`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
`11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
`MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`PLATANO RECORDS, LLC,
`a Florida Limited Liability Company,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`WQ PRODUCCIONES, LLC,srl/
`WQ Producioness, LLC
`a Dominican Republic Company,
`
`Defendant.
`
`__________________________________/
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff, PLATANO RECORDS, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Platano”), hereby sues Defendant,
`
`
`
`WQ PRODUCCIONES, LLC (“Defendant” or “WQ”), for declaratory relief and tortious
`
`interference, and in support of alleges as follows:
`
`OVERVIEW
`
`1.
`
`This is a Complaint seeking declaratory relief that certain musical compositions
`
`first created by Luis Gonzaga Segura are now wholly owned by Plaintiff and that Defendant’s
`
`intentionally wrongful claims over such musical compositions have interfered with Plaintiff’s
`
`established business relationships with distributors.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff, Platano, is a limited liability company that is based and conducts business
`
`in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Defendant, WQ, upon information and belief is a Dominican Republic limited
`
`liability company that is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court by virtue of (i) operating,
`
`conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in Florida, (ii) committing
`
`a tortuous act within Florida, (iii) committing a tortious act outside Florida which causes an injury
`
`in Florida, or (iv) engaging in substantial and not isolated activity within this state.
`
`4.
`
`This is an action for damages greater than $50,000 exclusive of interest, costs, and
`
`attorneys’ fees.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`5.
`
`Platano is a South Florida-based record label that survives and prospers based on
`
`its acquisition of music catalogs of past and future music hits. Platano relies on being able to
`
`obtain and retain its diverse music catalogs and protect same from others who seek to exploit the
`
`music that it owns.
`
`6.
`
`On or about December 28, 1993, Platano executed an initial Exclusive Artist
`
`Contract with Luis Gonzaga Segura (“Segura”), which gave Platano all rights for certain albums
`
`throughout the United States and Puerto Rico and a fifty-fifty revenue split internationally
`
`(excluding the Dominican Republic), in exchange for good valuable consideration, defined therein.
`
`7.
`
`On or about October 1, 1997, Platano executed a second Exclusive Artist Contract
`
`with Segura, which gave Platano all rights for the albums: (1) “Como Yo”, (2) “Cosas de La Vida”,
`
`(3) “Todo Exitos Vol. 1” (4) “La Razón de Mi Vida”, (5) “Hasta Cuando”, (6) “El Papa De La
`
`Bachata”, (7) “Todo… Sentimiento” (together with the albums licensed in the First Agreement
`
`referred to as the “Copyrights”) in exchange for good valuable consideration, defined therein,
`
`which was a complete buyout and Platano would not owe any compensation to Segura thereafter.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`After the Agreements were executed, Platano assigned certain distribution rights
`
`acquired in the Agreements to various licensees and its distributor, Virgin Music group, a division
`
`of Isolation Network d/b/a/Ingrooves Music Group (“Ingrooves”), pursuant to a written
`
`distribution agreement.
`
`9.
`
`After entering into the Agreements, Platano undertook time and energy and spent
`
`money to re-master the Copyrights so it could commence exploitation and monetization of the
`
`rights granted to it pursuant to the terms of the Agreements.
`
`10.
`
`Since 1997, Platano has openly exploited the Copyrights granted to it under the
`
`Agreements by selling, licensing, distributing, and advertising same through its various
`
`distributors, including Ingrooves.
`
`11.
`
`From 1997 until the beginning of 2024 no one contested, objected, or challenged
`
`Platano’s rights in the Copyrights, until February 21, 2024, when Defendant sent a cease-and-
`
`desist letter to Ingrooves wrongfully claiming that Platano did not possess certain rights in the
`
`Copyrights and that Platano had no rights to distribute the Copyrights with the intention of
`
`interfering with Platano’s contractual agreement with Ingrooves.
`
`12.
`
`On or about February 21, 2024, Platano was informed by Ingrooves that Defendants
`
`falsely indicated to Ingrooves that they owned the rights to the Copyrights and that Ingrooves
`
`would be forced to issue takedown notices to remove them from all digital platforms if the
`
`ownership conflict is not resolved.
`
`13.
`
`Since then, Platano and its undersigned counsel have been in communication with
`
`Ingrooves and Defendants in an attempt to resolve the situation and preserve its contractual
`
`relationship with Ingrooves.
`
`
`
`14.
`
`Platano continues to be damaged every day that Defendant continues to contest
`
`Platano’s rights to distribute the Copyrights.
`
`15.
`
`Platano has fulfilled all conditions precedent prior to filing this suit.
`
`COUNT I – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Platano repeats and hereby reincorporates by reference into this count the allegations above
`
`
`
`in paragraphs 1-15 as if fully set forth herein, and further alleges:
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`This is a count for declaratory relief pursuant to Florida Statute Chapter 86 et seq.
`
`Platano and Defendant have an actual present, adverse, and antagonistic interest in
`
`the subject matter of this action.
`
`18.
`
`The antagonistic and adverse interests are all before the Court by proper process
`
`and the relief sought is not for legal advice by the Court, nor to answer questions propounded from
`
`curiosity.
`
`19.
`
`Platano intends to remain a successful business within the music industry by
`
`exploiting the rights granted in the Agreements. Defendant has demonstrated an inability to respect
`
`Platano’s legal ownership of its rights.
`
`20.
`
`Platano is a proper licensee of rights to exploit the Copyrights and would like to
`
`continue to exploit same in order to remain a viable business in the music industry. However,
`
`Platano cannot do so because Defendant has interfered in Platano’s lawful and proper exploitation
`
`of the Copyrights, by falsely communicating with Ingrooves that it owns the rights to the
`
`Copyrights and threatening to sue Ingrooves if it does not take down same.
`
`21.
`
`Platano requests this Court to declare that it is the rightful licensor of certain rights
`
`in the Copyrights, that it had valid rights pursuant to the Agreements, and that Defendant shall no
`
`longer interfere with Platano’s right to exploit the contents of same and its license to the Copyrights
`
`
`
`in any way it chooses.
`
`22.
`
`Platano requests a declaratory judgment that Platano is the proper licensor of the
`
`Copyrights will resolve the pending issue with Ingrooves concerning Defendant’s demand for the
`
`removal of Platano’s recordings from the distribution.
`
`WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, Platano requests this Court to enter an
`
`Order that Defendant WQ Prodducciones LLC has no plausible claim to stop Platano’s rightful
`
`distribution of the Copyrights and that Platano may continue to exploit the contents of same as it
`
`so chooses.
`
`COUNT II – TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH AN ADVANTAGEOUS
`CONTRACTUAL BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
`
`Platano readopts and reincorporates by reference into this count the allegations above in
`
`
`
`paragraphs 1-15 as if fully set forth herein, and further alleges:
`
`23.
`
`This is a count for tortious interference with an advantageous and contractual
`
`business relationship against Defendant.
`
`24.
`
`Platano established an advantageous and contractual business relationship with
`
`licensees, such as Ingrooves, to license the Copyrights to consumers, from which Platano has and
`
`hopes to continue to earn profits.
`
`25.
`
`Platano maintained advantageous business and contractual relationships with
`
`Ingrooves and others in order to exploit the Copyrights and to receive revenue from the license,
`
`and anticipates that same will continue but for Defendant’s interference.
`
`26. WQ had knowledge of the separate business relationships between Platano and
`
`Ingrooves but was not a party to the business arrangements and had no privilege to interfere with
`
`the said arrangements.
`
`27. WQ tortiously and without justification interfered in the relationships between
`
`
`
`Platano, its licensees, and Ingrooves by demanding the removal of Platano’s Copyrights from
`
`distribution.
`
`28. WQ’s actions have caused a real interference between Plaintiff and Ingroove’s
`
`business relationship.
`
`29.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of WQ’s actions, Platano has been damaged.
`
`WHEREFORE, Platano demands compensatory and special damages in the form of lost
`
`profits from the exploitation of the Copyrights and such other further relief this Court deems just
`
`and proper against Defendant, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WOLFE LAW MIAMI, P.A.
`175 SW 7th Street, Suite 2410
`Miami, Florida 33131
`Telephone: 305-384-7370
`Facsimile: 305-384-7371
`
`By: __/s/Richard C. Wolfe
`RICHARD C. WOLFE
` Florida Bar No. 355607
` Rwolfe@wolfelawmiami.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`