Dr. Luke Defamation Complaint

7/24/2019 Dr. Luke Defamation Complaint

1/25

SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

LUKASZ G OTTWA LD p/k/a DR. LUKE, KASZ

MONEY , INC., and PRESCRIPTION SONG S, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

-against-

: Index No. 653118/2014

FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

KESHA ROSE SEBERT p/k/a KESHA, PEBE SEBERT, : Jury Trial Demanded

VECTOR MANAGEMENT, LLC, and JACK ROVNER, :

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Lukasz Gottwald p/k/a Dr. Luke ("Gottwald"), Kasz Money, Inc. ("KMI") and

Prescription Songs, L LC ("Prescription Songs") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), by and through their

undersigned attorneys, as and for their First Amended Complaint against Defendants Kesha Rose

Sebert p/k/a Kesha ("Kesha"), Pebe Sebert ("Pebe"), Vector Management, LLC ("Vector"), and

Jack Rovn er ("Rovner") (collectively, "Defend ants"), allege, with personal know ledge of their

own actions, and upon inform ation and belief as to the actions of others, as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Kesha is a recording artist and songw riter. Gottwald is a Gram my-nom inated

songwriter and producer of sm ash hit musical recordings. KMI a nd Prescription Songs are,

respectively, a production company and a publishing company which.are both ow ned by

Gottwald.

2.

esha, her mother Pebe, and her managers Vector and Rovner are unhappy w ith

contracts Kesha entered into with Plaintiffs, and w ill stop at nothing to get her out of them . In

violation of her contractual agreeme nts with Plaintiffs, Kesha has, at the urging of her m other

and her m anagers, refused to com ply with her ongoing obligations to deliver sound recordings

ILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2014 05:50 PM INDEX NO. 653118/

YSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/23/


2/25

and com positions to Plaintiffs, to allow G ottwald to produce he r work, or to account for or pay

substantial royalties to KM I. To pressure Gottwald to acquiesce to the termination of these

agreements, Kesha and her representatives have embarked on a highly public extortion and

smear cam paign against him.

3.

Notably, this is not the first time that Kesha sham elessly elevated a garden v ariety

contract disagreem ent to an entirely new level by raising disgusting, fictitious allegations with

the intent of smearing Gottwald if she did not g et her way. In late 2 005, Kesha repudiated her

obligations under her recording agreem ent with KM I. Shortly thereafter, her representatives

began threatening Gottw ald that if he did not agree to terminate that contract, false allegations of

abuse of Kesha would be held over his head and m ade public. Because Gottwald refused to

accede to these threats, Kesha eventually acknow ledged that these accusations were false, re-

affirmed her obligations under her contract with Kasz M oney, and entered into a new publishing

agreement with Prescription Songs dated November 26, 2008 that with the significant efforts of

Gottwa ld resulted in Kesha 's emergenc e as an international recording star.

4.

Thereafter, in 2011 both K esha and her m other were deposed in a law suit

comm enced against Kesha in New York by one of her former representatives. When questioned

about the circumstance s of Kesha's prior contractual repudiation, and while represented by one

of the nation's premiere law firm s, both Kesha an d her m other testified unequivoc ally, at

separate times and places an d under penalty of perjury, that Gottwald had ne ver engag ed in any

abuse of K esha. Indeed, Kesha testified:

"Dr. Luke never m ade sexual advances at me."

5.

For years following Kesha's reunion with Gottwald and breakout success, Kesha

and her m other expressed profound gratitude and adm iration for all that Gottwald has don e for

their careers and their fam ily. For exam ple, in emails to Gottwald, Pebe stated:

"Thank you

2


3/25

Lukell . You have ch anged ou r lives forever. I love you II"

and "I know yo u are going to be a

great dad." Similarly, Kesha sent Gottwald a birthday card stating:

"Th ank you 4 helping me

make m y WILDEST dreams come t ruer

6.

How ever, over time, Kesha's relationship with Gottwald began to sour due to the

wrongful and m alicious interference of Pebe and Rovner the first wanting more m oney, and the

second wa nting additional control over Kesha's career, as well as more m oney. Pebe and

Rovner, both of whom have longstanding antipathy toward Gottwald, told Kesha that she could

have greater artistic and financial success w ith another record label and publishing com pany, and

convinced h er to repudiate her co ntractual obligations to Plaintiffs.

7. Because Gottwald refused (and refuses) to walk away from his contractual rights,

Kesha and Pebe have spread to the public false, disgusting and highly damaging statements

about him to num erous third parties which con stitute defam ation per se. Am ong other things,

they have revived the utterly baseless claim which Kesha and Pebe previously acknowledged

under oath to be false that Gottwald purportedly comm itted abuse of Kesha nearly a decade

ago.

8.

Defendants' malicious conduct should not be countenanced. G ottwald has upheld

his end of the bargain, devoting the better part of a decade to transform ing Kesha from an

unknown entity into a w ell-known recording star. Kesha's repudiation of her contractual

relationships with Plaintiffs, and her and her m other's ongoing cam paign to extort a release by

tarnishing Gottwald's reputation, has caused trem endous dam age as set forth herein.

PARTIES

9.

Gottw ald is a California resident.

10.

KM I is incorporated in the State of New Y ork.

11.

Prescription Songs is a Ca lifornia limited liability com pany.

3


4/25

12. esha is a California resident who is a singer-songw riter doing business in New

York.

13.

Kesha's m other, Pebe, is a T ennessee resident who is also a songwriter. Pebe is

also known as R osemary S ebert. Pebe's music publisher is based in New Y ork, and during

relevant time periods, Pebe has used a music attorney headquartered in New York.

14.

Vector is incorporated in Delaware. V ector is authorized to do business in, and

maintains an office in, New York.

15.

Rovner is the President of Vector, is based in New Y ork, is domiciled in New

York, and does business in New York.

JURISDICTION AN D V ENUE

16.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Kesha, Vector and Ro vner pursuant to

New York Civil Practice Law and Rules 301.

17.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over all Defen dants pursuant to New Y ork

Civil Practice Law and R ules 301 and 302 be cause they are transacting business in the State

of New York, have en gaged in acts in violation of Plaintiffs' rights in the State of New Y ork,

and/or have be en and are ca using injury to Plaintiffs in the State of New Y ork.

18.

The C ourt also has personal jurisdiction over Kesha becau se she consented to

same in the "KMI A greement" and the "Prescription Publishing Agreement," both of which are

defined below.

19.

This Court also has pe rsonal jurisdiction over Pebe p ursuant to the "Split

Agreement," defined below.

20.

Venue is proper in the County of New Y ork pursuant to the KMI A greement, the

Prescription Publishing Agreem ent, and the Split Agree men t, all of which provide for sole

jurisdiction in New York for any controversies regarding those agree me nts.

4


5/25

21.

Venue is also proper in the County of New York pursuant to New Y ork Civil

Practice Law and Rules 503.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A.

ottwald Discovers Kesha and Signs H er to an Exclusive Recording Deal

22 .

Gottwald who is professionally known as "Dr. Luke" is a Grammy-nominated

songw riter and producer of smash hit musical recordings by artists including Katy Perry, Britney

Spears, and Kelly Clarkson, among others. Gottwald has written the most Num ber One songs of

any songw riter ever. He w as nam ed by Billboard as one of the top ten producers of the decade in

2009 and the Producer and Songwriter of the Year for 2010, and was the 2010 ASCA P

Songwriter of the Year. Gottwald is also the principal and ow ner of KM I, a company which

furnishes the services of certain individuals in the entertainm ent industry.

23.

In or about 2005, Gottwald discovered an unknown and unsigned musical artist

named Kesha R ose Sebert when he listened to her "demo" tape. Recognizing her potential,

Gottwald called Kesha at her home in Nashville, Tennessee and expressed interest in working

with her. Kesha, in turn, was excited to be provided w ith an opportunity to w ork with G ottwald

and record his songs. Thus, the parties' working relationship began.

24.

In order to further their working relationship, Kesha entered into an exclusive

recording agreement w ith Gottwald's com pany KM I, effective as of S eptember 26, 2 005 (the

"KMI Agreement"). Kesha hired a sophisticated and experienced entertainment lawyer to

negotiate the KMI Agreem ent on her behalf.

25.

Under the terms of the K MI A greement, Kesha agreed, among other things, that:

(a) she would provide her exclusive recording services to KM I for a specified term, which at

KM I's election could be extended through the release of Ke sha's sixth album (w hich was later

mo dified to her fifth album); (b) Gottwald wou ld be engaged to provide produc tion services for

5


6/25

at least six recordings on each Kesha album; and (c) Gottwald would be provided with a

specified percentage of the sales of each such recording he produ ced. Gottwald is an expressly

intended third-party beneficiary of the KMI Agreement.

26.

The K MI Agreement expressly requires that any disputes regarding the agreement

be litigated in the courts of New York and not elsewhere. Specifically, Section 10(f) provides

as follows:

THE NEW YOR K COURTS (STATE AND FEDERAL), SHALL

HAVE SOLE JURISDICTION OF ANY CONTROVERSIES

REGARDING THIS AGREEMENT; ANY ACTION OR OTHER

PROCEEDING W HICH INVOLVES SUCH A CONTROVERSY

SHALL BE BROUGHT IN THOSE COURTS IN NEW YORK

COUNTY AND NOT ELSEWHERE. THE PARTIES WAIVE

ANY AND ALL OB JECTIONS TO VENUE IN THOSE

COURTS AND HER EBY SUBM IT TO THE JURISDICTION OF

THOSE COURTS.

B.

issatisfied With the Progress of Her Ca reer, Kesha M akes Her First

Attempt to Terminate the KMI Agreement by Making Extortionate

Threats to Disclose False Allegations of Improper Cond uct by Gottwald

27.

Shortly following the entry of the KMI Agreement, Kesha began to express

frustration that her recording career was not progressing as quickly as she had expected it would.

Kesha ha d no experience in the music business and d id not understand that the process of

developing an a rtist does not occur ove rnight, but rather requires time, patience and hard wo rk.

28.

Thus, in late 2005, Ke sha retained representatives who repudiated the ICMI

Agreem ent on her behalf. At Kesha's behest, these representatives pressed a false and fictitious

story on her behalf that Gottwald had purportedly engage d in drug-related and other abuse of

her. ' In their comm unications with G ottwald and his team, K esha's representatives made clear

While Kesha's promulgation of this fictitious story is shocking, she has a long history of

making false statements and engaging in hurtful behavior. For example, at the inception of her

career, Kesha attem pted to gain notoriety by repeatedly making false public claims that her

father was the singer of a world-fam ous British rock and roll band, and refusing to acknow ledge

6


7/25

that they would m ake this fictitious story public if Gottwald did not agree to term inate the KM I

Agreem ent. However, Gottwald simply refused to accede to extortion and would not

com promise his clear contractual rights.

C.

esha Aband ons Her First Extortion Campaign , Reaffirms the

K.11/11 A greement, and Signs the Prescription Publishing Agreement

29.

y 2008, Kesha had become deeply frustrated by her stalled career. No record

company w ould or could sign her to a deal because she w as already signed to KMI. At that time,

Kesha disavowed her repudiation of the KM I Agreem ent, and reaffirmed that the agreement is

valid and binding. Kesha and KM ' executed amendm ents to the ICMI A greement in 2008 and

200 9, continuing their working relationship.

30.. In 2009, KM I also negotiated and executed an agreement w ith the RC A/JIVE

record label to release and prom ote Kesha's recordings. Sebert simultaneously executed an

Assent, Guaranty, and Entertainment Rights Agreement (the "Assent") whereby,

inter alia,

Sebert assented to the execution of the RCA/Jive recording agreement, and agreed to be bound

by all grants and restrictions contained in that agreemen t.

31.

n Novem ber 26, 2 008, Kesha entered into a separate Co-Publishing and

Exclusive Administration Agreement with Prescription Songs, Gottwald's publishing company

(the "Prescription Publishing A greeme nt"). Again, this contract was negotiated on behalf of

Kesha by an experienced and sophisticated entertainment lawyer.

her actual father. Similarly, following a horrific school shooting, Kesha falsely told the public

that she did not write, and w as forced by Gottw ald to sing, the lyrics of the song "Die Y oung,"

even thoug h she had already proudly, and truthfully, taken credit for those lyrics. In another

notorious incident, Kesha intentionally locked her mother out of her hotel room in Las V egas,

without money or shoes. Pebe w as forced to w ander the hotel 's casino floor, begging for

assistance.

7


8/25

32.

The Prescription Publishing Agreement states in Paragraph 21(b) that: "The

prevailing party in any legal action (after all appeals have been taken o r the time for taking such

appeals has expired) brought by one pa rty against the other and arising out of this agreem ent

shall be entitled, in addition to any other rights and rem edies available to it at law or in e quity, to

reimbursem ent for its costs and expenses (including court costs and reasonable fees for attorneys

and expert witnesses) incurred w ith respect to bringing and m aintaining any such action."

33.

Like the ICM I Agreem ent, the Prescription Publishing A greement includes a

provision requiring that any disputes regarding the agreem ent be litigated in the courts of New

York and not elsewhere. Specifically, Section 21(a) provides:

The state courts of the State of New Y ork, County of New York

and/or the Federal D istrict Courts for the Southern D istrict of New

York, shall have jurisdiction and venue of any controversies

regarding this agreement. Any action or other proceeding which

involves such a controversy w ill be brought in the enume rated

courts, and not elsewhere. In addition to accepting suc h

jurisdiction, each party hereby w aives any objection based upon

forum non conveniens or any similar ground.

34.

Kesha was represented by a sophisticated and experienced entertainment lawyer

in connection with the negotiation of the 2008 and 2009 am endments to the ICMI A greement, the

Assent and the Prescription Publishing Agreement.

D.

hanks to Plaintiffs, Kesh a Enjoys Enorm ous Success, and Kesh a

and Pebe Repeatedly Express Their Gratitude to Gottwald for Same

35.

Gottwald and KM I produced and promoted K esha's debut album for K MI entitled

Animal

and follow-up EP for KMI entitled

Cannibal,

both of which were released in 2010. Both

of these works feature extensive songwriting and production contributions from Gottwald along

with the team he assembled and oversaw, have sold m illions of copies worldwide, and have

spawned num erous Number 1 singles, including

Tik Tok and

We R W ho We R.

Gottwald put

8


9/25

substantial energy into taking Kesha a previously unknown singer and transforming her into

the well-know n artist that she now is.

36.

In addition to ma king Kesha a star, Gottw ald also provided Pebe w ith valuable

songwriting opportunities. Indeed, in 2009, G ottwald provided Pebe with her first major

songw riting oppo rtunity in decade s (a co-write for a fam ous third-party artist), knowing that

doing so w ould allow Pebe to obtain a publishing deal. Pebe e xpressly acknowledged this to

Gottwald, writing: "Thank you for keeping me on this song and changing my life."

37.

This was far from the only favor which Gottwald graciously provided to Kesha's

family. Pebe would regularly ask Gottwald to provide favors that would advance the

entertainment-industry careers of herself and her other children; Gottw ald often obliged. Kesha

and Pebe bo th repeatedly expressed their gratitude and adm iration for all that Gottwald had do ne

for their careers and fam ilies.

38. For example, in a September 26, 2 009 email to Gottwald, Pebe wrote:

"You are

part of our family , and I hope you know, as mu ch as you h ave been there for Kesha and me,

that we will always be there for yo u, as family, and friends,i f you need anything."

And, in a

June 4, 2010 em ail to Gottwald, Pebe stated:

"Thank you L uke " You have changed our l ives

forever. ho ve you I Pebe".

Similarly, in a July 16, 2011 em ail to Gottw ald, Pebe wrote: "I

know you are g oing to be a great dad."

See

Exs. A,

B

and C hereto.

39.

Mo reover, Kesha sent G ottwald a birthday card, with a handwritten note stating

the following:

To the foxxy-est producer EVER

Ur just getting better with time

Thank you 4 he lping me make my WILDEST dreams come t rue

I love you

9


10/25

See Ex. D hereto.

40.

Kesha also rightly praised Gottwald in her 2012 autobiography

My Crazy

Beautiful Life,

writing, among other things: "I had so m any great songs that I had already done

by m yself, but Luke brought something new and fresh to my sound, and he encouraged m e to be

bold"; and "Luke is like a good coach. He is always pushing m e and challenging me to get

better."

E.

esha and Pebe Tru thfully Testify in 2011 Th at

Gottwald Never Made A ny Sexual Advance at Kesha

41.

On or about May 2 5, 2010, Kesha's former manager D AS Com munications Ltd.

("DAS") com menc ed a lit igation against Kesha and Go ttwald. In its Complaint, DAS alleged

that Kesha purportedly breached her management agreement with plaintiff dated January 27,

20 06, and that Gottwa ld had allegedly tortiously interfered w ith that contract. Gottwa ld filed an

Answer in which he denied those allegations, and asserted counterclaims against DAS for

inducing K esha to breach the KM I Agreem ent by repudiating it . The action w as resolved

amicably, and a Stipulation of Discontinuance was entered on November 21, 2 012,

42.

Prior to the resolution of the action, both Kesha and her m other were depo sed. At

their respective depositions, Kesha and Pe be we re represented by a prom inent national law firm.

Moreover, Rovner personally attended K esha's deposition. Gottwald w as not present at either

deposition. During the depositions, DAS's counsel asked each of these witnesses whether the

accusations of purported abuse by G ottwald against Kesha w ere true. Both witnesses testified

that they were false.

43.

Specifically, Kesha testified that she never had an intimate relationship with

Gottw ald, that he had never given h er a "date rape drug," and that he had never made a sex ual

advance toward her let alone raped her.

10


11/25

Q. Dr. Luke never gave you coke or drugs?

A. Dr. Luke never gave m e coke.

Q. Did he give you drugs?

A. W hat kind of drugs?

Q. Any kinds of drugs that are not purchasable at the pharm acy.

[Kesha's attorney]: If you know .

A: I don't know.

[Q]: Do you know what a roofie is?

A. Yes.

Q. W hat is that?

A. It's a drug.

Q. W hich does what?

A. It's like a da te rape drug.

Q. Did D r. Luke ever give you a mak?

A. No.

Q. Okay, when

did you ever have an intimate relationship

with Gottwald?

[Gottwa ld's counsel]: Objection as to form.

A. No.

Q. W ere you ever with Gottwald at a time when you thought he

was high?

[Gottwa ld's counsel]: Objection to form.


12/25

A. He m ay or may not do drugs.

Q. You don t know if he does drugs?

A.

I don t know if he does drugs.

Q. Did you ever sleep with Mr. Gottwald in the same bed?

A. Yes.

Q. And yo u didn t hav e an intimate relationship while you

were sleeping with him in the same bed?

A. No.

Q. Did your m other complain [to DAS] about Dr. Luke having

made sexual advances to you?

A. I don t know what my mother told to [DAS]. I know that I ve

Dr. Luke never mad e sexual advances at me, so

See

Ex. E hereto (em phasis added).

44.

ebe sim ilarly testified neither her daughter nor anyo ne else eve r told her that

Gottwald had given K esha a date rape drug and that she did not believe that Gottwald and Sebert

had a sexual relationship:

Q. ... Before that first meeting with w ith [DAS], had anyone

told you that Gottwald had slipped Kesha a date rape drug?

A. No.

Q. Did a nyone ever tell you that at any time?

A. No.

Q. Are you aw are of whether he had had any kind of sexual

relationship with your daug hter prior to the time you m et with

DA S at the Chateau Marm ont?

12


13/25

A. I don t believe there was, no.

See

Ex. F hereto (emphasis added).

F.

esha Has R epudiated and O therwise

Breach ed Her C ontracts with Plaintiffs

45.

Desp ite the fact that the parties have had a treme ndously successful business

relationship, Kesha has now repudiated, and otherwise breached, the KMI Agreement and the

Prescription Publishing Agreem ent. As set forth in Section G below , these breaches are the

direct result of the wrongful conduc t of Pebe, Rovner and V ector, in convincing Kesha that she

should disclaim her ob ligations to Plaintiffs, and would have g reater financial and artistic success

after doing so.

46.

Kesha's Breaches of the KMI Agreement.

In addition to her outright repudiation

of the K MI A greement, Kesha has breached at least three material terms thereof. First,

as

modified by subsequent amendment, Section Tw o of the KM I Agreement requires Kesha to

deliver five albums of her musical recordings to KMI. In breach of the agreement, Kesha has

stopped delivering, and refuses to deliver, her recordings to KM I, even though she only

previously delivered two albums to KMI.

47.

Second,

pursuant to Section Six of the KMI Ag reem ent, Gottwald is entitled to

produce no few than six (6) recordings on each o f her albums. In breach of the agreem ent,

Kesha now refuses to allow Gottwald to produce any recordings.

48. Third,

pursuant to an am endment to the KM I Agreement dated M ay 18, 2009,

Kesha is required, on a regular basis, to account to and pay KM I specified percentages of her

revenues from merchandising, touring and other enumerated ancillary income streams on a

periodic basis, and to "mean ingfully consult" with KM I regarding all opportunities for such

ancillary income. Kesha h as breached the terms of this ame ndm ent by failing to account for or

13


14/25

pay large am ounts of ancillary incom e to which KM I is contractually entitled. Specifically,

Kesha h as not paid a substantial sum of anc illary royalties for which she previously accounted.

There are also large amounts of ancillary royalties due and owing for which Kesha has never

accounted

let alone paid.

Indeed, Kesha h as not paid K M I any a nci llary royal ties whatsoever

since June 2012.

The sum s which Kesha has failed to account for and/or pay, and now owes,

under this amendm ent likely total, at minimum, several hundred thousand dollars. Kesha has

also breached this amendment by failing to consult at all with KM I let alone meaningfully

consult regarding her touring opportunities, merchandising opportunities, and other

opportunities to earn ancillary income.

49.

Kesha's Breach of the Prescription Publishing Agreement.

In addition to her

outright repudiation of the Prescription Publishing Agreem ent, Kesha has breache d the duty of

good faith and fair dealing inherent in that agreeme nt. The Prescription Publishing Agreem ent

provides for a term of three consec utive contractual periods: an "Initial Period," a "First Option

Period" and a "Second Option" period. During each contractual period, Kesha is required to

deliver to Prescription Songs a specified number of compositions written by her (the "Minimum

Delivery Com mitment"). Although there is no explicit deadline in the Prescription Pub lishing

Agreement to fulfill the Minimum Delivery Commitment, the duty of good faith and fair dealing

requires Kesha to fulfill it within a comm ercially reasonable period of time . Kesha has breache d

the duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to deliver any com positions to Prescription

Songs within a commercially reasonable period of time.

G.

ebe, Vector and Rovner H ave Induced K esha s C ontractual Breaches

50.

Pebe, Vector and Rovner successfully convinced Kesha to repudiate her contracts

with Plaintiffs. In pressing for Kesha to breach her contracts, Pebe, Vector and Ro vner we re

motivated by malice and their own selfish interests. Certainly, it was not in Kesha's best interest

14


15/25

to do so given that each and every one of her hit songs was co-written and produced by

Gottwald. Further, it was tremen dously risky an d, indeed illogical for Ke sha to repudiate her

contracts with Plaintiffs, given that without Plaintiffs' agreem ent to terminate them , Kesha

cannot sign w ith another record label or publisher and thus cannot legally release music for any

third party. An ad ditional negative consequenc e for Kesha o f her improper repud iation is that

she is contractually liable to Prescription Songs for the attorneys' fees and costs it incurs in

connection w ith seeking judicial relief to reme dy her breaches.

51.

Pebe's Malice and O therwise Improper Motivations. Pebe a frustrated

songwriter who had a sm attering of success decades ago has grown jealous of Gottwald's

talent and accomplishments, and resentful of the fact that she has no commercially meaningful

songw riting oppo rtunities outside of those wh ich Plaintiffs graciously provided her. Pebe has

also grown rese ntful of the fact that only one of the num erous songs w hich she has co-w ritten

with Kesha (the "Pebe C o-Authored Com positions") was selected to be a single. Pebe also has

malice tow ard Go ttwald based upo n her (incorrect) belief that in negotiations with Plaintiffs over

the allocation of publishing revenue for Pebe Co-Authored Compositions, Pebe has ended upon

with a sm aller share of the revenue that that to which she believes she is entitled. Pebe further

believes that if Kesha w ere able to obtain a new recording agreem ent with a third party then: (a)

Pebe w ould have m ore control over the songwriting process; and (b) more songs Pebe co-writes

wou ld be selected as singles, and Pebe w ould receive the financial remuneration and public

acclaim attendant with same.

52.

Vector's Malice and Otherwise Improper M otivations. Over the years Rovner

developed unm itigated animus toward G ottwald. This is due to the fact that in num erous

conferences regarding Kesha's career which were attended by Gottwald, Rovner and third

15


16/25

parties, Rovner made suggestions regarding creative and business matters which Gottwald

rejected. Rovner, who is the form er head of a reco rd label and is used to being treated as "the

boss," was enrage d by these perceived slights by Gottwald. The fact that third parties witnessed

them m ade Rovner eve n angrier. This was far more than Rovn er's ego could take; accordingly,

Rovner now

hates

Gottwa ld. For years, he has refused to me et with or even speak to Gottw ald,

despite the fact that the major record label wh ich distributes KM I's recordings repeatedly

requested him to do so. By refusing to speak to Go ttwald the principal of Kesha's record label

Rovne r failed to fulfill his essential role and most basic duties as Kesha's man ager. Rovner's

malice toward Gottwald was also readily apparent during the m aking of Kesha's second album

Animal,

whe n he instructed Kesha to refuse to show up for scheduled recording sessions w ith

Gottwald, thereby costing KM I and G ottwald substantial amounts of m oney and w asting the time

of Gottwald and m any other writers and personnel. Rovner had no legitimate reason or

justification to so instruct Kesha, and instead simply w anted to harm G ottwald.

53.

ector and Rovner also had an additional improper motivation in pushing Kesha

to repudiate her contractual obligations to Plaintiffs. If Kesha had been able to successfully

repudiate her contracts with Plaintiffs, she would be able to sign new recording an d publishing

deals with third parties that likely would have include d large cash advance s to Kesha.

The

managem ent comm issions that Vector and Rovner w ould have been entitled to take from such

advances are far larger than the com missions to which Vector and Rovner would have been

entitled to take from K MI's and Prescription Songs' ongoing royalty payments to Kesha had she

2

A new record deal for a superstar artist for who m the label does not nee d to put in the hard

work of developing and creating a fan base is inevitably more favorable than a deal signed by

an unknow n, who is an inherent risky proposition for a label, and for whom the label has to put

in the "sweat equity" of developing and prom oting. Thus, by pressing Kesha to repudiate her

contracts, Vector and R ovner w ere seeking to deprive P laintiffs of the benefits of their foresight

and years of successful hard work.

16


17/25

not breached her agreements with Plaintiffs. Given that the potential financial upside of a

repudiation by Kesha was so great, Vector and Rovner simply did not care that about the serious

harm which a repudiation would cause to Kesha's career if Gottwald did not accept it.

54.

Rovner's irrational hatred and malice towards Plaintiffs is further fueled by their

association with companies with which Rovner previously had very bad professional and

personal experiences and now utterly resents RCA Records and Sony Music Entertainment

("SME"). (Kesha's records have all been marketed and released by RCA R ecords, which is

wholly owned by SM E.) Rovner's resentment against these companies stems from his years of

employment at first Columbia Records and then RCA R ecords, which are both record labels that

are currently part of the SME corporate family.

55.

At an earlier point in his career, Rovner w as an executive at Columbia Records.

During his tenure there, a senior executive who later became Rovner's boss and the head of

SME betrayed Rovner regarding a deeply personal matter. Rovner found working for the man

who had done such personal harm to him to be a humiliating experience and caused him to be

highly resentful. At some point thereafter, Rovner also served as the President of RCA Records,

but according to public reports, he was ousted unceremoniously. This added to his longstanding

grudge against SME and com panies that have become affiliated with SME.

H.

esha and Pebe E ngage in a C ampaign of Defamation and Extort ion to

Pressure Plaintiffs to Accept the Termination of Their A greements

56.

Kesha and Pebe have orchestrated a campaign of publishing false and shocking

accusations against Gottwald to extort Plaintiffs into: (a) letting Kesha out of the KMI

Agreement and the Prescription Publishing Agreement; and (b) according Pebe a greater income

share in the Pebe Co-Authored Compositions than that to which she is currently contractually

7


18/25

entitled. 3

Pebe and K esha have discussed and thus published these accusations about

Gottwa ld to one another. Kesha is the source of these accusations that Pebe has more broadly

disseminated to third parties. These acc usations are false, were published with m alice, and

constitute defamation

per se.

57.

The Defam atory Pebe Emails.

The defam ation and extortion campaign began on

October 29, 2013, when Pebe emailed Gottwald's longtime entertainment lawyer, stating the

following:

Tomorrow I am going to start making public how D r. Luke

blackm ailed me into giving him and C ircuit publishing credit, on

all songs I wrote on [the Kesha album entitled] [W ]arrior, with

Kesha and other w riters and p roducers . .. .

Luke date raped K esha when she was 18 . Nicky Hilton's birthday?

Paris Hiltons house? Luke gave K esha pills?

She ended u p naked in his hotel room 2 da ys later, no longer a

virgin?

Do w e want all this to come out?

[E]ither ... Luke releases K esha from all legal contracts, and gives

me back all my publishing, or we, Kesha and I tell the truth ....

These accusations against Gottwald are all false as Kesha and Peb e themselves both know and

have stated under oath.

58.

The next day, Oc tober 30, 2013, Pebe sent a follow-up em ail to Gottw ald's

entertainment law yer, stating: "ps I am sending all of this to the blogger who has started the

3

The percentage of income for which Pebe previously agreed for numerous of the Pebe C o-

Authored Compositions is set forth in an agreement between Kesha and Pebe entitled Writer

Split Agreement and Musical Com position License (the "Split Agreem ent") dated December 1,

2009. K MI is a third party beneficiary of this agreem ent. Paragraph 8 of the Split Agreem ent

states that "The courts of New York, New York (state and federal) only will have jurisdiction of

any controversies regarding this agreem ent and the parties hereto consent to the jurisdiction of

said courts." The above-captioned litigation constitutes a controversy regarding the Split

Agree me nt, for which Pe be (as well as Kesha ) has consented to jurisdiction.

18


19/25

whole "Free K esha" thing, sorry about the trail of truth you fucking criminals " Ag ain, Kesha

and Pebe knew this defamatory accusation against Gottwald and his representatives was false.

59. The Defamatory Pebe Letter.

On D ecember 30 and 31, 2 013, Pebe sent a letter via

email in which she claim claimed, among other things, that "Dr. Luke abused Kesha, both

physically and me ntally." Aga in, as Kesha and Pebe a re well aware, these accusa tions are false.

Pebe sent this letter to a substantial num ber of recipients, including individuals nam ed Em ily

Wright, Beka Tischker, Benny Blanco, Kool Kojak, Matt Squire, David Gam son, and Mike

Eisele.

60.

Desp ite the patent falsity of these accusations, Pebe has m ade clear that extortion

is the ultimate goal of this defamatory campaign. In com munications with Gottwald and his

representatives, Pebe has threatened to further dissem inate accusations of the type above unless

Gottwa ld lets Kesha out of her agreeme nts with Plaintiffs, and provides Pebe with a larger

financial interest in the Pebe C o-Authored C om positions.

61. Plaintiffs have been inform ed that Pebe also published some o r all of the

aforementioned false accusations of fact to representatives of her music publisher Sony/ATV

Music Publishing.

62.

The Defamatory Kesha Letters.

Thereafter, in January of 2 014, Kesha sent

handw ritten letters to her fans setting forth additional know ingly false factual assertions

regarding Gottwald. These false assertions included: "Yes, Dr. Luke has tortured me + my

family . .. he did do what people know about + so m uch m ore terrible shit"; "I 'm here working

out some em otional traum a + abuse, there is someone I w ork with that is so abusive"; and

"Someone I work with has literally

driven

me into this disease, tortured me, and flicked with m e

19


20/25

and m y family . . .." When K esha sent these letters, she knew that they w ould be widely

disseminated o n the Internet by her fans and thereafter published in the press.

63.

The Defamatory So-Called "Draft Complaint."

Then, in the Sum mer of 201 4,

attorneys representing Kesha held a meeting in New York City with the general counsel of a

major record label w ith which Gottwald does substantial business. At this m eeting, Kesha's

attorneys showed the general counsel a purported "draft complaint" against Gottwald which

contained false and scurrilous accusations against Gottwa ld of, am ong other things, having raped

Kesha , given her drugs against her will, and enga ged in other purported acts of physical, sexual

and em otional abuse of her. Kesha and her attorneys knew that all of the allegations of purported

misconduct by Gottwald in this so-called "draft complaint" were wholly false, and made these

accusations to the general coun sel with m alicious intent.

64.

In yet another blatant act of extortion, Kesha's attorneys informed the gene ral

counsel that if Gottw ald did not agree to let Kesha ou t of her recording agreem ent, they would

file the "draft complaint," thereby tarnishing Gottwald's reputation. Obviously cognizant of the

unlawful nature of this conduct, Kesh a's attorneys refused to let the gene ral counsel retain a copy

of the "draft complaint," and refused to allow G ottwald or his representatives to even look at it.

Gottw ald still does not have a copy of this "draft complaint," and reserves the right to am end his

pleading to add add itional allegations regarding its content after he receives a copy o f same .

65.

Rovner personally attended the 2011 deposition of Kesha at which she explained

under oath that Dr. Luke had neve r made a sex ual advance at her, let alone abused he r. Thus,

Vec tor and Rovner are w ell aware that the baseless accusations of abuse set forth above are

utterly false. Nonetheless, Vector and Ro vner have been m ore than happy to play a key role in

Kesha's and Pebe's repudiation scheme which is premised upon these meritless accusations.

2 0


21/25

C O UNT I

(Cause Of Action Against Kesha and Pebe For D efamation)

66.

Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 throug h 65 as if fully stated herein.

67.

The statements that Kesha and Pebe m ade concerning Plaintiffs, as detailed

above , are false.

68.

The false statements that Kesha and Pebe m ade concerning Plaintiffs were

published to va rious third parties.

69.

In m aking these false statements, Kesha and Pebe acted w ith wanton dishonesty

such that punitive damag es are warranted. Kesha and P ebe have also acted w ith malice. No

privilege applies to the publication of these statem ents.

70.

The statements about Gottwald have injured, and were made with an intent to

injure, Plaintiffs' reputation, including Gottwald's reputation in his business as a music

producer/songw riter who w orks closely with a broad range of artists and writers. As a result,

Kesha's and Pebe's conduct rises to the level of defam ationper

se,

and no proof of special harm

or damage s is necessary.

71.

To the extent proof of special harm or dam ages is necessary, as a proximate cause

of Pebe and K esha's defama tory statements, Plaintiffs have suffered special dama ges to their

reputations, and to existing and po tential business relationships w ith other artists and reco rd

labels in an am ount to be prov en at trial, plus interest.

COUNT

II

(Cause Of Action Against Kesha For B reach Of The ICNII Agreement)

72.

Plaintiffs restate and incorpo rate by reference the allegations continued in

paragraphs 1 throug h 71 as if fully stated herein.

21


22/25

73.

The KM I Agreement and its subsequent 2008 and 2009 am endments are a valid

contract between K esha, on the one hand, and K MI and Gottwald, on the other hand. Gottwald

is expressly intended as a third party beneficiary of the KMI Ag reem ent.

74.

KMI and Gottwald have fully performed their obligations under the KMI

Agreement.

75.

Kesha has repudiated the KMI Agreement. In violation of the terms of the KM I

Agreement, Kesha has refused to comply with her ongoing obligations to deliver sound

recordings to Gottwa ld, or to allow Go ttwald to produce her work. Ke sha has also refused to

account for or pay KM I ancillary revenues which she ow es under that agreement.

76.

Beca use of Kesha's breach of contract, Gottwald and K MI are entitled to

compensatory damag es (including expectation dam ages and consequential damages) in an

amo unt to be prov en at trial, plus interest.

COUNT III

(Cause O f Action Against K esha For Breach O f The Prescription Publishing Agreemen t)

77.

Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations continued in

paragraphs 1 through 76 as if fully stated herein.

78.

The Prescription Publishing Agreement is a valid contract between Kesha, on the

one hand, and Prescription Songs, on the other hand.

79.

Prescription Songs ha s fully performed its obligations under the Prescription

Publishing A greement.

80.

Kesha has repudiated the Prescription Publishing Agreem ent. Kesha has

breached the du ty of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the Prescription Publishing

Agreement by refusing and failing to fulfill her Minimum Delivery Commitment within a

2 2


23/25

commercially reasonable period of time. Through these actions, and others, Kesha has breached

her contractual duty to render her services exclusively to KM I during the contractual term.

81.

Beca use of Ke sha's breach of contract, Prescription Songs is entitled to

compensatory damages (including expectation dam ages and consequential damages) in an

am ount to be prove n at trial, plus interest.

82.

Pursuant to Paragraph 21(b) of the Prescription Publishing Agreement,

Prescription Songs is entitled to its costs and expen ses (including court costs and reasonab le fees

for attorneys and expert witnesses) incurred w ith respect to bringing and m aintaining this action.

COUN T IV

(Cause O f Action Against Pebe, Vector, And Ro vner For To rtious Interference

With The KM I Agreement And The Prescription Publishing A greement)

83.

Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 8 2 abo ve as if fully stated herein.

84.

The KM I Agreement and its subsequent 2008 and 2009 am endments are a valid

contract between Kesha, on the one hand, and KM I and G ottwald, on the other hand. Gottwald

is expressly intended as a third party beneficiary of the KM I Agreem ent.

85.

The Prescription Publishing Agreement is a valid contract between Kesha and

Prescription Songs.

86.

Pebe, Vector, and Rovner have knowledge of the KMI Agreement and the

Prescription Publishing Agreement.

87,

ebe, Vector, and Rovn er have each intentionally and maliciously interfered with

Plaintiffs' contractual relationships with Kesha. Each has advised and/or cajoled and induced

Kesha into repudiating the KMI Agreement and the Prescription Publishing Agreement and

otherwise refusing to perform under those agreement.

23


24/25

88.

As a result of Pebe, V ector, and Rovner's interference with Plaintiffs' contractual

relationships with Kesha, Kesha has in fact repudiated the KMI Agreement and the Prescription

Publishing Agreement and has otherwise failed and refused to perform under those agreements.

But for this wrongful conduct, Kesha w ould not have breached the KM I Agreem ent and the

Prescription Publishing Agreement.

89.

As a proximate cause of Kesha's repudiation and breach of the KMI Agreement,

Plaintiffs have suffered da ma ges in an am ount to be proven at trial, plus interest.

PRAYER FOR R ELIEF

WH ERE FOR E, Plaintiffs pray that the Court grant them relief as follows:

1.

On the first and fourth causes of action, direct, special, and/or punitive dam ages to

Gottwa ld in an amount to be determ ined at trial.

2 .

On the second and third causes of action, compensatory damages in an amount to

be determ ined at trial.

3.

That the Cou rt award Plaintiffs pre-judgmen t interest, attorneys' fees and costs,

and such o ther and further relief as this Court deem s proper.

24


25/25

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs dem and trial by jury of all claims so triable.

DATED: New York, New York

December 22 , 2014

MITCH ELL SILBERBERG & K N U PP LLP

Christine Lepera

Jeffrey M . M ovit

12 East 49th Street, 30th Floor

New Y ork, New Y ork 10017-1028

Telephone: (212) 509-3900

Facsimile: (212 ) 509-7239

Attorney s for Plaintiffs

Dr. Luke Defamation Complaint

Documents