Paris Deior Studios, LLC et al v. Ozone Music and Sound et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying 38 Motion Objecting to Andrew D. Stacer Intervening Into Cases; granting in part, finding moot in part 40 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part, finding moot in part 41 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 42 Motion for Contempt. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PARIS DEIOR STUDIOS, LLC, ET AL.,
Case No. 13-11819
Plaintiffs,
v.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ARTHUR J. TARNOW

OZONE MUSIC AND SOUND, ET AL.,

MAGISTRATE JUDGE LAURIE J. MICHELSON

Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION OBJECTING TO ANDREW D.
STACER INTERVENING INTO CASES [38], GRANTING IN PART AND
FINDING MOOT IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [40] [41], GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION
FOR CONTEMPT [42], AND CLOSING CASE
Before the Court are Plaintiff Parrish Redd’s Motion Objecting to Andrew D.
Stacer Intervening into Cases [38], Defendant Fidelity Capital Group’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [40], Defendants Chris Hugan, Ozone Music and Sound, and
Marty Peters’s Joint Motion for Summary Judgment [41], and All Defendants’ Second
Motion for Contempt [42].
On October 22, 2013, notice was entered scheduling a hearing on these matters
on November 8, 2013. Accordingly, on November 8, 2013, the Court held a hearing
to address the pending motions. Plaintiff Parrish Redd did not appear in Court for the
hearing.

For the reasons stated below and for the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff’s
Motion Objection to Andrew D. Stacer Intervening in Cases [38] is DENIED,
Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [40] [41] are GRANTED IN PART and
found MOOT IN PART, and Defendants’ Second Motion for Contempt [42] is
GRANTED.
Procedural Background
On April 23, 2013, pro se Plaintiff Parrish Redd filed a Complaint [1] on behalf
of himself as well as Paris Deior Studios, LLC, against Defendants Chris Hugan,
Marty Peters, and Ozone Music and Sound. Plaintiff Paris Deior was dismissed
without prejudice from this matter on June 21, 2013, as Plaintiff Redd did not have
counsel and could not represent the limited liability company. This Court appointed
Plaintiff Redd counsel Adam Taub on July 9, 2013. On September 11, 2013, this
Court allowed attorney Taub to withdraw as counsel. Plaintiff Redd has not since
acquired new counsel.
On September 25, 2013, this Court held a hearing and subsequently entered an
Order [37] permitting Defendant Fidelity to intervene in the matter. During this
hearing, the Court explicitly ordered all parties to refrain from taking part in any
communication with each other outside of its filings. The Court also gave Plaintiff
Redd four weeks to gather information and to proceed with this case.
2

Plaintiff Redd filed his Motion Objecting to Andrew D. Stacer Intervening into
Cases [38] on September 27, 2013. Defendants’ filed a Response [43] on October 14,
2013. Defendant Fidelity Capital Group filed its Motion for Summary Judgment [40]
on October 10, 2013. Defendants Chris Hugan, Ozone Music and Sound, and Marty
Peters filed their Joint Motion for Summary Judgment [41] on the same day. This
Motion [41] moves to join in Defendant Fidelity’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[40]. All Defendants filed its Second Motion for Contempt [42] on October 11, 2013.
Factual Background
On August 11, 2009, Defendant Fidelity and Plaintiff Paris Deior executed a
Funding Agreement and a Promissory Note and Security Agreement whereby
Defendant Fidelity advanced Plaintiffs Redd and Paris Deior $20,000.00 for the
completion of the motion picture “Pawn Shop,” the Copyrighted Work now at issue.
The $20,000.00 was to be repaid within ninety days together with a guaranteed return
on investment of $60,000.00, and was secured by Plaintiffs Redd and Paris Deior’s
interests in the Copyrighted Work.
Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement between the co-authors of the Copyrighted
Work and Plaintiff Paris Deior, the exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, perform,
display, and modify the Copyrighted Work were transferred to Paris Deior on
September 1, 2009.
3

On November 7, 2011, Plaintiffs Redd and Paris Deior and were served with
Defendant Fidelity’s complaint for breach of contract, misrepresentation, fraud, and
conversion filed in the state court. Plaintiff Redd was ordered to turn over all materials
related to the Copyrighted Work but failed to do so, and the state court issued an order
of contempt on January 4, 2012. On February 29, 2012, the state court entered a
default judgment in favor of Defendant Fidelity as to Plaintiff Paris Deior for damages
in the amount of $533,109, costs and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $47,306.63, and
full use of the Copyrighted Work to recoup Fidelity’s full damages. Plaintiff Paris
Deior never appealed this default judgment.
The default judgment specifically awarded Defendant Fidelity:
“full use of the [Copyrighted Work] to recoup its full damages, including
. . . access to and use of the [Copyrighted Work], or copies thereof,
whether it be to sell the [Copyrighted Work] “as is” or to complete the
Motion Picture, which collateral may include all film materials related
to, whether recorded before, during and after the recording, filming and
preliminary editing of the feature film Pawn Shop, including but not
limited to approximately 29 HDCAM tapes master visual recordings, 6
CDs with the master audio recordings, and 1 hard drive containing
recorded audio and video footage.”
The default judgment also allowed Defendant Fidelity to file a lien with the U.S.
Copyright Office in relation to the motion picture, in order to preserve its rights in the
Copyrighted Work as the source of payment for damages.

4

On June 12, 2012, Fidelity executed an agreement with Defendant Ozone Music
and Sound for the completion of post-production on the Copyrighted Work.
Defendants Peters and Hugan are agents of Defendant Ozone.
In August 2012, Defendant Fidelity entered into a distribution agreement with
The Bosko Group, under which Bosko agreed to seek and contract with avenues of
distribution, such as Amazon and iTunes. In turn, Bosko contracted with Gravitas
Ventures, LLC for digital distribution of the Copyrighted Work, and with Music
Video Distributor, Inc. for physical distribution of the Copyrighted Work. Bosko,
Gravitas, and Music Video Distributor are not parties to this matter. However, within
its counterclaims, Defendant Fidelity argues that Plaintiff Redd interfered with these
business relations by harassing and threatening agents of Bosko, Gravitas, and Music
Video Distributor, as well as related retailers (such as Walmart, Costco, and Sam’s
Club), preventing the further sale of the Copyrighted Work.
Defendants further allege that Plaintiff Redd, through Paris Deior, has
continued to copy and distribute the Copyrighted Work. Specifically, Defendants
allege that Plaintiff Redd and Paris Deior have initiated a commercial release of the
Copyrighted Work through Redd Media, LLC, an entity owned and operated by Redd
and registered in February, 2013. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff used the master
recordings of the film to make an alternative copy of the work with new post5

production. This copy was publicly displayed at the Pan African Film Festival in
February 2012.
On September 14, 2012, Defendant Fidelity recorded its judgment lien on the
Copyrighted Work with the U.S. Copyright Office.
On December 3, 2012, the state court entered a default judgment in favor of
Defendant Fidelity and against Plaintiff Redd for damages in the amount of $608,109,
costs and attorneys’ fees, and full use of the Copyrighted Work to recoup Defendant
Fidelity’s damages. Plaintiff Redd never appealed the default judgment.
Standard of Review
A motion for summary judgment is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) when
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment is also proper where the moving
party shows that the non-moving party is unable to meet its burden of proof. Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1987). Facts and inferences must be viewed in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986). However, the non-moving party must
present "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial" that demonstrate
that there is more than "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Moore v.
Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 8 F.3d 335, 339-40 (6th Cir. 1993) (internal citations
omitted).
6

Analysis
Plaintiff’s sole claim against Defendants Chris Hugan, Marty Peters, and
Ozone Music and Sound is Copyright Infringement. Plaintiff also requests injunctive
relief in the form of prohibiting Defendants from distributing the Copyrighted Work
at issue. Defendants make claims of Tortious Interference of Business and Prospective
Business Relations and Copyright Infringement. Defendants also request Injunctive
Relief prohibiting Plaintiff from threatening to commence lawsuits against Defendants
and related business relationships and from releasing Plaintiff’s copies of the
Copyrighted Work. Defendants also request Declaratory Relief in the form of
confirming Defendant Fidelity’s rights in the Copyrighted Work.
1. Copyright Infringement
An action for copyright infringement requires the plaintiff to prove ownership
of a valid copyright and that the defendant has copied constituent elements of the
work that are original. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499
U.S. 340, 361(1991). A copyright owner is defined by statute as the owner of a
particular exclusive right comprised in a copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 101.The exclusive
rights comprised in a copyright over a motion picture include the exclusive rights to
reproduce the work, prepare derivative works, distribute copies of the work, perform
the work publicly, and display the work publicly. 17 U.S.C. § 106.

7

“Transfer of copyright ownership” is defined by statute as “an assignment,
mortgage, exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or hypothecation of
a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, whether or not
it is limited in time or place of effect, but not including a nonexclusive license.” 17
U.S.C. § 101.
Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement between the co-authors and Plaintiff Paris
Deior, the exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, and modify the
Copyrighted Work were transferred to Paris Deior on September 1, 2009. Therefore,
along with the other co-authors of the Copyrighted Work, Plaintiff Redd transferred
the exclusive rights to the Copyrighted Work to now dismissed Plaintiff Paris Deior.
The Purchase Agreement specifically provides that Plaintiff Paris Deior alone has the
right to any cause of action relating to the Copyrighted Work.
Moreover, Plaintiff Paris Deior’s rights to the Copyrighted Work were
subsequently transferred to Defendant Fidelity through the state court default
judgments against both Plaintiff Paris Deior and Plaintiff Redd.
Plaintiff Redd now argues that the recordation of the default judgment with the
Copyright Office, and the default judgment itself, are falsified or were fraudulently
acquired by Defendant Fidelity. However, these accusations are not supported by the
evidence.

8

Because Defendants have shown that all rights to the Copyrighted Work were
transferred to now dismissed Plaintiff Paris Deior and then to Defendant Fidelity,
there are no material questions of fact as to Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim.
Therefore, Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [40] [41] are GRANTED as
to Plaintiff’s Copyright Infringement claim.
During the November 8, 2013 hearing, Defendants agreed to withdraw its
counterclaim of Copyright Infringement. Therefore, Defendants’ Motions for
Summary Judgment [40] [41] are found MOOT as to this counterclaim.

2. Tortious Interference
In order to prove tortious interference with a business relationship or
expectancy, four elements must be established: (1) the existence of a valid business
relationship or expectancy that is not necessarily predicated on an enforceable
contract; (2) knowledge of the relationship or expectancy on the part of the interferer;
(3) an intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the
relationship or expectancy and; (4) resulting damage to the party whose relationship
or expectancy was disrupted. Health Call of Detroit v. Atrium Home & Health Care
Services, Inc., 706 N.W. 2d 843, 849 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). To establish the third
element of an intentional interference action, a party must demonstrate “the intentional
doing of a per se wrongful act or the doing of a lawful act with malice and unjustified
9

in law for the purpose of invading the contractual rights or business relationship of
another.” Feldman v. Green, 360 N.W.2d 881, 886 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). Such acts
include defamatory statements. Lakeshore Hosp. v. Perry, 538 N.W.2d 24, 27 (Mich.
Ct. App. 1995).
Defendants have shown, through documentation of numerous emails and
voicemails, that Plaintiff has repeatedly interfered with Defendants’ business
relationships. Plaintiff’s interference took the form of defamatory statements against
Defendant Fidelity and Defendant’s counsel, informing business relationships of this
lawsuit, and threatening further litigation against these businesses/distributors.
Therefore, Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [40] [41] are
GRANTED as to Defendants’ Tortious Interference claim.
3. Injunctive Relief
The Copyright Act specifically “provides that courts ‘may’ grant injunctive
relief ‘on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of
copyright.’” Ebay, Inc. et al v. Mercexchange, LLC., 547 U.S. 388, 392 (2006)
(quoting 17. U.S.C. § 502(a)). In order to obtain injunctive relief, the party seeking
such an injunction must demonstrate that it has suffered an irreparable injury, the
available remedies at law are inadequate to compensate such injury, the balance of
hardships between the parties favors such a remedy, and that a permanent injunction
would not disservice the public interest. Id. at 391.
10

Not only does Plaintiff Redd no longer have rights in the Copyrighted Work,
but Defendants have also shown that Plaintiff’s actions have interfered with
Defendants’ ability to use and further profit from the Copyrighted Work. Therefore,
Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [40] [41] are GRANTED as to
Defendants’ claim for Injunctive Relief against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s claim for
Injunctive Relief against Defendants is DENIED.
4. Declaratory Judgment
Finally, Defendants request that the Court enter a Declaratory Judgment
confirming its rights in and to the Copyrighted Work. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, any
federal court “may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party
seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.” Again,
because Defendant Fidelity has shown that there is no material question of fact as to
its rights to the Copyrighted Work, Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [40]
[41] are GRANTED as to Defendants’ request for Declaratory Judgment.
5. Defendants’ Second Motion for Contempt [42]
Defendants argue that Plaintiff has violated this Court’s September 25, 2013
order requiring all parties to refrain from any communication with each other.
Defendants provide evidence of emails from Plaintiff repeatedly threatening and
harassing Defendant Fidelity and Defendant’s counsel, attorney Stacer.
Therefore, Defendants’ Second Motion for Contempt [42] is GRANTED.
11

6. Plaintiff’s Motion Objecting to Attorney Stacer Intervening into Cases [38]
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) provides:
[o]n timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: . . .
claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject
of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a
practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its
interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
There are four elements that must be satisfied before intervention as of right will be
granted: “(1) timeliness of the application to intervene, (2) the applicant's substantial
legal interest in the case, (3) impairment of the applicant's ability to protect that
interest in the absence of intervention, and (4) inadequate representation of that
interest by parties already before the court.” Stupak-Thrall v. Glickman, 226 F.3d 467,
471 (6th Cir. 2000)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
On August 30, 2013, approximately one week after Defendants Chris Hugan,
Marty Peters, and Ozone Music and Sound were served with the Complaint [1],
Defendant Fidelity Capital filed an Amended Motion to Intervene [20] in this case.
On September 25, 2013, this Court heard argument on this Motion [20] and on
September 26, 2013 this Court entered an Order [37] granting the Motion [20].
As discussed above, Defendant Fidelity has alleged that it has an interest in the
Copyrighted Work as shown through its default judgments against Plaintiffs Redd and
Paris Deior, as well as its recordation of the default judgment as to Paris Deior with
the U.S. Copyright Office. See supra at 4-9. Defendants Chris Hugan, Marty Peters,
12

and Ozone Music and Sound cannot represent Defendant Fidelity’s interest as they
were not parties to the default judgments. Plaintiff’s Objection [38] now before the
Court does not provide any information showing that this Court erroneously permitted
Defendant’s intervention in this matter.
Therefore, Plaintiff Redd’s Obection [38] is DENIED.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above and for the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff
Parrish Redd’s Motion Objecting to Andrew D. Stacer Intervening into Cases [38] is
DENIED. In addition, Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [40] [41] are
GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s Copyright Infringement and Injunctive Relief claims, as
well as to Defendants’ Copyright Infringement, Tortious Interference, Injunctive
Relief, and Declaratory Judgment counterclaims. Defendants’ Motions for Summary
Judgment [40] [41] are now MOOT as to Defendants’ Copyright Infringement claim
as to Plaintiff Redd. Finally, Defendants’ Second Motion for Contempt [42] is
GRANTED.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Parrish Redd’s Motion Objecting
to Andrew D. Stacer Intervening into Cases [38] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions for Summary
Judgment [40] [41] are GRANTED IN PART and found MOOT IN PART.
13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Second Motion for Contempt
[42] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to this order, this case is
CLOSED.
SO ORDERED.
s/Arthur J. Tarnow
ARTHUR J. TARNOW
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: November 18, 2013

____________________________________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on November 18, 2013 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with
the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered electronically. I
hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to the following non-registered ECF participants
on November 18, 2013: Parrish Redd.
s/Michael E. Lang
Case Manager to
District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow
[phone]

14