'• -)

-Fs.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

qoMo£>

THOMAS V. GIRARDI, State Bar No. 36603tgirardi@girardikeese.comGRAHAM B. LIPPSMITH, State Bar No. 221984

lippsmith@girardikeese.comfRARDrf KEESE

1126 Wilshire BoulevardLos Angeles, California 90017Telephone: (213)977-0211Facsimile; (213)481-1554

WILLIAM T. GIBBS, Illinois Bar No. 6282949CORBOY & DEMETRIO33 North Dearborn St., Suite 2100Chicago, Illinois 60602Telephone: (312)346-3191 <->>Facsimile: (312)346-5562 \J"Attorneys for PLAINTIFF

FILEDSuperior Court ofCalifornia

County ofLos Angeles

JUL 15 2014

Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk

fiy ^ &* DeputyMoses Soto

WW \V-Uft|W

C \k*V\

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

MANUEL NORIEGA

Plaintiff,

v.

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, Inc., acorporation, d/b/a ACTIVISION andTREYARCH, a corporation,

Defendants.

CASE NO.:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:

1) Violation of California Civil Code§3344and Common Law Right ofPublicity

2) Unjust Enrichment3) Unfair Business Practices in Violation

of California Business and ProfessionsCode§17200

COMPLAINT

BCMi7tffAX

33rnom

3> C ,Tr

53 3

X» -i

•-• -it•• <«

f". O O<W -./ ri'-" ---. x~ *•* CIo cn f

^ CO•£»• CO

oo

O CO*» a-

o o o

S ? *> -22 £ w toC" Z X O<" CD •• 7^

TO ..

2s 2Jo rn

Sf ft *» uc< q p ifn

S1 e o oo o o 3 o

J> ~i

moX>

TO

r-i

inci

--j*.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT

On information and belief, Plaintiff Manuel Noriega ("Plaintiff) alleges as follows:

L NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Defendants, ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, Inc., a corporation, d/b/a

ACTIVISION and TREYARCH, a corporation ("Defendants"), engaged in the blatant misuse,

unlawful exploitation, and misappropriation of Plaintiffs image and likeness for economic

gain in the video game they produced and distributed.

2. Defendants designed, created, advertised and sold the popular video game

CALL OF DUTY: BLACK OPS II ("Black Ops II").

3. In an effort to increase the popularity and revenue generated by BLACK OPS II,

Defendants used, without authorization or consent, the image and likeness of Plaintiff in

BLACK OPS II.

4. Defendants' use of Plaintiffs image and likeness caused damage to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff was portrayed as an antagonist and portrayed as the culprit of numerous fictional

heinous crimes, creating the false impression that Defendants are authorized to use Plaintiffs

image and likeness. This caused Defendants to receive profits they would not have otherwise

received.

5. Plaintiff is portrayed in BLACK OPS II as a kidnapper, murderer and enemy of

the state. An objective of one portion of BLACK OPS II is solely to capture Plaintiff.

6. Defendants' video game, BLACK OPS II, features several non-fiction

characters, including Plaintiff, for one purpose: to heighten realism in its video game, BLACK

OPS II. This translates directly into heightened sales for Defendants.

7. Defendants deliberately and systematically misappropriated Plaintiffs

COMPLAINT

?g

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

likeness to increase revenues and royalties, at theexpense of Plaintiffand without the consent

of Plaintiff.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each and every one of the Defendants.

Venue in this Court is proper becauseDefendants reside and/or carry on business here, and the

wrongful acts of Defendants originated here.

III. THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is an individual residing in Gamboa, Panama.

2. Defendant ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, d/b/a ACTIVISION is, and at all times

mentioned herein, was a corporation existing under the laws of California. ACTIVISION is

incorporated in Delaware, however maintains its headquarters and principle place of business

in Santa Monica, California.

3. Defendant TREYARCH is, and at all times mentioned herein, was a corporation

organized and existing under the taws of California.

4. Defendants are a multi-billion dollar interactive entertainment software

company (ACTIVISION) and its subsidiary (TREYARCH) that produce the Call of Duty

video game franchise, which includes the Black Ops series.

5. Defendant ACTIVISION describes itself as "a leading worldwide

developer, publisher and distributor of interactive entertainment and leisure products." Its

revenues support this claim. In 2012, ACTIVISION reported in its Annual 10-K Report to the

United States Securities and Exchange Commission a consolidated net revenue of $4.9 billion

for 2012 and a consolidated net income of $1.1 billion. ACTIVISION'S principle place of

business is California, but it sells its games directly to consumers throughout the country

3

COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

through its website www.activision.com and indirectly through major retailers in all fifty states

and around the world.

IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION—VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §

3344 AND COMMON LAW RIGHT OF PUBLICITY

1. Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference each and every allegation

contained in each paragraph above.

2. At all relevant times, Plaintiff had the sole and exclusive right of publicity

with regard to the use of his name arid likeness as displayed and portrayed in BLACK OPS II

and all correspondingadvertisingmaterials disseminatedby Defendants.

3. Defendants used the name, image, and likeness of Plaintiff in the video game

BLACK OPS II without Plaintiffs or his representatives' permission, consent or

authorization.

4. Plaintiff was readily identifiable in the video game, insofar as one who views

the photograph with a naked eye can reasonably determine that the person depicted in the

photograph is the same person who is complaining of its unauthorized use.

5. Plaintiff is identified by name on numerous occasions throughout BLACK

OPS II.

6. Defendants' unauthorized and unlawful use of Plaintiff s name and

likeness was willful, intentional, and knowing and was done for the direct purpose of

profiting off of and gaining a commercial benefit through the popularity and sales of BLACK

OPS II.

7. The acts alleged above constitute a violation of California Civil Code § 3344 and

Plaintiffs common law right of publicity.

COMPLAINT

iv1

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8. As a direct and proximate resultof Defendants' unauthorized and unlawful

use ofPlaintiffs name and likeness, Plaintiff suffered harm, including but not limited to

damage to his reputation and denial ofthe benefit ofthe rights ofpublicity which belong to

him.

9. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensation for the willful, intentional,

unauthorized, and unlawful use ofhis name and likeness, in an amount to be proven at trial.

10. Defendants' conduct was malicious, fraudulent, oppressive and intended to

injure Plaintiff. Consequently. Plaintiff is entitled topunitive damages.

V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION—UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1. Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference each and every allegation

contained in each paragraph above.

2. At all relevant times, Plaintiff had the sole and exclusive right ofpublicity

with regard to the use ofhis image and likeness asdisplayed and portrayed in BLACK OPS II

and all corresponding advertising materials disseminated by Defendants.

3. Defendants appropriated the image and likeness of Plaintiffin BLACK

OPS II and all corresponding advertising materials disseminated by Defendants without proper

permission orauthorization. Defendants also intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs right to

publicity by misappropriating his image and likeness in BLACK OPS II.

4. Defendants' unauthorized and unlawful use ofPlaintiffs image and

likeness was intentional, willful, knowing and done for the purpose ofobtaining profit and for

the purpose ofdenying Plaintiffof his rightful share ofany profit to be made from the

commercial use of his image and likeness.

5

COMPLAINT

U]

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5. As a result ofDefendants' unauthorized and unlawful use ofPlaintiff's image

and likeness, Defendants have been unjustly enriched in an amount to be proven attrial.

6. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensation for theunauthorized and

unlawful use of his image and likeness, in anamount to be proven at trial.

VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION—UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES IN

VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200

1. Plaintiff incorporates herein bythis reference each and every allegation

contained in each paragraph above.

2. Defendants have deceived and confused the public into believing that

Plaintiff authorized, approves, and endorses the use of its name and likeness in BLACK OPS

II.

3. Defendants' acts, alleged above, constitute unfair competition in that they

reflect untair, deceptive, untrue, and misleading business acts within the meaning of Business

and Professions Code § 17200.

4. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Defendants have

unfairly and wrongfully obtained and mustdisgorge profits belonging to Plaintiffin an amount

which shall be proved at trial.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as

follows:

1. For an injunction of the following conduct:

• Defendants' use of Plaintiffs' image and likeness without Plaintiffs

consent at any time in the future

COMPLAINT

I. p

• •

1 2. For restitution in the amount of the benefit to Defendants;

2 3. For general damages sustained by Plaintiff;

3 4. For special damages sustained by Plaintiff;

4 5. For lost profits sustained by Plaintiff;

5 6. For Defendants' profits;

6 7. For an accounting;

7 8. For punitive damages;

8 9. For Plaintiffs costs;

9 10. For prejudgment interest; and

10 11. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

11

12 VIII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

13 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial for all issues in this lawsuit.

14

15 Dated: July 15,2014 GIRARDI | KEESE

16

17 ^SBAHAM B. LIPPSMITH

18Attorneys for Plaintiff

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

COMPLAINT

ATTORNEYOR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Warns, Slate Bar number,end address):

"Graham B. LippSmith (SBN 221984}Girarcii I Keese1126 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90017telephone no.: 213-977-0211 FAXNO.: 213-481-1554

attorney for (Namey. Plaintiff Manuel NoriegaSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFLOS Angeles

STREET AOORESS: 111 N. Hill St.mailing address: 111 N. Hill Street

cityandTip code: Los Angeles 90012branch name: St an lev Mosk Courthouse

CASE NAME: Noriega v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.al.

et

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET1 x 1Unlimited 1 iLimited

(Amount (Amountdemanded demanded isexceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less)

Complex Case Designation| | Counter | ) JoinderFiled with first appearance by defendant

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402)

FOR COURT USE ONLY

CM-010

Superior Court of CaliforniaCounty ofLos Angeles

JUL 15 2014

Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk

fly ^ ^kfo DeputyMoses Soto

CASE NUMBER:

JUDGE:

OEPT:

5 5174 7

BY FAXItems 1-6 below must be completed (see instructionson page 2).

1 Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation

cz Auto (22) • Breach of contract/warranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)

r Uninsured motorist (46) CZ Rule 3.740 collections (09) I | Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)Other PI/PO/WD(Personal Injury/Property n Other collections (09) I | Construction defect (10)Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort

n Insurance coverage (18) I | Masstort (40)[ IAsbestos (04) L_ Other contract (37) I | Securities litigation (28)I IProduct liability (24) Real Property I J Environmental/Toxic tort (30)f ]Medical malpractice (45) I IEminentdomain/Inverse i I Insurancecoverage claimsarisingfrom the[ | OtherPI/PO/WD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case

Non-PHPO/WD (Other) Tort | | Wrongful eviction (33) types (41)

I | Business tort/unfair business practice (07) I IOther real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment

I | Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer I | Enforcement ofjudgment (20)| | Defamation (13) I ICommercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint

! J Fraud (16) | | Residential (32) • RICO (27)[__! Intellectual property (19) I IDrugs (38) | | Other complaint (not specified above) (42)1 JProfessional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition

I x IOther non-PI/PD/WD tort (35) | IAsset forfeiture (05) II Partnership and corporate governance (21)Employment [ _J Petition re: arbitration award(11) I | Other petition (not specified above) (43)[ ]] Wrongful termination (36) [ IWrit of mandate (02)

l jOther employment (15) [ IOther judicial review (39)

This case ZH is l~x"l isnot complex under rule 3.400 oftheCalifornia Rules ofCourt. If thecase iscomplex, mark thefactors requiring exceptional judicial management:

' ' d. ZD Large number ofwitnessese. I I Coordination with related actions pending inoneormore courts

in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court

:c. I I Substantialamount ofdocumentary evidence f. I I Substantialpostjudgment judicial supervisionx ] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. |~~x~l punitive

a. j I Largenumberofseparately represented partiesb. | | Extensive motion practice raisingdifficult or novel

issues that will be time-consuming to resolveC.l

3."-"Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. (~x~l monetary b.

4%-Number of causes of action (specify): three (3)5-"'This case | I is LxJ is not a class action suit.6i/lf there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM^015.)Date: July 15, 2014Graham B. LippSmith (SBN 221984)

f„ ! (TYPE OR PRINT NAME)

-, NOTICE•"Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filedrounder the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and InstitutionsCode). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result

r< insanctions.••-'''File thiscover sheet in addition to any cover sheet requiredby local court rule.• If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on alt

other parties to the action or proceeding.• Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only.

Page1of 2Form Adopted for Mandatory Use

Judicial Council d CaliforniaCM-OIOIRev. July 1, 2007]

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET,Solucions-

£$5* Plus

oal Cal. Rules ofCourt, rules 2.30. 3.220. 3.400-3.403, 3.740;Cal. Standards of JgdidaJ Adminislrason, std. 3.10

instructions on how to complete thf cnvFR ^hfft ~,.,-„.v

statistics about the types and numbesofwses £? vi f <? ? co"ta,ned on P39* 1- ™s information will be used to compileone box for the casetvoo that betZlcliZfLt ?, t?™5' C°?ple(e "ems !^°^h 6on th« ^et In item 1, you must checkcheck tl» rnoro t^Tn^t^^J^ZZ**bf!£neral and amore sPecific ^<*«« •*** *»" LTo assist you In comptellmthe she*L.Z ft " ° 3CS'Qn' Check ,he box that best indicates lhe Primarv caus« of action,sheet«^«^Xi^^F2^i?fiT^ r?9 Undtr e3Ch eMe'l«* in i,em 1are »*»** **»'• A«"«its counsel, or both to icJ^T^io^^'uSK^ST"""*8*"""^ "^' ^which property services or monav walVIZ1 1 * !, GXC'US'Ve °f mtefesl and 8ito^ey's fees, arising from a transaction Indamage i<2)'£^'<£^mZ^% T" t***1'™ <*** d0es not inc,uda an ac,lon «**"*<he fo,towi"9- <1>tortaLSnt. TheS^ recovery.of personal property, or (5) a%reiud9men. writ oftfrne-for-servfce reQuirewntTandr^nLL* ,7 co,,ectJ0ns «*• on ,his f°™ means that it will be exempt from the general

L°sePirtc!>mpr|ex0iTaPSSS'̂ lT^ T* ^ Paf1'eS miiSt 3fS° US9 She C'V* Csse O^ S»*st *> designate whether ihe

tS?d£taL?£Z^^Z£^ maV f"e and Sew m,3lef than *« time of ils to appearance ajoinder in .hethe SL is comptex COun,efdesi9nal:0ft ,hat ,he <*** *no. complex, or. if the plaintiff has made no designation, adesignation thatCASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES

Auto Tort

Auto (22)~Porsonal Injury/ProperlyDamage/Wrorxjlul Daalh

Uninsured MotOfl6. (48)(ifthecase Involves an uninsuredmotorist cfafm subjecttoarbitration, check this itemInsteadofAuto)

OtherPt/PD/WD (Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death)Tort

Asbestos (04)Asbestos Property DamageAsbestos Personal Injury/

. Wrongful DeathProduct Liability (not asbestos or

toxlc/envlronmenta!) (24)Medical Malpractice (45)

Medical Malpracllcs-Physfclans &Surgeons

Other Professional Health CareMalpractice

OtherPWPD/WD (23)Premises Uab)6ly (e.g., slip

and feB)Intertkmsl BodJy InjuryyPDAM)

(o.Q^ aasault, vandalism)Intentional Infliction of

Emotional DistressNegligent InWcdon of

Emotional DistressOihafPVPD/vM)

Non-PlrPDWD(Other) TortBustnes* Tort/Unfair Business

Practice <07)OS RJ^>le(0.g:, dlscrtmlnaBon.

felso arrest) (not ch>8,;":) harassment) (OS)

Defairtatlon(e.g., stancer. Bbel)•I (13)

Fraud (16)'" Intei/ectual Property(18)

k-.;. Professional NegBgenoa (25)Legal Mefp/acUco

yi OtherProfessionalMalpractlca(notmedicalorlegal)

'"•* C«harNorvPI/PDArVDTort(35)Employmentis V*on8fulTeirn(n8tJor.(36)(T\ OtherEmptoyment (16)

- I ..

«4rOIOJR.», July I. 2007)

Contract

Breach o( Contract/Warranty (06)Oieach ol ftenlal/Lease

Cortrad (notunlawful detaineror wrongful eviction)

Cont/actArVerranty Breacrv-SellerPlalnl/lf (not fraud ornegligence)

NegKoent Breach of Contract/Warranty

Other Breach of CortractAfVafrantyCollections (e.g.. money owed, open

book accounts) (08)CoBecUonCase-Seller PlaintiffOtherPromissory Note/Collections

CaseInsurance Coverage (notprovisionally

complex}(t8)Aufo SubrogationOtherCoverage

Other Contract(37)Com/actual FraudOtherContract Dispute

Real PropertyEmtnent Domain/Inverse

Condemnation (14)VvronaM Eviction f»)Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) (26)

Writ ofPossession ofReal ProperlyMortgage ForeclosureQuiet TitleOtherRealProperly (not eminentdomain, lendhrd/lemnt, orforeclosure)

Unlawful DetainerCommercial (31)Resldenllal (32)Drue* (38) {tithe caseInvolves Illegal

drvgs, cftec*thisItem; otherwise,mpoit as CommanMorReskloatfah

Judicial ReviewAsset Forfeiture (05)Petition Re: Arbitration Award (it)WritofMandate (02)

Wm-TAdmWslratfve MandamusWHI-Mandaoiu* on LimitedCourt

Case MatterWrit-Other UmftedCourt Case

ReviewOther Judicial RevtewDS)

Review of Health Officer OrderNoticeol Appeal-Labor

Commissioner AppeabCIVILCASE COVER SHEET

ProvisionallyComplexCivilLitigation (Cat.Rules of Court Rulos 3.400-3.403)

Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03)Construction Delect(10)ClaimsInvolving Mass Tort (40)Securilles Litigation (28)Bivtronmentel/ToxIcTort (30)Insurance Coverage Claims

(arising from provisionallycomplexcase type 8sted*bovo) (41)

Enforcement of JudgmentEnforcement ofJudgment (20)

Abstract of Judgment (Out ofCounty)

ConfessionofJudgment (non-domaslkmlaUons)

Sister State JudgmentAdministrativeAgency Award

(not unpaidtaxes)PetSBorVCerllScatlon of Entry of

Judgment on Unpaid TaxesOther Enforcement of Judgment

Case

Miscellaneous CtvU ComplaintRICO (2?)Other Complefnl (notspecified

above) (42)Declaratory ReSef OnlyInjunctive ReliefOnly(non-

harassment)Mechanics LienOtherCommercial Complaint

Case (non-tortAxtn-comphx)Other ChrO Complaint

fcofrtotVnorhcoinpfox)Miscellaneous CtvU Petition

Partnership and CorporateGovernance (21)

Other Petition (notspecifiedabove) (43)CMI HarassmentWorkplace ViolenceEkter/Dependent Adult

AbuseElection ContestPetition forNameChangsPetition for Relief From tale

Claim

OiharCMPetWon

P»8»*<XJ