Case 2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document 1 Filed 12/28/20 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:1
`
`DEC 28 2020
`
`RS
`
`2:20-CV-11756-VAP-MRWx
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document 1 Filed 12/28/20 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:2
`2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document1 Filed 12/28/20 Page 2o0f10 Page ID #:2
`Ca
`
`PLAINTIFF ALLEGESAS FOLLOWS:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action for damagesand injunctive relief in whichit is alleged
`
`Defendants have committed, and continue to commit, copyright infringement in connection with
`
`their unauthorized exploitation of a television series entitled "Baywatch" (hereinafter "SHOW"), an
`
`episode or special entitled "Forbidden Paradise” (hereinafter "EPISODE"), and/or a motion picture
`
`entitled "Baywatch" (hereinafter "MOVIE") whichis derived from Plaintiff's copyrighted
`
`screenplays and book of the same name.
`
`THE
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Angelo Renois an individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of
`
`California. He is the present owner of the copyrighted written works which are the subject of this
`
`action.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant SCOTT HUBBELL("HUBBELL") is an individual is residing in County
`
`of Los Angeles, State of California.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant GREGORY BONAN("BONAN") is an individual residing in the County
`
`of Los Angeles, State of California.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant MICHAEL BERK ("BERK")is an individual residing in the County of Los
`
`Angeles, State of California.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant DOUGLAS SCHWARTZ ("SCHWARTZ") is an individual in the residing
`
`County of Los Angeles, State of California.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant DAVID HASSELHOFF("HASSELHOFF") is an individual residing in the
`
`County of Los Angeles, State of California.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant HENRY HOLMES("HOLMES")is an individual residing in the County of
`
`Los Angeles, State of California.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document 1 Filed 12/28/20 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:3
`2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document1 Filed 12/28/20 Page 3o0f10 Page ID #:3
`Ca
`
`9.
`
`Defendant BAYWATCH PRODUCTION COMPANY, INC. ("BAYWATCH") is a CA
`
`limited liability company with its principal place of business located in the County of Los Angeles,
`
`State of California. Plaintiff alleges that BAYWATCH distributes, disseminates and/or produces
`
`television shows, and motion pictures released on VHS cassettes, DVDs, laser discs and/or Blu-ray
`
`discs.
`
`10.
`
`The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of
`
`Defendants sued as Does 1 through 10 are unknownto Plaintiff, who, therefore, sue them by such
`
`fictitious names. When their true namesand capacities have been ascertained,Plaintiff will seek leave
`
`of the Court to amend this Complaint accordingly. In information andbelief, Plaintiff alleges that each
`
`of Does | through 10 are liable to Plaintiff in connection with one or more claims sued upon here and
`
`are responsible in some mannerfor the wrongful acts and conductalleged here.
`
`11.
`
`Atall times mentioned in this Complaint each Defendant wasthe agent, servant, and
`
`employee of each other Defendant, acting within the course and scope of his, her or its agency,
`
`partnership and/or employment with the other, and with full knowledge, consent, and ratification of
`
`each other Defendant.
`
`12.
`
`HUBBELL, BONAN, BERK, SCHWARTZ, HASSELHOFF, HOLMES, and
`
`BAYWATCHare sometimescollectively referred to as "CO-EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS."
`
` ey
`
`nd
`
`"NOR
`
`"
`
`(herei
`
`r
`
`i
`
`"
`
`"
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`13.
`
`Atall times herein, mentioned Plaintiff was and is now in the businessof creating and
`
`teleplays for exhibition on
`television programming and writing original
`developing ideas for
`television. Plaintiff is also a world champion surfer, former Hollywood stuntman, and accomplished
`
`television and film writer.
`
`14.
`
`In 1978, Plaintiff developed the concept for a television series then entitled "Island
`
`High," and thereafter wrote an original series treatment ("treatment") then entitled "North Shore,"
`
`saa
`
`3
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document 1 Filed 12/28/20 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:4
`2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document1 Filed 12/28/20 Page 4of10 Page ID #:4
`Ca
`
`which treatment wasregistered in 1994 with the Writer's Guild of America, and which treatment was
`
`copyrighted and registered with the United States Copyright Office as Registration No. Paul 1930645
`
`(i.e., a PRIOR CREATION).
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff ownsall rights, titles, and interests in and to WORK.
`
`In 1979, National Broadcasting Company ("NBC") granted Plaintiff a four-month
`
`option to have Factor Newland Productions produce "Island High"asa television series as a lifeguard
`
`surf and rescue drama.
`
`17.
`
`During the four-month option period and production period of the "Island High"pilot
`
`program, Plaintiff hired two local Los Angeles County lifeguards, namely HUBELL and BONAN,to
`
`be extras in the backgroundofscenes in "Island High" (aka "North Shore").
`
`18.
`
`Eventually, NBC neglected to extend the four-month option to produce "Island
`
`High" (aka "North Shore") as either a film ortelevision program series.
`
`19. Subsequently to creation of a pilot episode of "Island High," Plaintiff was diagnosed with
`
`fast spreading melanoma skin cancer, which prevented him from surfing and socializing at Malibu
`
`Surf Rider Beach wherePlaintiff was well known, and where HUBELL and BONANworked as a
`
`lifeguard.
`
`20.
`
`During his ongoing chemotherapy treatments for his cancer and absence from Malibu
`
`Surf Rider Beach, in or about 1982, Plaintiff personally handed to HUBELL materials related to the
`
`WORK, including but not limited to a written script with character breakdowns under the working
`
`title called "North Shore," descriptions of rescue equipmentto be used in production of the treatment,
`
`cast memberprofiles, story lines, photos of ocean rescues, photos of the ocean, photos ofgirls, etc.,
`
`because HUBELL seemed very interested in Plaintiffs television proposal and the treatment(i.e.
`
`HUBELLhad ACCESS toPlaintiff's PRIOR CREATION).
`
`21.
`
`Based upon HUBELL'sinterest in Plaintiffs WORK, HUBELLapproached Plaintiff to
`
`work on Plaintiffs show as a backgroundextra.
`
`22.
`
`Unbeknownstto Plaintiff, HUBELL's interest in Plaintiffs work involved HUBELL's
`
` 4
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document 1 Filed 12/28/20 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:5
`2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document1 Filed 12/28/20 Page5of10 Page ID #:5
`Ca
`
`
`
`procurement of copyrighted materials from Plaintiffs writing partner, Peter Dixon, who unwittingly
`
`provided such materials to HUBELL.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that, prior to his hand delivery of Work-
`
`related materials to HUBELL, that HUBELLhad very little experience in television production, film
`
`production, and that HUBELLwasnot working on anyscript or screenplay, especially one related to
`
`Plaintiffs WORK.
`
`24.
`
`Subsequentto Plaintiff’s delivery of his WORK materials to HUBELL,Plaintiff was
`
`hospitalized to aggressively treat his cancer. When HUBELL and BONANeventually learned that
`
`NBChadnot renewedthe four-month option to produce "Island High" (aka "North Shore"), combined
`
`with knowledge that Plaintiff had been hospitalized for cancer treatment, Plaintiff alleges on
`
`information and belief thatHUBELL, BONAN and SCHWARTZre-approached NBC with
`
`Plaintiff’s WORK,which resulted in a new deal with NBC based upon Plaintiff’s original WORK,but
`
`Plaintiff was not included in the new deal struck with NBC to produce the SHOW, EPISODEand/or
`
`the MOVIE (the latter of which was licensed to Paramount Pictures without Plaintiff’s consent or
`
`participation).
`
`25.|When Plaintiff was released from the hospital in or about 1988, Plaintiff discovered
`
`that HUBELL had secured a deal with NBC to produce a television show based upon Plaintiffs
`
`WORK materials involving a lifeguard surf and rescue drama, which HUBELL captioned as
`
`"Baywatch."
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff never validly assigned production rights of his WORK to CO-EXECUTIVE
`
`PRODUCERS.
`
`fri
`
`f
`
`Plainti
`
`igh
`
`27.
`
`Beginning in or about 1988 and continuing to this date, Plaintiff alleges that CO-
`
`EXECUTIVE PRODUCERSreproduce, market, distribute, license, sell, produce laser discs,DVDs,
`
`VHScassettes, television shows in English and foreign languages in the United States and other
`
`countries including Canada.
`
` 5
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document 1 Filed 12/28/20 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:6
`2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document1 Filed 12/28/20 Page 6of10 Page ID #:6
`Ca
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff alleges that CO-EXECUTIVE PRODUCERScontinueto license the SHOW,
`
`EPISODEand/or MOVIE toair ontelevision from time to time and continue to exploit the WORKto
`
`advantageand profit of CO-EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff alleges that in the four year prior to the date of this complaint that Defendants
`
`continue to license Baywatchto air ontelevision from time to time and continue to exploit Baywatch
`
`in other waysall to their advantage andprofit.
`
`RRE
`
`(Againstall Defendants for Copyright Infringement)
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs |
`
`to 29 inclusive, as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff is the ownerofall rights, titles, and interests, including the copyrights, in and
`
`to the WORK,as well as the SHOW, EPISODEand the MOVIE.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff has registered his ownership of his WORK with the United States Copyright
`
`Office.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`The SHOW, EPISODEand/or MOVIE is a derivative work of Plaintiffs WORK.
`
`Plaintiff has the exclusive right
`
`to prepare derivative works based upon the
`
`copyrighted works of the WORK.
`
`35.
`
`At no time has Plaintiff authorized Defendants, or any of them, to republish, create,
`
`release, distribute derivative works or otherwise exploit all or any portion of Plaintiffs WORK in
`
`connection with the copying, sale and distribution of the SHOW, EPISODE,and/or the MOVIE, or
`
`the licensing of the SHOW, EPISODE and/or the MOVIE for airing on television and in other
`
`mediums.
`
`36.
`
`Defendants’ copying, use, modification, production, and distribution of elements of
`
`Plaintiffs WORK,including without limitation, the plot, text, ideas, theme, expression of concepts
`
`contained therein and any andall derivatives thereof, constitutes a violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and
`
` 6
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document 1 Filed 12/28/20 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:7
`2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document1 Filed 12/28/20 Page 7of10 Page ID #:7
`Ca
`
`501.
`
`37.
`
`Pursuant to Defendants' participation in the copying, use, modification, production,
`
`release, and/or distribution of Plaintiff’s WORK,in the form of VHScassettes, laser discs, DVDs, or
`
`Blu-ray discs, Defendants knowingly and willfully infringed and will continue to infringe Plaintiff's
`
`copyrights in Plaintiff's WORK.
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained as a direct and
`
`proximate result of Defendants' acts of copyright infringementwithin the limitations period prescribed
`
`by law. Plaintiff is at present unable to ascertain the full extent of the monetary damage he has
`
`suffered by reason of Defendants’ acts of copyright
`
`infringement, but Plaintiff is informed and
`
`believes, and since such information and belief allege, that Plaintiff has sustained such damagein an
`
`amount exceeding $1,000,000.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff is
`
`further entitled to recover from Defendants the gains, profits and
`
`advantages they have obtained because of Defendants' acts of copyright infringement. Plaintiff is at
`
`present unable to ascertain the full extent of the gains, profits and advantages Defendants have
`
`obtained by reason oftheir acts of copyright infringement, but Plaintiff is informed and believes, and
`
`based on such information and belief alleges, that Defendants have obtained such gains, profits and
`
`advantages in an amountexceeding $1,000,000.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff is also entitled to injunctive relief under the Copyright Act in orderto restrain
`
`future acts of copyright infringement by Defendants. See Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn Mayer, Inc., 134
`
`S. Ct. 1962 (2014).
`
`41.
`
`The Copyright Act (Act), 17 U. S. C. §101 et seq., grants copyright protection to
`
`original works of authorship. §102(a).
`
`42.
`
`The Act provides a variety ofcivil remedies for infringement, both equitable and
`
`legal. See §§502-505, described supra, at 2, n. 1. A court mayissue an injunction “on such terms as
`
`it may deem reasonable to preventorrestrain infringement of a copyright.” §502(a). At the election
`
`of the copyright owner, a court may also award either (1) “the copyright owner’s actual damages
`
` 7
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document 1 Filed 12/28/20 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:8
`2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document1 Filed 12/28/20 Page 8of10 Page ID #:8
`Ca
`
`and any additional profits of the infringer,” §504(a)(1), which petitioner seeks in the instant case,
`
`or (2) statutory damages within a defined range, §504(c).
`
`43.
`
`The foregoing acts of infringement constitute a collective enterprise of shared,
`
`overlapping facts and have been willful, intentional, and in disregard of and with indifference to
`
`the rights of Plaintiff.
`
`44.
`
`Asa result of each Defendant's infringementofPlaintiff's exclusive rights under
`
`copyright, Plaintiff is entitled to relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504 andto its attorneys’ fees and
`
`costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §505.
`
`45.|The conduct of each Defendantis causing and, unless enjoined andrestrained by
`
`this Court, will continue to cause Plaintiff irreparable injury. Plaintiffhas no adequate=remedy
`
`at law. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§502 and 503, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting
`
`each Defendant from further infringing Plaintiff's copyright and ordering that each Defendant
`
`destroy all unauthorized copies of the Copyrighted WORK.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff has a rightto bring this case andit is not barred by latchesas articulated in
`
`Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn Mayer, Inc.
`
`In Petrella, the court held laches cannot be invoked to
`
`preclude adjudication of a claim for damages brought within the three-year window. This
`
`limitation prevents a defendant from being held liable for multiple violations of the same work.
`
`Because Petrella did not seek relief for damagespriorto three years before the filing of her suit, the
`
`doctrine of laches did not apply to this case. The Court also held that the doctrine of laches has
`
`never been used to bar claims for wrongs that occurred within the acceptable timeframe, so there
`
`wasno precedentforthe type of reading that MGM argued wasnecessary. Because laches
`
`originally served as a guide to adjudicating copyright disputes when there wasnostatutory
`
`limitation, there is no reason to use the doctrineto interpretthe statute.
`
` 8
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document 1 Filed 12/28/20 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:9
`2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document1 Filed 12/28/20 Page 9of10 Page ID #:9
`Ca
`
`WHEREFORE,Plaintiff prays for judgmentas follows:
`
`l.
`
`For Plaintiff's damages derived by Defendants from their copyright infringement
`
`believed to exceed $1,000,000 accordingto proof.
`
`2.
`
`For attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Section 505 of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`U.S.C. § 505.
`
`Prejudgmentinterest.
`
`A cancellation of the copyright ownership in and to the SHOW, the EPISODE,and/or
`
`the MOVIE by any Defendant.
`
`A transfer of copyright ownership in and to the SHOW, the EPISODE and/or the
`
`MOVIE to Plaintiff.
`
`For interim and permanentinjunctive relief restraining future violations of Plaintiffs
`
`copyrights; and
`
`For such other and further relief as the Court deemsjust and
`
`appropriate
`
`
`
`19
`
`DEMANDJURYTRIALFOR
`20
`
`Plaintiff hereby demandsa jury trial.
`
`DATED: December 22, 2020
`
`By:/s/ Angelo Reno
`ANGELO RENO,PRO SE
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
` 9
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case
`2:20-cv-
`VAP
`i
`Case 2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document 1 Filed 12/28/20 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:10
`€ 2:20-cv-11756-VAP-MRW Document1 Filed 12/28/20 Page 10o0f10 Page ID #:10
`
`re
`
`L9CLS
`
`eseeroodd
`
`ZZSPZLELSZS0
`
`s071S
`
`39Vvis0dsn
`ssviaLsals
`
`1080SSI€96btf?logr|vy
`
`$98414.175
`
`
`Cop]pomHiOLSER
`2u422/ojabuy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`wooBIoIpusWOOBIOIPUSWOTe!IPUs
`
`
`
`
`
`FadEDPtHgafegpedegofdegeetedyedhytalldads
`
`aenypinoysf[ryfoyTMP
`
`aidwal‘|SIe~~
`
`C1ch,BUT,ae
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`