()

District Judge Denise L. Cote

Read Full-Text Decision

Braun agreed to give D’Angelo a 20 percent interest in Rock Care Corp.—which controlled the manufacture, marketing and sale of Mikki More hair care products—for D’Angelo’s and his coplaintiffs’ services in creating label designs, advertising and a web site to promote Mikki More hair products. Braun reneged by giving D’Angelo only a 2 percent interest. Having agreed to investigate claims by D’Angelo and his coplaintiffs concerning Braun’s refusal to compensate them as promised, Pacifico in bought a stake in the Mikki More venture. He then hired Hahn to copy plaintiffs’ materials. Because plaintiffs did not allege any agreement with Pacifico the court dismissed Count IV of their complaint to the extent it charged Pacifico with contract breach. However, plaintiffs’ allegations supported claims of copyright infringement, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit against Pacifico. Further, even if plaintiffs could only reach Pacifico by piercing Mikki More LLC’s veil, they alleged sufficient facts to do so. Pacifico created Mikki More LLC as the vehicle for his investment in the Mikki More venture, knowing that he would be infringing on plaintiffs’ rights. Thus it could be inferred that motive in creating Mikki More LLC was to avoid personal liability therefor.