factual allegations against Roc Nation in accordance with Rule 12(e). Rule 12(e)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a motion for more definite statement when the
plaintiffls pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the defendant cannot reasonably frame a
responsive pleading. Fpn. R. Ctv. P. l2(e); Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 197 F.3d 16I,
164
(sthCir. 1999). Indeed, a petition will
be deemed inadequate
"if it fails to (1) provide
notice
of circumstances which give rise to the claim, or (2) set forth sufficient information to outline the
elements of the claim or permit inferences to be drawn that these elements exist." See General
star Indemnity, co. v. vesta Fire Ins., Corp., 173 F.3d 946,950 (5th Cir. 1999).
10.
As currently drafted, the Petition fails to apprise Roc Nation of the conduct upon
which Plaintiff s claims against it rely. Plaintiff never differentiates between the two separate
entity defendants, but instead relies entirely on group pleading
collectively committed various unspecified
claiming that "Defendants"
acts. As noted above, the Petition also fails to
ooimproper enticements" that it alleges and does

identify what types of "unsolicited contact" or
not provide any basis for these allegations.
1.
Likewise, Plaintiff does not make any factual allegations regarding the alleged
o'material false and disparaging statements." Simply alleging that a false representation was
Plaintiff
claims. See TIB-
The Indep. BankersBankv. Canyon Cmty. Bank,3:13-CV-3913-D,2014WL
145284, at *5-6
made is insuffrcient to plausibly allege the necessary facts to support
action.
Id.
The plaintiff tracked the elements of negligent misrepresentation and stated, in part,
that defendant
ooin
the course of business as delineated above, made representations to [plaintiff]
regarding the Loans, and in doing so, supplied false information for the guidance of [plaintiffl in
its business." Id. at
*6.
converted defendant's
Defendant sought a more definite statement, and this District Court
l2(e) motion into a dismissal motion, dismissing the
negligent
misrepresentation claim because plaintiff had failed to plausibly allege any facts in support of its
claim. Id.
12.
Here, Plaintiff makes similarly broad statements regarding Roc Nation's alleged
misrepresentations. Plaintiff does not identify the time, place,

misrepresentations anywhere
or contents of any alleged
in its petition. Plaintiff identifies only one person (who is not
Roc Nation employee) who purportedly made false or disparaging statements, but again, does
not say when, where or what was said by this particular person. Exhibit A at fl 23,
p.8. Plaintiff
ooemployees
or representatives" made such statements, but Plaintiff
also generally alleges other
does not identify these employees or representatives by name or even state for which Defendant
entity these ooemployees or representatives" work. Id.
atll23, p.8.
In short, Plaintiff offers no
factual basis for its general, vague allegations regarding fraudulent statements. Moreover,
Plaintiff provides no explanation for why any such statements or representations (whatever they
may be) were fraudulent. For all of these reasons, this Court should require Plaintiff to re-plead
its Petition to add the level of factual specificity necessary to adequately put Roc Nation on
notice of the causes of action against it.
REOUEST FOR RELIEF

For the reasons stated herein, Roc Nation requests that this Court dismiss all of Plaintiff
claims against
it
based on PlaintifPs failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
under Federal Rule 12(b)(6). Alternatively, Roc Nation requests, in accordance with Federal
Rule 12(e), that this Court require Plaintiff to re-plead its Petition and include specific factual
allegations regarding the alleged conduct of Roc Nation. Roc Nation further asks for any such
other and further relief, either at law or in equity, general or special, to which it is justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
GARDERE WYNNE SE\ilELL LLP
By:
n
/s/ Gp,offrev H.
Geoffrey H. Bracken, SBOT# 02809750
gbracken@gardere.com
Mary Elizondo Frazier, SBOT# 24054592
mfrazier@gardere.com
Jordan J. La Raia, SBOT# 24069970
jlaraia@gardere.com
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 3400
Houston, Texas 77002-5007
Ph: (713) 276-5500 - Fax: (713)276-5555
James C. Scott, SBOT# 24056287

jscott@gardere.com
1601 Elm Street, Suite 3000
Dallas, Texas 75201
Ph (214) 999-3000 - Fax: (214) 999-4667
Attorney for D efendants,

Roc Nstion, LLC and Roc Nton Sports' LLC
CERTIFICATE
OF'
SERVICE
has been served via certified mail

return receipt requested and/or facsimile andlor electronically via the court's ECF service on the
I hereby certify that the above and foregoing document
following parties on this the 30th day of June,2015.

John D. Nation
4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 200

Dallas, Texas 75206
Ph: 2 1 4-800-5 1 60 - Fax: 214-800-5161
Email: nationlawfirm@ gmail.com
Darren A. Heitner
Heitner Legal P.L.L.C
1108 Kane Concourse, Suite 305
Bay Harbor, Florida 33154
Ph: 954-558-6999 - Fax: 954-927-3333
Email : Darren@heitnerle gal. com
Atto r n ey s fo r P lnt ff
/s/
Geoffrey H. Bracken
Case 3:15-cv-02199-B Document 4-1 Filed 06/30/15

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTzuCT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
$
$
Plaintiff,
$
$
CIVIL ACTION NO
ROC NATION, LLC AND

$
$
$
Defendants.
ORDER ON ROC NATION. LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS

BE IT REMEMBERED that on this day came on for consideration Roc Nation, LLC's
12(bX6) Motion to Dismiss Based on Lack of Personal Jurisdiction ("Motion to Dismiss").
The Court, after considering Roc Nation LLC's Motion to Dismiss, all responses thereto,
the evidence presented, the arguments of counsel, and taking judicial notice of the Court's file,
finds that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should be in all things GRANTED.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that all

claims against Roc Nation,LLC are hereby dismissed.
Costs of court are taxed to the Plaintiff.
Signed this
day
of
20t5
United States District Judge
Gardere0l - 6592013v .9
Of PIAiNtiff

Roc Nation Wants To Make Dez Lawsuit Disappear

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Roc Nation Wants To Make Dez Lawsuit Disappear

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Case 3:15-cv-02199-B Document 7 Filed 06/30/15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Exhibit A: Declaration of Juan Perez

Exhibit B: Plaintiffs Original Petition

CIVIL ACTION NO.

Case 3:15-cv-02199-B Document 7 Filed 06/30/15

Case 3:15-cv-02199-B Document 7 Filed 06/30/15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL ACTION NO.

ROC NATION, LLC AND

Case 3:15-cv-02199-B Document 7 Filed 06/30/15

Case 3:15-cv-02199-B Document 7 Filed 06/30/15

day of June 2015.

Case 3:15-cv-02199-B Document 7 Filed 06/30/15

Case 3:15-cv-02199-B Document 7 Filed 06/30/15

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

DALLAS COLINTY, TEXAS

ROC NATION, LLC.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Secretary ofState ofTexas is the agent for service ofprocess,

Defendants, non-resident corporations, engaged in business in Texas.

Case 3:15-cv-02199-B Document 7 Filed 06/30/15

Defendants do not maintain a regular business office in Texas.

as far as Plaintiff can determine, does not have a registered agent

for service ofprocess in Texas, and

This lawsuit arises from Defendants' conduct of business in Texas.

Z Carter). Defendants are Delaware

corporations and their registered agent for service of

Case 3:15-cv-02199-B Document 7 Filed 06/30/15

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, because Defendants

inter aliatortious interference with contractual relations and tortious

interference with advantageous business relations.

Remedies Code, as Dallas County is the county in which

all or a substantial part of the

Plaintiff is engaged in the manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale of

promotional merchandise and sports memorabilia.

Draft. In July 2010,DezBryant

signed a five-year, $11.8 million contract with the Dallas

Cowboys. In March 2ls,DezBryant was offered

franchise tagby the same

Ryan Totka (Plaintiffls Vice President) began developing

two engaging in business-related discussions.

Plaintiff's Original Petition

Case 3:15-cv-02199-B Document 7 Filed 06/30/15

"X",typically after accomplishing a positive feat on the football field.

connection with the

advertisement, marketing, promotion, and sale of Dez Bryant-branded promotional merchandise

Bryant, Plaintiff performed unprecedented services to build the "Throw up the

Managed Dez Bryant's social media accounts (lnstagram, Facebook,

['laintiff s Original Petition

Case 3:15-cv-02199-B Document 7 Filed 06/30/15

website of Dez Bryant, www.DezBryant.com., handled inquires, fan requests,

posted latest news and shipped signed photos and

charities and underprivileged fans.

Giveaway and Turkey Drive at the Oak

Cliff YI\4CA during

which was facilitated with magazine executive Stacey Pressman

it. ESPN said it

would not put him on the cover if Defendants were involved.

Designed and incurred

with creating all

Plaintiff's Original Petition

Case 3:15-cv-02199-B Document 7 Filed 06/30/15

h. Created and managed