The Moscow Murders and More

The Mega Edition: UMG And The Motion To Dismiss The Rod Jones Lawsuit (1/3/25)

A memorandum in support of a request for dismissal of a complaint is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the reasons why a complaint should be dismissed. This type of memorandum is typically prepared by the defendant or their legal counsel and presented to the court as part of the pre-trial proceedings.

In this document, the defendant usually provides legal arguments and evidence to support their request for dismissal. This could include demonstrating that the complaint fails to state a valid legal claim, that there is a lack of jurisdiction, or that there are other legal grounds for dismissal.

The memorandum serves as a persuasive tool for the court, aiming to convince the judge that the complaint does not have merit and should not proceed to trial. It is important for the memorandum to be well-researched, clearly written, and supported by relevant legal precedent.

In this episode we begin our look at the UMG memorandum in support of dismissing the complaint filed against them by Rodney Jones.

(commercial at 7:27)

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.41.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Duration:: 1h 1m
Broadcast on:: 03 Jan 2025
Audio Format:: other

If you want to see more companies make things in America, consider buying more things from companies who are already doing that very thing. Companies like American Giant. These guys have been making t-shirts, sweatshirts, flannels, and blue jeans in America for the last 14 years, with cotton grown right here in the USA. That means good jobs for lots of hardworking Americans in factory towns all over the country. Check out their stuff in stores everywhere or pick up something awesome at american-giant.com. This time of year, a good hoodie is absolutely essential, but it's tough to find one that will last through the season. That's why the American Giant Classic full zip hoodie is made to last a lifetime, so you can count on it to bring you comfort and warmth year after year. Slate Magazine called it the greatest hoodie ever made, and from cotton to zipper, it's made right here in the USA. With timeless style, heavyweight fleece, a double lined hood, and reinforced elbow patches, you can depend on it for years to come. Snag the hoodie that will bring you comfort for life, the American Giant Classic full zip, and save 20% off your first order at american-giant.com when you use code classic24 at checkout. That's 20% off your first order at american-giant.com code classic24. What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're getting right back to those Diddy Court documents, and taking a look at some "fresh drops" that just hit the docket recently, so let's not waste any time, and let's just dive right in. The Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Second Immended Complaint Case number 24-CV-10457 Rodney Jones Plaintiff, again Sean Jones, etc. Please take notice that upon the accompanying memorandum of law and support of this Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Second Immended Complaint dated April 12, 2024, ECF number 38, SAC, the supporting declaration of Donald S. Zaccarin dated April 24, 2024, and the declarations of Sir Lucian Grange dated April 18, 2024, Martha Brathwaite dated April 18, 2024, and Ethiopia Haptomerium dated March 27, 2024, exhibited thereto, and their respective exhibits, and all prior proceedings, heretofore, had and all papers filed herein, defendants Sir Lucian Grange, Motown Records, and UMG Recordings Incorporated, the UMG defendants, will move this court at a date and time to be determined by the court, for orders dismissing with prejudice, all claims against them in the Plaintiff Rodney Jones Plaintiff, SAC, Pursuant, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 8, 12, B2, and 12B6. Please take further notice that Pursuant to the Order of this Court, ECF number 36, any opposing papers shall be filed within 21 days hereof, and any reply papers shall be filed within 14 days after the filing of Plaintiff's Opposition Papers. This was signed by Donald Eszakarin, and it was dated April 24 of 2024, all right, moving on to the next document which is the Memorandum of Law that's in support of the motion we just discussed. Memorandum of Law and Support of the UMG defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Case number 124-CV-01457, Rodney Jones Plaintiff, against Sean Combs, etc. Defendant Sir Lucian Grange, Motown Records and UMG Recordings Incorporated, UMG Recordings Incorrectly Named as Universal Music Group, which is not a juridical entity, respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law and Support of their motion, Pursuant to Fedarsiv, P8, 12B, N2, and 12B and 6, to dismiss the second amended complaint to Plaintiff, Rodney Jones, Plaintiff, ECF, number 38, the Preliminary Statement. As set forth below in the argument section of this Memorandum of Law, all of the claims against Grange, Motown, and UMG Recordings, the UMG defendants, in the SAC, are lacking in any legal, cognizable basis. Every claim is premised on the untenable strict liability theory, and when one enters into a commercial contract, the payer, under the contract becomes liable for anything that the recipient of payment does with the payment. There is no law underpinning such theory, and the baseless general business partnership allegation in the SAC provides no support. The claims against the UMG defendants are entirely bereft of legal merit and should be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff and his counsel, Blackburn, have blown up a $50,000 claim for underpayment for production services into criminal accusations against Sean Combs and his associates. Not content that Pursu Combs alone without any factual or legal basis, Plaintiff and his counsel, Blackburn, have also improperly accused Grange, UMG Recordings, and Motown collectively, the UMG defendants, of furthering participating in and helping to conceal the alleged conduct of Combs and his associates based on unknowingly false general business partnership allegation coupled with the fabrication of a non-existed duty to supervise and control how Combs spent his own money. The first amended complaint contained offensively and knowingly false allegations that the UMG defendants attended, participated in, and financially supported Combs alleged sex trafficking activities. The FAC also alleged that Motown should be vicariously liable for the conduct of Combs love records as the so-called parent company of love records. The SAC abandons virtually all of these allegations. Gone is Plaintiff's completely fabricated allegation that he personally saw Grange and former defendant, Ethiopia have to marry him, at Combs alleged sex parties. In response to the UMG defendants' motion to dismiss the FAC, Plaintiff and his counsel pivoted to pretending only that Combs told him Grange was there, and that he was in a drug-induced state at the time, things nowhere mentioned in the FAC. Also Gone is the utterly unfounded allegation that Motown was the parent company of love records. Eliminating the FAC's respondent superior, alleged basis for trying to affix responsibility on the UMG defendants for Combs alleged actions. But unwilling to acknowledge that they never had any basis for any claim against the UMG defendants, Plaintiff and Blackburn simply invent new foundational allegations for the claims in the SAC. These claims are the foundational allegations are no less false than those in the FAC. Thus in place of parent company Plaintiff and Blackburn now contend, repeated some 46 times, that the UMG defendants and Combs and his record label love records are general business partners. The SAC even falsely alleges that Haptimarium's declaration attached to the SAC says that Grange authorized Motown to enter into a general business partnership with Combs. She says no such thing. Her declaration says only that Motown was authorized to enter into a license agreement, and Haptimarium and her counsel specifically told Blackburn there was no partnership. And weeks before filing the SAC, Plaintiff and Blackburn were provided a redacted copy of the license agreement, Brathwaite declaration example A, which specifically states in Paragraph 1611 that there was no partnership. Plaintiff and Blackburn ignore all of this, and instead of pleading any of the required facts to support their partnership allegation, content themselves with seizing on colloquial language in the press about Motown and love records partnering on love records first album, the law of album, thus contrary to undisputed evidence and without any legal or factual basis, Plaintiff and Blackburn simply offer the unsupported conclusion that UMG defendants are Combs, general business partners, and B, that as alleged partners they were obligated to supervise and control how Combs supposedly spent Motown's license payments to love records, somehow making them liable for Combs alleged actions. Plaintiff's theory has no legal or factual basis and does not remotely satisfy the plausibility standard that governs Rule 12b6. Plaintiff admits there is a license agreement between Motown and love records to finance the making of music. He then leaps from that admission to unsupported conclusions A, that the UMG defendants were "wittingly" or "unwittingly" financing Combs alleged sex trafficking and B, the UMG defendants had a duty to supervise Combs in his personal activities and to prevent him from spending money on his alleged illicit behavior. There are neither any facts nor any law to support that theory. And if all else were not sufficient to show that the SAC, like the FAC are pure gibberish, Blackburn's cry that he is certain he can prove his theory if he only got his discovery, confirms that there is and never was any basis for the SAC's claims against the UMG defendants. Money of course is fungible, a fact that seems to allude Plaintiff and Blackburn. Nothing in the license agreement between UMG recordings and love records allows any inference that UMG defendants are financing the trafficking of sex and exhibits B and C to the Brathway Declaration confirm the opposite. After Blackburn's theory, any pair of monies to Combs, for any reason, e.g. Diagio, which distributes his liquor brands or a bank paying interest on an account, is liable for the Combs actions. Even if Plaintiff's general business partnership allegation had any basis, the entire theory of the claims against the UMG defendants is nonsensical. But is set forth in the accompanying declarations of Sir Lucian Grange, Ethiopia-Abdomarium, Martha Brathway, and Donald Eszakaran, and the exhibits annexed here too, that are referenced by or integral to the SAC, there is no factual underpinning for the SAC's claim against the UMG defendants. The remainder of this memorandum of law explains why Plaintiff's claims are rising under the federal racketeering, Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RECO), US Code 18, Section 1661, and Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, TVPA, US Code 18, Section 1591, are invalidly pleaded and should be dismissed with prejudice. The absurdity of Plaintiff's attempt to leap a chasm-sized gap between his factually unfounded conclusions and his claims against the UMG defendants is graphically illustrated in paragraphs 2.50 of his SAC. Upon information and belief, his Uber to transport his sex worker to and from Mr. Combs' home, and his sex worker were compensated from the financial support the UMG defendants provided to Sean Combs and the love record for recording costs associated with the creation of the love album. "How dangerous is it to unwrap a burger at 40 miles per hour? More so than you'd think. In a little over 2 seconds, your car can travel slightly more than 117 feet, which is the same length as 20 bicycles. Anything that distracts you while driving is dangerous. That's why driving while texting can be deadly, too. So heads up, phones down, it's the law and you can be fined." A message from the Colorado Department of Transportation "This is a message from sponsor Intuit TurboTax. Taxis was waiting and wondering and worrying if you were ever going to get any money back, and then waiting, wondering and worrying some more. Now taxes is matching with a TurboTax expert who can do your taxes as soon as today. An expert who gives your taxes their undivided attention as they work on your return while you get real-time updates on their progress so you can focus on your day. An expert who will find you every deduction possible and file every form, every investment, every everything with 100% accuracy. Also you can get the most money back guaranteed. No waiting, no wondering, no worries. Now this is taxes. Get an expert now on TurboTax.com. Only available with TurboTax Live full service, real-time updates only in iOS mobile app. See guaranteed details at TurboTax.com/guarantees. ECF #38 at 250. This is both a non-sequitur and nonsense. In plaintiff's application for leave to file his SAC, he acknowledged that he cannot allege that the UMG defendants intentionally did anything, but that he nonetheless seeks to impose, federal racketeering and sex trafficking liability upon the UMG defendants for having negligently funded the activities of defendant Sean Combs. ECF #30 at P1. The UMG defendants paid and/or reimbursed recording costs under an arm's length license agreement. They are not general business partners and the claims against them go far beyond being frivolous. Relevant allegations and facts. plaintiff continues to allege three claims against the UMG defendants in his SAC-1, first cause action for violations of the RICO Act, US Code 18, Section 1962A, C, ND, ECF #38, 201 through 276, 2, 15th cause of action, 4 participating in violations of the TVPA, US Code 18, Section 1591, A&2, 1595, ECF #38, 370 through 376, and 3, 16th cause of action for obstructing enforcement of the TVPA, under 18 US Code, Section 1591D, ECF #38, 377 through 393, facts alleged in SAC. plaintiff claims he periodically lived with Combs in various residences in California, New York, and Florida working on a Combs album, ECF #38, 23 through 35. He supposedly witnessed, experienced, and endured an alleged shooting at Childless Recording Studio in Los Angeles, California, and various acts of sexual pressure and sex trafficking at Combs' residences. The UMG defendants' sole alleged connection to any of this is as the general business partner of Combs under the license agreement they intentionally or unintentionally funded his activities. As set forth in the accompanying declaration of Donald S. Zakaran in support of this motion, dated April 24, 2024, and the declarations of Sir Lucian Grange, dated April 18, 2024, and Martha Brathwaite, dated April 18, 2024, and Ethiopia Haptomerium, dated March 27, 2024, which are exhibits to the Zakaran declaration, the factual foundation for all of the claims against the UMG defendants is indisputably non-existent. There are no New York personal jurisdiction allegations. Plaintiff admits that Grange resides in California, Plaintiff admits that UMG recordings in Motown, principal places of business are in California, beyond an unsupported claim that he was groped by Combs in LA, New York, Florida, St. Bartholomew, and the United States Virgin Islands. Every event alleged in the FAC relating to Plaintiff's claims against the UMG defendants occurred in California. The only arguable basis for personal jurisdiction and venue over the UMG defendants is under nationwide service of process pursuant to the RICO statute, US Code 18, Section 1965D. As shown below, the RICO claim against the UMG defendants is so patently lacking in merit that upon its dismissal, there is not even an arguable basis for personal jurisdiction over the UMG defendants, for any of the other equally baseless claims and therefore dismissal would be appropriate under Rule 12(b)(2). Plaintiff's RICO and TVPA allegations concerning Grange. Plaintiff alleges that a supposed 20-year-long RICO enterprise somehow caused him to witness and participate in various acts of sexual misconduct at Combs' residences in Florida and California. Plaintiff alleges that the enterprise was instrumental and directed and operated by co-defendants Combs and his chief of staff, Christina Coram, with assistance from five other individuals, none of whom is any of the UMG defendants, Stevie Jay, Justin Combs, Brendan Paul, Frankie Santella, and Moibon. Plaintiff alleges in purely conclusionary terms that these people ordered sex workers and prostitutes, ordered and distributed a number of narcotics, procured date rape drugs that were used against female attendees, and acquired and distributed guns and drugs. Nowhere does the SAC allege that any of the UMG defendants did anything to direct or operate the alleged enterprise. Instead the SAC adopts a frivolous and legally baseless theory against the UMG defendants as follows. First Plaintiff alleges that UMG defendants entered into a general business partnership agreement as that term is defined by the laws of the state of New York to provide financial resources to their general business partners, defendant Sean Combs and Combs records, love records incorporated. Plaintiff alleges through the alleged general business partnership that the UMG defendants provided funding and/or reimbursements for expenses associated with the recording cost of the love album, Love Records' first album release, which was released on September 23, 2023, but Blackburn knows there is no general business partnership, he ignores the express terms of the license agreement, breathweight declaration example A, nothing herein contemplates or constitutes love records or Combs as Motown's partners, joint ventures, agents or employees. He ignores the haptomerium declaration, he himself attached to the SAC, he ignores the explicit advice of haptomerium's counsel, the SAC pleads no facts to support the existence of any partnership, instead he refers only to colloquial press reports in 2022 announcing that Love Records had partnered on a one-time album deal with Motown Records to release Love Records' inaugural album. Second, using the non-existent general partnership agreement as a springboard, the SAC further alleges that, as the general business partners of Shawn Combs and Love Records Incorporated and the financial backer for the creation of the love album, the UMG defendants had a duty to ensure that the financial support they provided to Shawn Combs and Love Records was not being used for sex workers, drugs and laced alcohol. These coupled allegations, the non-existent partnership and non-existent duty, are the sole foundation for plaintiff's entire case theory against the UMG defendants. Not a single fact is alleged to support the general business partnership allegation, no facts or law exist to support the alleged duty the SAC unilaterally imposes on the UMG defendants as payors under the license agreement for Combs making of music, to police all of his personal and business activities. Indeed, the SAC itself admits that plaintiff and Blackburn have no knowledge of any intentional act by the UMG defendants, and in the letter of motion belatedly seeking permission to file the SAC admitted that their wildly attenuated RICO and TVPA claims seek to affix federal RICO and TVPA liability on the UMG defendants for having negligently funded the activities of defendant Shawn Combs. Third, through vague and improper group pleading, discussed more fully below, plaintiff alleges that UMG defendants mere payment of money in connection with the love album somehow constitutes mail and wire fraud, sex trafficking and narcotics distribution predicate acts for purposes of civil RICO claim all bit without any specific allegations as to any of the UMG defendants. Fourth, through more than 14 pages of bloated and totally improper pleading, including more than six single space pages of single paragraph, all of which are purely conclusionary, not factual, which cannot distract from the absence of any viable and coherent legal theory, plaintiff concludes that the UMG defendants should be liable for sex trafficking under the TVPA for providing so-called unchecked financing to love records under the license agreement. Without a single fact alleged to support unchecked financing, plaintiff's theory is without any actual knowledge or personal participation in the alleged sex trafficking somehow the UMG defendants knew or should have known that the money paid under the license agreement to make music would be used to fund the sex trafficking venture. Leaping from this nonsensical conclusion, the SAC, contends as a purely vicarious matter that the UMG defendants actively participated in the recruitment of victims of the venture. Chief's RICO and TVPA claims try to rope in "grange" UMG recordings in Motown because they supposedly knew of Com's conduct, which they did not, failed to prevent it, which they had no duty to prevent, or allegedly facilitated it, merely by paying monies due under the license agreement and supposedly not controlling how the monies were used, and beyond pleading conclusions no facts are alleged to support any of those conclusions. Be undisputed facts or otherwise. Under the license agreement advance, Motown paid or reimbursed love records, for invoiced recording costs or marketing and promotional expenses. Brathwaite Declaration at 15 exhibits B&C "grange Declaration" at 26 and 32 "Haptomerian Declaration" at 27. The argument. To survive Rule 12b6 dismissal, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter except it is true to state a claim to relief is plausible on its face. A claim has "facial" plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Zickball, 556, US 662, 678, Quoting Bell Corporation v. Twombly, 550 US 544 2007. Red bear recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice, nor do legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions, Actman v. Kirby, McKinney and Squire LLP, 464, F.3D328, 337 Second Circuit 2006, AJ Energy, LLC vs. Worry Bank, No. 18 CV, 3735 2019 WL, 468, 8629 at 5, SDNY September 26, 2019, moreover, where well-pleated facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct that the complaint has alleged, but it has not shown that the pleater is entitled to relief. Technomarine SA vs. Jacob Time Inc. 905F.SUPP 2D 482-487 SDNY 2012 I, plaintiff's reco claim against the UMG defendants should be dismissed. Students look with particular scrutiny at civil reco claims to ensure that the statute is used for the purposes intended by Congress. Goldfine v. Sechenzia, 118F, SUPP 2D 392, 396 and 97, SDNY 2000. As the court in Katzmann vs. Victoria's Secret Catalog explained, civil reco is an unusually potent weapon, the litigation equivalent of a thermonuclear device, because the mere assertion of a reco claim has an almost inevitable stigmatizing effect on those named as defendants, courts should strive to flush out frivolous, reco allegations at an early stage of the litigation, 167FRD 649-655 SDNY 1996, thus bald contentions, unsupported characterizations and legal conclusions and not well-pleated allegations will not suffice to defeat a motion to dismiss. Highland Insurance Company vs. PRG Broke Ridge Inc., #01-CV-2272-2004-WL-35439 at 2-SDNY January 6, 2004. The SAC contains only ball conclusions. As discussed below, a civil reco claim requires that each defendant, one committed, two or more predicate acts of racketeering activity, two constituting a pattern, three through an enterprise, four, each defendant directed the operation and management of five, causing property loss for the plaintiff, Lundy vs. Catholic Health Systems of Long Island Inc., 711-F.3D-106, through 119 Second Circuit 2013. The reco claim against the UMG defendants fails to satisfy any of these requirements. A) plaintiff fails to allege two or more predicate acts of racketeering activity. A reco claim must charge each name defendant with a commission of two or more predicate acts of racketeering activity. U.S. Code 18, Section 1961-5. Continental Craft Corp. vs. Ura Asia Development Group Inc., #97-CV-0619-97-WL-642-350 at 4 EDNY September 8, 1997. Explaining activities include a number of criminal acts, including the commission of Interstate Mail or Wirefraud pursuant to U.S. Code 18, Section 1961-1341, and 1343. Plaintiff does not "violably plead any predicate acts against the UMG defendants." 1. Plaintiff fails to plead mail and wirefraud with requisite or any particularity. His plaintiff invokes alleged mail and wirefraud as predicate acts, ECF #38, 246-273. He is required to satisfy the heightened pleading requirement of Rule 9B. Indeed, the court of this circuit have recognized that the policies behind Rule 9B's particularity requirement apply the particular force in reco actions, e.g. Nacic Breeding and Research Farm vs. Mercken Company 165-FSUPP2-D514-537-SDNY-2001. As here, where multiple defendants are accused of mail or wirefraud, plaintiff must plead fraud with particularity as to each defendant. The Court Morgan's Waterfall Holdings LLC vs. Donaldson Lufkin and Jenna Rhett Security Corporation 198-FRD608-609-610-SDNY-2001. A Plaintiff may not circumvent Rule 9B by identifying the defendants as members of various groups. Roger Ottenham vs. Motley Rice LLC 449F.suPP3-D 4568-EDNY-2020. Thus, Plaintiff must specifically allege the circumstances of the fraud, including the content of the alleged misrepresentations, the date and place of the misrepresentations and the identity of the speakers or writers. CEG - Highlands 2004-WL 35-439-2-4. The SAC does not remotely satisfy Rule 9B standard of identifying two or more particular acts of mail and/or wirefraud by any of the UMG defendants. To be sure, Plaintiff lards the SAC with vague references throughout two mails and wires being used, but nowhere does Plaintiff particularize any specific allegedly fraudulent mails and wires by any of the UMG defendants. In fact, the SAC does not allege any mail or wires being sent by UMG defendants, nor does it identify the content of the alleged communications when they were sent, who sent them, and the whom in violation of Rule 9B. Blackburn acknowledged that he has no knowledge of any mail or wirefraud in his application for leave to file the SAC when he asked for limited discovery to be able to particularize his allegations of mail and wirefraud. He has it backwards, Plaintiff may not first unlock the doors of discovery so that he can discover the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9B, Plaintiff must first satisfy the heightened requirements of Rule 9B before being allowed to unlock the doors of discovery. e.g. Riker vs. Premier Cap LLC, 15-CV, 8293-2016, WL 533-4980-6, SDNY September 22nd, 2016, to allow discovery to substitute for compliance with Rule 9B is to put the cart before the horse, as it ignores the fact that discovery has to be tied to a pleading which passes muster. Smith vs. Home Depot, USA Inc., 20-CV 4125-2021, WL 490-4572-6, EDNY October 21st, 2021. A case warrants discovery only if the complaint satisfies the relevant pleading standards. See also Ashcroft, 556, US at 678 and 79. Holding that conclusionary allegations do not unlock the doors of discovery under Rule 8. Moreover, Blackburn himself admitted he has no civil Rico claims against the UMG defendants when he admitted his theory is predicated on an assertion that the UMG defendants negligently funded the activities of defendant Sean Combs, ECF #30 at P1, Civil Rico liability requires intentional misconduct, not alleged negligence, Edmunds vs. CV, #08-CV-5646-2009, WL 2949-757, at 5, SDNY September 19, 2009, 379-F.APPX 62, 2nd Circuit, 2010, to be guilty of the plaintiff male or wire fraud defendants must have engaged in intentional fraud or acted with reckless indifference to the truth while engaged in the use of wires or mails. Muir negligence is insufficient to support a Rico claim that is based on these predicate acts. There are no predicate acts of male or wire fraud by the UMG defendants pleaded, let alone with particularity. That alone requires dismissal of plaintiff's Rico claim against them. 2) Plantive fails to plead a viable controlled substances claim In harassing kitchen sink style pleading, plaintiff vaguely alleges as additional predicate acts that the UMG defendants violated the Federal Controlled Substances Act CSA 21 U.S. Code, Section 1, Florida Penal Code 893.135, California Health and Safety Code Section 7352, New York Penal Codes 220.77, 220.18, 220.50, 220.06, and U.S. Virgin Islands Penal Code Title 19, Section 614A. Plaintive makes no effort to identify the elements of any of these invoked statutes. He does not even include the correct citation for the CSA, and he fails to plead how any of the UMG defendants conduct allegedly violated any of them. His alleged predicate acts are nonsense. Within this part of the SAC, plaintiff specifically identifies each so-called enterprise member, none of whom is a UMG defendant. Plaintive's only allegation concerning the UMG defendants is that they provided financial resources to defendant Sean Combs and love records. For certain of the invoiced recording costs incurred by love records in making the love album, plaintiff then stretches his reasoning beyond all rational bounds and alleges that according to him, while the Combs' Rico enterprise, including other defendants and persons, was procuring, transporting, and distributing illegal narcotics, it was during the making of the love album. Again, the UMG defendants are not alleged to be involved in any of these activities other than through the nonexistent general business partnership and by paying monies due under the license agreement for the recording of the love album and supposedly failing to control how Combs allegedly spent the monies. There are no facts supporting any of this in no law, nor any good faith basis for changing the law pleaded. Plaintive does not plausibly allege that the UMG defendants violated any of the cited statutes because, among a host of other failings, plaintiff does not allege that the UMG defendants, new Combs, and his associates were allegedly using the UMG defendant's funds to deal any legal narcotics. An impossibility given that money is fungible, knowledge and specific intent known by any first-year law student, as Men's Rhea, is an essential element of each of the criminal statutes that Blackburn has casually tossed into the SAC. CEG, Kadori, vs Fox, #03, CV, 1725, NG, 2005, WL, 783255, EDNY, January 24, 2005, granting motion to dismiss civil-rico claim based on alleged CSA predicate act liability because plaintiff failed to identify what conduct was engaged by the defendant in furtherance of the enterprise, other than he knowingly sublet the home to another defendant whose purpose was to grow marijuana there. Florida Statute, ANN, Section 893.135, criminalizing the knowing sale, purchase, manufacture, delivery and transport of marijuana, one, a cocaine, one, B, and GHB, one, H, people, vs Korea, 21, Cal, 4th, 868, 878, 1999, noting that California courts interpret California Health and Safety Code, Section 11352 as requiring that accused be aware of the character of the controlled substance at issue, citing people vs Daniels, 14, Cal.3d857, 860, 1975, New York Penal Law, Section 220.77 McKinney, imposing liability upon the director of a controlled substance organization, or aware of profiteer knowingly and unlawfully sells or possesses a drug with intent to sell, IDA 220.50, imposing liability for the knowing possession or sale, IDA 220.18, US Virgin Islands Penal Code Title 19, Section 614A, criminalizing the knowing sale, manufacture, delivery and transport of marijuana, a one, and cocaine, a three, three, plaintiff fails to plead a viable TVPA claim, plaintiff also invoked supposed TVPA violations by the UMG defendants as a predicate act for purposes of civil recoliability. For the reasons discussed in point 2 and for however, plaintiff is not viable stated any TVPA claims against the UMG defendants. This alleged predicate act, therefore, is an illusory and non-existent as every other basis advanced for a reco claim against the UMG defendants. B, plaintiff fails to allege a continuous pattern of racketeering activity. The reco statute defines a pattern of racketeering as at least two predicate acts occurring within ten years of each other. US Code 18, Section 1961-5. However, simply alleging two predicate acts without more is not sufficient to establish a pattern which requires a plaintiff must show that both the acts are related and continuous. FD prop holding incorporated versus US Traffic Corp. 1206, F.SUPP.2D362, 369, EDNY 2002, citing H.J. Inc., vs. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, 492 US 229, 239, 1989. Plaintive tries to manufacture a pattern by offering a conclusory claim that defendants have had several partnerships throughout the years. From 2003 to 2005 to 2009 to 2015 and 2022 to 2023, ECF No. 38 to 16. To begin with, as stated in the Brathwaite Declaration, there is not now, and never was, any partnership with any combs entity. And the self-labeled chart in the SAC detailing a joint venture from 2003 to 2005, a worldwide distribution deal from 2009 through 2015 and the establishment of love records and distribution of the love album from 2022 to 2023 is both wrong and meaningless. Nowhere does plaintiff elaborate upon the earlier joint venture or a worldwide distribution deal and in any event there is no connection between any of the alleged partnerships. C. Plaintive fails to allege a viable enterprise. To establish liability, under section 1962C, one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities; one, a person, and two, an enterprise that is not simply the same person referred to by a different name. Cedric Kushner Promotions, L.T.D. vs. King, 533, US 158, 161, 2001. Accord UITT 4 Less, Inc. vs. FedEx Corporation, 871, F.3D, 199, 205, Second Circuit, 2017. This requirement focuses the section on the culpable party and recognizes that the enterprise itself is often a passive instrument or a victim of the racketeering activity. For Woods, Chappaqua Corporation, 1st Marine Midland Bank, North America, 30, F.3D, 339, 344, Second Circuit, 1994. Accord Cedric Kushner, 533, US 164. The heart of any civil Rico claim is enterprise. There can be no Rico violation without one. Heinrich vs. Dean, 655, F.SUPP.3D, 184, 189. S.D.N.Y. 2023, Citations Omitted. Dismissing Rico claims because plaintiffs alleged only that defendants acted to further their own interests, not the interests of separate Rico enterprise. The S.A.C. does not identify the alleged Rico enterprise. At most, the enterprise might be argued to be an association in fact among some of the name defendants, but to be viable, plaintiff must allege that the association in fact enterprise exists separate and apart from the alleged pattern with its own hierarchy, organization, and activities. Heffernin vs. HSBC Banks, USA, No. 99.C.V, 07981, 2001, W.L., 803-719, at 5EDNY, March 29, 2001, citing United States vs. Tarket, 452, US 576, 583, 1981, Cedar Swamp Holdings Incorporated for its Zomin 487, F.SUPP 2D444, 450, S.D.N.Y. 2007, merely stringing together a list of defendants and labeling them as an enterprise is insufficient. According to Goldfine, 118f.supp2d@401, there is no allegation of what activity, if any, the alleged enterprise even engaged in, other than the alleged predicate acts, additionally plaintiffs fail to allege any chain of command of the enterprise, or how, if, at all the alleged members, functioned as an integrated group or directed the affairs of the alleged enterprise apart from the predicate acts themselves. NAICIC165f.supp2d@539, the plaintiff has simply strung together all of the defendants in this action and labeled the resulting group an association in fact enterprise. The SAC here suffers from all of these same defects. It does not allege that any of the UMG defendants fits within a hierarchy or command structure of the alleged enterprise, or that the enterprise exists including the UMG defendants in any continuous product that is separate and the part from the specific the alleged predicate acts themselves. At most, plaintiff tosses off conclusions that the UMG defendants ignored red flags, which did not exist, and no or should have known that they were allegedly supporting a criminal enterprise that financially furthered their own interests. When plaintiff now admits that the UMG defendants witnessed nothing and where the license agreement actually produced a loss, not a benefit. The SACs, impossibly attenuated theory of the UMG's knowledge is based on an unfounded conclusion that the payment of money to combs and a love records in connection with the making of music should have been understood by the UMG defendants to be capable of being used by combs for an alleged sex trafficking operation in which the UMG defendants were not involved. Collective's theory of knowledge blinks the obvious points that money is fungible and that combs was reputed to be worth a billion dollars in 2022. This alone too renders the SACs civil reco claim entirely implausible, indeed nonsensical CEQ Iqbal 556 U.S. at 678, Twombly 550 U.S. at 544 and 545. D. Plaintive fails to allege operation and management of the enterprise. The SAC nowhere alleges how each of the UMG defendants had some part in directing the operation or management of the enterprise itself, which is a pleading prerequisite CEG Goldfine 118f.supp 2d at 402 and 403. Indeed, the UMG defendants were intentionally omitted from plaintiff's allegations regarding the management of the enterprise. The plaintiff alleges as the chief of staff defendant Quorum was instrumental in organizing and executing the reco and TVPA enterprises. The plaintiff identifies five specific individuals who executed the following task for the reco and TVPA enterprises. The UMG defendants are nowhere identified as directing the alleged enterprise operation management or execution. As interpreted by the court, in this district and others, the operation and management test is a very difficult test to satisfy. In addition, the mere fact that the defendant may have aided in the alleged scheme to defraud even if that aid was intentional does not give rise to liability under section 1962c. Goldfine 118f.supp 2d at 402 and 403. According to Redtail Leasing Inc., verse Belisa, #95-CV-5191, 1997 WL-603-496 at 5, SDNY September 30, 1997. A defendant does not direct an enterprise affairs merely by engaging in wrongful conduct that assists the enterprise. Plantives, far-fetched theory, does not allege any involvement of the UMG defendants beyond their having supposedly aided the enterprise, which they did not, by paying under the license agreement. All of the alleged wrongful conduct is attributed to combs and as associates, not the UMG defendants. The UMG defendants are not central figures either directly or vicariously in the alleged enterprise scheme, CEG, McCausky, verse United, Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, #08-CV-6150 2010 WL-302-6510 at 6, SDNY August 2, 2010. Explaining that courts in the second circuit do not impose vicarious liability under RICO unless the defendant is shown to be the central figure, Targum vs. Citrum Cooperman and company LLP, #12-CV-6909-2013 WL-608-7400 at 7, SDNY November 19, 2013. The SAC's RICO claim is baseless and should be dismissed. E, plaintiff fails to allege loss causation. A RICO claim requires allegation and proof that the alleged RICO violation was one, the but for or a transactional cause of the plaintiff's property loss and two, proximate cause of the loss. E, G, Petro Insurance Incorporated, verse National Association of Insurance Commissioners 888-F.supp2d-491-507-SDNY 2012. Dismissing RICO claims because plaintiff falters under both types of causation. Fifth David 514, F. Appendix 51, Second Circuit 2013. According to FindTheBest.com Incorporated, verses Lumen View Technologies LLC, 20F.supp3d450-458-SDNY 2014, 4K&D Corporation, verse Concierge, auctions LLC, 2F.supp3d 525-540-SDNY 2014. The RICO's direct relation requirement is rigorous and requires dismissal where substantial intervening factors attenuate the casual connection between defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury. Zuhitski, verse UBS, AG, CHE, 101.329-562, number 21, CV, 11124, 2023, WL, 458, 4452 at 9, SDNY, July 18, 2023. See also Lawson vs. Reuben, number 17, dash CV-6404, 2018, WL, 2012, 869 at 910, EDNY, April 29, 2018. Plaintive's causation theory is hopelessly attenuated, CEG, Palsgraph vs. Long Island Railroad Company, 162, NE99, 104, 1928. Plaintive alleges that the UMG defendants paid love records and combs for their music recording services, and that love records and combs then supposedly used those proceeds in some unknown unexplained and in fact non-existent way to support sex trafficking. Plaintive now concedes that he cannot allege that the UMG defendants knew how love records and combs were allegedly spending the money, and that the UMG defendants may have negligently funded the activities of the defendant Sean Combs. Plaintive comes nowhere close to alleging both transactional and approximate causation between the funding paid by the UMG defendants to make music and the sex trafficking that is alleged to have resulted between Combs and his associates. Furthermore, Plaintive does not plausibly allege that he suffered a property loss by reason of "any of the alleged acts or omissions of the UMG defendants" (Zuhiffski, 2023-WL, 4584452 at 9), instead the independent and intervening acts of the other defendants, EG Combs, sever the already non-existing casual link to any of the UMG defendants. ID at 7. Finding that Plaintive's theory of harm rested on independent actions of third parties, which was plainly insufficient to establish proximate causation (see also Lawson, 2018, WL 2012, 2869 at 9 and 10), and the Versaideal Steel Company (547 US 451, 464 2006), finding no proximate cause because of a tenuated relationship between the alleged RICO acts and Plaintives reported injury, Hemi Group, LLC, v. City of New York, 559, US 1/9/2010, dismissing RICO claims where Plaintive's casual theory was far too attenuated. Likewise, Plaintive claims only physical and emotional loss due to the alleged conduct of Combs not the UMG defendants (CUS Code 18, Section 1964, C) Plaintive must be injured in his business or property, Kenosa v. Ziff, 18-CV-4115-2019, WL-498865 at 25, SDNY, Jan. 28, 2019. RICO provides a civil remedy to any person injured, in her business or property, by RICO violation. Courts have uniformly held that injuries such as emotional distress or physical injury are not cognizable under RICO, citations omitted, loss in 2018, WL-2012-869 at 9 and 10, personal injuries and damages flowing from them are simply not injuries to business or property under RICO. Petrov Amshin LLP vs Alfa Rehab PTPC 19 CV-1861-2021 WL-960394 at 12, Eastern District of New York March 15, 2021, Avadeva No. 21-847-2022 WL-480475 2nd Circuit 2022. Ziff's first cause of action for civil RICO violations should be dismissed with prejudice against the UMG defendants. 2. The TVPA claim should be dismissed. Having dropped the baseless aiding and abetting claim, Plaintive alleges two TVPA claims against the UMG defendants. The 15th cause of action for participating in TVPA violations by others and the 16th cause of action for obstructing enforcement of the TVPA. The claims are offensively baseless. A. Plaintive's TVPA 15th cause of action should be dismissed. Plaintive's 15th cause of action claims that the UMG defendants are liable under the TVPA for knowingly participating in and benefiting financially from the alleged sex trafficking scheme of others. Participation in sex trafficking requires allegations and proof that a defendant knowingly benefited financially or by receiving anything of value from participating in a venture which has engaged in sex trafficking. Geist vs Weinstein Company and Holdings, LLC, 383, F.SUPP, 3D, 156, 169 and 70, SDNY 2019, citing US Code 18, Section 1591, A&2 and 1595A. Here outside of unsupported conclusions, there is not one fact showing any knowledge, any participation or any benefit and the breath weight declaration refutes any benefit. Participation liability under the TVPA requires a casual relationship between affirmative conduct, furthering the sex trafficking venture and receipt of a benefit with actual or, in the civil context, constructive knowledge of that casual relationship. ID in Geist for example, Judge Hellerstein found that the Weinstein Company was not liable for participating in Harvey Weinstein's violations of the TVPA, where there were no allegations that would plausibly support a conclusion that TWC financially benefited from Harvey because of TWC's facilitation of sexual misconduct by Harvey. Similarly, in Noble vs Weinstein, Judge Sweet dismissed the plaintiff's TVPA participation claim against Harvey's brother Robert Weinstein because even though the plaintiff alleged that Robert facilitated Harvey's travel, during which Harvey engaged in sex trafficking and benefited financially from Harvey's promotion of films and other business-related activities, in Foreign Commerce, the plaintiff did not allege anything that linked Robert's actions to Harvey's 2014 conduct toward plaintiffs, 335 F.SUPP 3D 504, 524 SDNY August 13, 2018. In particular, the plaintiff did not allege that Robert was present for any of the alleged assaults, was told about them before or after they occurred, or faxed to support a plausible conclusion that Robert acted with knowledge or willful disregard of Harvey's assaults. Fighting Lawson, 2018 WL-20122869-11 Judge Sweet explained that "mirror membership in a sex trafficking venture is insufficient if the defendant is ignorant of the venture's sex trafficking activities and the means and methods thereof, and that the TVPA does not target those who turn a blind eye to the source of their financial sponsorship." Noble, 335 F.SUPP 3D 524 Here there is no basis for plaintiff's claims against the UMG defendants. Plaintiff now admits Motown was not love records parent company. Plaintiff now admits Crange and Haptomerium did not attend any listening parties and never saw the alleged activities at such parties. Plaintiff does not allege any actual participation by the UMG defendants or their actual awareness of any sex trafficking activities by anyone. Plaintiff merely asserts that Motown's license agreement with love records should provide a hook to make the UMG defendants strictly liable for all of Com's extracurricular conduct. Plaintiff and his counsel have no good faith basis to support their startling position and no responsible basis whatsoever to have accused the UMG defendants of actively participating in the recruitment of victims of the venture where Plaintiff's counsel also concedes his theory which also has no factual or legal support is that the UMG defendants negligently funded the activities of defendant John Com's. ECF No. 30 at P1, emphasis supplied, ECF No. 38, 372, EG Lawson, 2018 WL 2012, 869 at 11, dismissing TVPA claims under Section 1591A1 where Plaintiff alleged no facts showing that the defendant knowingly benefited from participating in a trafficking venture nor that she knew or acted in recklessness regard of the fact that force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion would be used to cause Plaintiff to engage in a commercial sex act. During the noble 335f, SUPP, 3D, at 525, DO1 versus Deutsche Bank, 671f.supp, 3D387, 409, SDNY 2023, same for TVPA obstruction claim. Moreover Plaintiff does not allege anything that plausibly supports a conclusion that Com's provided financial benefits to the UMG defendants because of their alleged sponsorship of Com's alleged sex trafficking. The SAC, at most, alleges that the UMG defendants benefited financially, if at all, from Com's and supposedly Plaintiff pursuant to a contract to make music, CEG, ECF No. 38, and 6 alleging Com's to be a prominent person in the music entertainment industry over the decades and the hip-hop mogul, 135 and 136, alleging that UMG recordings and Motown records benefited from Plaintiff's work product as a producer of songs on Com's records, emphasis supplied. 233, 239, alleging that Grange, UMG recordings, and Motown records profited from the free labor of artists, creatives, musicians, and producers. 232, alleging that defendants engaged in mail and wire fraud to solicit people like Plaintiff to utilize their talents and labor to produce music, for the defendant's financial benefit, emphasis supplied, again exhibits B, NC to the breathway declaration conclusively refute this unfounded assertion. And even if one were to assume, purely for the sake of argument that the defendants turned the blind eye to Com's alleged sex trafficking, which is untrue, that would not state a claim for participation liability under the TVPA, Noble 335 F.SUPP at 3D at 324 B, Plaintiff's obstruction claim should be dismissed. Plaintiff's 16th cause of action for obstruction of enforcement of the TVPA should be dismissed because there is no private right of action to bring such a claim. Jane Doe No. 1, at all vs Daniel S Fitzgerald No. CV 20-107-13MWF 2022-WL-425016 at 4, Central District, California, January 6, 2022. Plaintiff's do not have a private right of action under subsection D, rather that provision is limited to government enforcement. Gilbert vs United States Olympic Committee, 423, F.SUPP, 3D, 1112, 1143, District, Colorado, 2019, holding that the TVPA's obstruction provisions are concerned only with governmental enforcement of the TVPA. Even if there were a private right of action for obstruction, Plaintiff has not pleaded and cannot plead the necessary elements against the UNG defendants. Fifth must plausibly plead that each defendant, one, knew of an effort to enforce the TVPA and two intentionally obstructed, interfered with, or prevented that enforcement. CEG, United States vs FARA, 766-F.3D, 599-612-6 circuit, 2014. No facts are pleaded by Plaintiff that, A) there was an effort to enforce the TVPA, B) the UNG defendants knew of any violation of TVPA, and of an effort to enforce the statute, and C) the UNG defendants obstructed the statute's enforcement. Nor could there be any such facts pleaded for all the reasons already stated. Plaintiff's 15th and 16th cause of action for TVPA violations should be dismissed with prejudice as against the UNG defendants. Conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, the UNG defendants respectfully request that all claims against them be dismissed, and that the court award them such other further relief as deemed just and proper. This was signed by Donald S. Akaren and it was dated on April 24th, 2024. So there are plenty of court documents that have hit the docket, and we're gonna make our way through them over the weekend and probably in the next week, and we'll keep adding them as they hit the docket so that everybody is well equipped with the facts. Alright folks, that's gonna do it for this one. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.