ANTHONY J. ONCIDI (SBN: 118135)
‘aoncidi@proskauer.com
PIETRO A. DESERIO (SBN: 309230)
pdeserio@proskauer.com
/PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
2049 Century Park East, 32nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
‘Telephone: (310) $$7-2900
Facsimile: (310) 557-2193
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC.
COpy
CONFORMED COPY
“ORIGINAL FI
Seayvemee
oes Sia
OCT 05 2018
‘Shett R, Carter, Executive Oficer/Clerk
‘By: Charlo L. Coleman, Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC., a Delaware | Case No. 18ST cvoo 496
|Corporation,
Plait
vs
INETELIX, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR:
(1) Intentional Interference with
Contractual Relations; and
(2) Unfair Competition — Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code §§ Code 17200 et seq.
‘COMPLAINTPlaintiff Viacom International Inc. (“Viacom”), for its complaint against Netflix, Ine.
((*Netflix” or “Defendant”), alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. For some reason, Netflix thinks it’s not bound by the same rules that apply to
everyone else, as it continues to blatantly disregard well-established California law, including the
{fornia Labor Code itself, which expressly recognizes and permits the enforcement of term
employment agreements. Cal. Labor Code §§ 2920, ef seq. Despite the fact that Viacom executive
Momita Sengupta (“Sengupta”) was employed pursuant to a valid, fully enforceable term
employment agreement, Netflix sought her out and knowingly and deliberately induced her to breach
her employment contract.
2. Viacom employed Sengupta as Executive Vice President, Production Management
and Operations in the Global Entertainment Group, pursuant to a three-year term employment
agreement (“the Employment Agreement”), which will not expire until April 21, 2020. Sengupta
negotiated the terms of her Employment Agreement and enjoyed both the security and benefits of
{that Employment Agreement.
3. Netflix was aware that Sengupta was under a term Employment Agreement with,
Viacom. Despite that fact, and flouting well-settled law that applies to all who do business in
California, Netflix engaged in an illegal course of dealing designed to tortiously induce Sengupta to
breach her Employment Agreement with Viacom so that she could commence employment with
Netflix immediately. Viacom is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Netflix even
promised Sengupta that it would defend and indemnify her and pay for her legal representation
should Viacom seek to enforce its legal rights.
4, Netflix has signaled that it has no intention of complying with the law, and that its
illegal attempts to induce Viacom employees to break their contracts without consequence will not
Ibe limited to Sengupta. Viacom is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Netflix has
illegally induced employees to breach contracts with other industry employers, at least one of whom
is pursuing court enforcement of its rights.
5. Netflix’s tortious interference with an enforceable term employment agreement is,
-1-
‘COMPLAINTera wee
ul
12
1B
4
15
16
7
18
19
20
2
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
neither trailblazing nor innovative ~ rather, it’s just another example of Netflix’s utter contempt for
the law of the State of California, which benefits employers and employees alike, and itis simply
lunlawfil. Netflix should not be permitted to profit from its unequivocally illegal and tortious
behavior. Consequently, Viacom seeks damages and injunctive relief as a result of Netflix’s willful
and malicious interference in Viacom’s contractual relationship with Sengupta.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This action arises under the laws of the State of California and is within the subject
matter jurisdiction of this Court.
7. A substantial part of the events giving rise to Viacom’s causes of action as alleged
herein occurred in Los Angeles County, California, and has a direct effect on Viacom in Los
/Angeles County, California.
8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, as Netflix does business in Los
| Angeles, California and/or is a tesident of California,
9, Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 395
et seq. and Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(B), as this is the judicial district in
‘which (i) Netflix does business; and (ji) a substantial part of the events giving rise to Viacom's
claims occurred, including Sengupta’s breach and Netflix’s inducement of that breach.
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff Viacom is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in
New York, New York, and it conducts business in Los Angeles, California.
11. Defendant Netflix is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in
Los Gatos, California, and it conducts business in Los Angeles, California, with offices located at
+5808 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90028.
BACKGROUND
12. Viacom is a creator, producer and distributor of television programming and other
entertainment products, including motion pictures and digital media. Viacom has invested and
continues to invest billions of dollars annually to create and disseminate its entertainment content to
millions of consumers, including investing in its executive workforce, which plays an integral role in
-2-
‘COMPLAINT