INDEX NO.

654172/2015

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/14/2015 03:35 PM

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/14/2015

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------X
JAMES "JAS" PRINCE and YOUNG EMPIRE
MUSIC GROUP, LLC
Plaintiff,

Index No.:
Date Purchased:
Plaintiff(s) designate(s)
NEW YORK
County as the Place of trial.
The basis of the venue is
CPLR 501

-againstDERRICK LAWRENCE and ON THE ROAD,

LLC,
Defendants.

SUMMONS

------------------------------------------------------X

To the above named Defendant(s):

You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a
copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a
notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff's Attorneys within 20 days after the service of this
summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete
if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in
case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default
for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Dated:

New York, New York

December 14, 2015

Defendant's address:

PROFETA & EISENSTEIN

Attorneys for the Plaintiff
45 Broadway, Suite 2200
New York, New York 10006
(212) 577-6500

DERRICK LAWRENCE
189 Bridge Street, Apt. 12B
Brooklyn, New York 11201
ON THE ROAD, LLC
c/o Clarke Management and Consulting Group, LLC
12590 Pines Boulevard, Unit 260907
Pembroke Pines, Florida 33026

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------JAMES "JAS" PRINCE and YOUNG
EMPIRE MUSIC GROUP, LLC

Index No.:

Plaintiffs,

VERIFIED
COMPLAINT

-againstDERRICK LAWRENCE and ON THE

ROAD, LLC,
Defendant.
-----------------------------Plaintiffs James "Jas" Prince and Young Empire Music
Group, LLC, by their attorneys, Profeta & Eisenstein, as
and for their verified complaint against defendants Derrick
Lawrence

and

On

the

Road,

LLC,

state

as

follows

upon

information and belief:

Introduction

1.

This is an action for conversion, or civil theft,

and for breach of an agreement under which plaintiffs are

entitled

to

receive

profits

derived

from

the

commercial

exploitation of the recordings of Aubrey Graham, the artist

professionally known as "Drake".
2.

As set forth below, plaintiffs discovered Drake

and introduced him to defendant and others to further his

career,

which

is

now

extremely

successful.

In

return,

defendant agreed in writing to share revenue derived from

Drake's success with plaintiffs.
3.
and

As

shown

defeated

below,

plaintiffs

defendant

Lawrence

participation

has

rights,

impeded
and

has

diverted the proceeds of such participation to himself and

others.

Parties

4.

Plaintiff

resident

of

James

Houston,

"Jas"

Texas

and

Prince
is

("Prince")
the

is

principal

a
of

plaintiff Young Empire Music Group, LLC.

5.

Plaintiff Young Empire Music Group, LLC ("Young

Empire") is a foreign limited liability company with its

principal
Empire

place

is

an

of

business

in

entertainment

Houston,

company

Texas.

that

furnishes the services of performing artists.

Young

produces

and

Prince and

Young Empire are hereinafter collectively referred to as

"plaintiffs".
6.

Defendant

Derrick

Lawrence

(Lawrence)

is

resident of New York. Lawrence is a principal and 50% owner

of Aspire Music Group, LLC ("Aspire"), the foreign limited
liability company that contracted with Drake to furnish his
services to others for recordings as hereinafter more fully
appears.

Aspire regularly conducts business in New York.

2

7.

Defendant On the Road, LLC is a Florida Limited

Liability Company owned by defendant Lawrence and through

which defendant Lawrence has acted, as shown below.

Statement of the Claim

8.

In 2007, plaintiffs discovered Drake and brought

him to the attention of defendant Lawrence and others to

further Drake's entertainment career.
9.

Defendant

Lawrence

and

others

induced

Drake

to

sign an exclusive artist agreement with Aspire, of which

defendant Lawrence owns 50% and Cortez Bryant owns 50%.
10.

Defendant Lawrence and others then caused Aspire

to enter into an agreement to furnish Drake's services to

Young Money/Cash Money, a joint venture of Dwayne Carter
and Cash Money Records, Inc., to produce Drake's recordings
for Universal Music Group, which distributed them in the
universe excluding Canada.
11.

Defendant

Lawrence

and

others

caused

Aspire

to

enter into a Manufacturing and Distribution Agreement with

Universal Music Canada, Inc. for distribution of Drakes
recordings in Canada.
12.

Aspires

profit

participation

for

the

universe

excluding Canada is required to be paid to Aspire by Young

Money/Cash Money.
3

13.

Aspires profit participation for Canada has been

paid by Universal Canada directly to Aspire.

14.

In

agreement")

written

dated

July

agreement
9,

2009,

("the

settlement

clarified

by

further

agreement dated July 9, 2010, Defendant Lawrence and others

agreed, among other things, to pay to plaintiffs two-thirds
of

the

compensation

provision

of

payable

services

to

Aspire

agreement

with

under
Young

Aspire's
Money/Cash

Money, and two-thirds of the compensation payable to Aspire

under

the

Manufacturing

and

Distribution

Agreement

with

Universal Canada.
15.
promised

In the settlement agreement, defendant Lawrence

to

use

his

"best

efforts"

to

cause

Young

Money/Cash Money to account to and pay plaintiffs.

16.

In the settlement agreement, defendant Lawrence

promised to execute, acknowledge and deliver such further

and

additional

necessary

to

instruments,

implement,

documents

confirm

or

or

other

perfect

the

items
terms,

provisions and/or intentions of the settlement agreement.

17.

Defendant

Lawrence

has

not

caused

Young

Money/Cash Money to pay plaintiffs, and has blocked efforts

to bring legal action against Young Money/Cash Money on
Aspires behalf, frustrating plaintiffs effort to collect
what they are owed.

18.

Despite

plaintiffs

repeated

requests

since

at

least 2012, Aspire has failed and refused to vindicate, by

suit

or

otherwise,

its

Money/Cash

Money,

commercial

exploitation

right

one-third
of

to

of

receive,

the

from

profits

Drakes

recordings

Young

from

the

in

the

universe excluding Canada.

19.

On September 22, 2015, plaintiffs proposed that

Aspire assign its rights against Young Money/Cash Money to

plaintiffs, with plaintiffs agreeing to pay 100% of the
legal

fees

to

pursue

this

action

and

to

distribute

the

proceeds as they are by contract required to be shared.

20.
agreed

to

While Cortez Bryant, the other owner of Aspire,

this

proposal,

Defendant

Lawrence

refused

to

agree.
21.

Aspire

has

received

more

than

$2

million

from

Universal Canada on account of its share of the profits

from the commercial exploitation of Drakes recordings in
Canada.
22.

Under

the

settlement

agreement,

two-thirds

of

that amount is owed to plaintiffs, but none of it has been

paid to plaintiffs.
23.
Universal

Aspire is currently holding funds received from

Canada,

which,

under

the

settlement

agreement,

are required to be distributed two-thirds to plaintiffs and

one-third to Aspire.
5

24.

Cortez

Bryant,

Lawrence,

has

agreed

share

the

funds

of

to

who

owns

Aspire

distribute

received

by

to

with

defendant

plaintiffs

Aspire

from

their

Universal

Canada.
25.

Defendant

distribution

to

Lawrence

plaintiffs

has
of

refused

plaintiffs

to

permit

share

of

the
the

funds received by Aspire from Universal Canada.

26.

Cortez

Bryant,

who

owns

Aspire

with

defendant

Lawrence, has agreed to cause Aspire to send a letter of

direction to Universal Canada, directing that two-thirds of
future

income

be

distributed

directly

to

plaintiffs,

as

provided under the settlement agreement.

27.
to

send

Defendant Lawrence has refused to permit Aspire

a

letter

of

direction

to

Universal

Canada,

directing that two-thirds of future income be distributed

directly to plaintiffs, as provided under the settlement
agreement.
28.

Defendant Lawrence has performed no services for

Aspire, but he has taken distributions from Aspire through

his wholly-owned company defendant On the Road, LLC for
professional

services,

for

officer

payout

and

for

payment for outside services rendered in the amount of at

least $150,000.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION

29.

Plaintiffs

repeat

the

allegations

set

forth

in

paragraphs 128 hereof as if fully set forth herein.

30.

Defendants

Lawrence

and

On

the

Road,

LLC

have

engaged in conversion, or civil theft, of funds belonging

to plaintiffs, for their own benefit, causing damage to
plaintiffs in an amount to be determined at trial, together
with punitive damages.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT

31.

Plaintiffs

repeat

the

allegations

set

forth

in

paragraphs 130 hereof as if fully set forth herein.

32.
between

With knowledge of the existence of an agreement

Aspire

and

plaintiffs,

defendant

Lawrence

caused

and induced Aspire to breach its agreement with plaintiffs.

33.

As

result

of

the

tortious

interference

by

defendant Lawrence with the contract between plaintiffs and

Aspire, plaintiffs have suffered damage in an amount to be
determined at trial, together with punitive damages.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

34.

Plaintiffs

repeat

the

allegations

set

forth

paragraphs 133 hereof as if fully set forth herein.

7

in

35.

Defendant

Lawrence

has

breached

the

settlement

agreement with plaintiffs, causing damages to plaintiffs in

an amount to be determined at trial.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE

COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

36.

Plaintiffs

repeat

the

allegations

contained

in

paragraphs 135 hereof as if fully set forth.

37.

Defendant Lawrence has breached the covenant of

good faith and fair dealing implied in every contract by

acting to block plaintiffs from receiving the benefit of
their agreement with him.
38.
has

As a result of the foregoing, defendant Lawrence

caused

damage

to

plaintiffs

in

an

amount

to

be

determined at trial.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:
a.

On their first cause of action for conversion,

for damages against defendants Lawrence and On the Road,

LLC in an amount to be determined at trial that exceeds the
jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with
punitive damages.
b.

On

their

second

cause

of

action

for

tortious

interference with contract, for damages against defendant

Lawrence

in

an

amount

to

be

determined

at

trial

that

c.

On

contract,
amount

their

for

to

third

damages

be

cause

against

determined

of

action

defendant

at

trial

for

breach

Lawrence

that

in

exceeds

of

an
the

jurisdictional limit of all lower courts.

d.

On their fourth cause of action for breach of the

covenant of good faith and fair dealing for damages against

defendant

which
courts;

Lawrence

exceeds
together

the

in an

amount

to

be

jurisdictional

with

such other

determined

limits

and

the Court may seem just and proper,

of

all

as

as well

as the

costs

Yours etc.,
EISENSTEIN

Jethro M.

45 Broadway,

lower

relief

New York, New York

December 14, 2015

PROFETA &

trial

further

and disbursements of this action.

Dated:

at

Eisenstein

Suite 2200

New York, New York 10006

(212) 577-6500

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

to

ATTORNEY'S VERIFICATION

Jethro M.

Eisenstein,

an attorney admitted to practice

in the courts of New York State and a member of the firm of

Profeta

&

Eisenstein,

perjury

that:

am

hereby

attorney

affirms
for

under

the

penalty

plaintiffs

in

of
the

within action; I have read the foregoing complaint and know

the

contents

knowledge,

thereof

except

as

and
to

the

the

same

matters

alleged on information and belief,

I believe

it to

be

and investigation.
me

and not

is

true

therein

to

stated

to

own
be

and as to those matters

true based upon documents

in the file

The reason this verification is made by

by plaintiffs is because plaintiffs are not in

the county where I maintain my office.

Dated:

my

New York, New York

December 14, 2015

Mam^ H
JETHRO M.

10

EISENSTEIN