Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Case Nos.: CV 04 0299 PHX DGC and CV-04-1023 PHX DGC 8 MEADOWLARK LEMON, a married man, 9 10 vs. PLAINTIFFS FRED "CURLY" NEAL, LARRY 11 HARLEM GLOBETROTTERS INTERNATIONAL, "GATOR" RIVERS, DALLAS "BIG D" INC., an Arizona corporation; HARLEM THORNTON, ROBERT "SHOWBOAT" 12 GLOBETROTTERS INTERNATIONAL HALL, MARQUES HAYNES, and JAMES FOUNDATION, INC., an Arizona corporation; "TWIGGY" SANDERS' MEMORANDUM IN 13 MANNIE L. JACKSON and CATHERINE OPPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS JACKSON, husband and wife; FUBU THE HARLEM GLOBETROTTERS 14 COLLECTION, LLC, a New York limited liability INTERNATIONAL, INC., HARLEM company doing business in Arizona; GTFM, LLC, a GLOBETROTTERS INTERNATIONAL 15 New York limited liability company doing business in FOUNDATION, INC., and MANNIE L. Arizona; JACKSON & CATHERINE JACKSON'S 16 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS UNDER FED. Defendants. R. CIV. P. 11 17 18 FRED "CURLY" NEAL, LARRY "GATOR" RIVERS, DALLAS "BIG D" THORNTON, 19 ROBERT "SHOWBOAT" HALL, MARQUES HAYNES and JAMES "TWIGGY" SANDERS, 20 Plaintiffs, vs. 21 22 HARLEM GLOBETROTTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., an Arizona corporation; HARLEM 23 GLOBETROTTERS INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC., an Arizona corporation; 24 MANNIE L. JACKSON and CATHERINE JACKSON, husband and wife; FUBU THE 25 COLLECTION, LLC, a New York limited liability 26 company, GTFM of Orlando, LLC; and GTFM, LLC, a New York limited liability company doing business in Arizona, Defendants. Plaintiff, Morgan & Morgan, P. A.th 20 N. Orange Avenue, 16 Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Clay M. Townsend, Esquire Bar No.: 023414 Brandon S. Peters, Esquire Bar No.: 022641 Keith R. Mitnik, Esquire Bar No.: 436127 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version11/21/2005 Page 1 of 14 Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document 238 Filed http://www.neevia.com Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version

1 HARLEM GLOBETROTTERS INTERNATIONAL, 2 INC., an Arizona corporation, 3 vs. 4 MEADOWLARK LEMON, a married man, 5 Counterdefendant. 6 7 8 9 Plaintiffs, Fred "Curly" Neal, Larry "Gator" Rivers, Dallas "Big D" Thornton, Robert "Showboat" 10 Hall, Marques Haynes, and James "Twiggy" Sanders, (hereinafter "Plaintiffs"), are the subject of 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 improperly uses Rule 11 to test the legal sufficiency of Plaintiffs' allegations. 21 HGI counsel making the Motion (Garvey) asserts that "the only proper HGI related Defendant is 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HGI itself." (Memorandum, Doc. 216, at P. 7, L. 16). The Motion was signed by HGI counsel on September 23, 2005, two days after HGI itself ceased to exist due to its merger with a Nevada incarnation wholly owned by Mannie Jackson, and after a subsequent transfer of all HGI stock to a holding company in Delaware on September 27, 2005 (HGI Sale, Ex. "A") (some rights to this marital property presumably accruing to Jackson's wife, Catherine).
2

Counterclaimant,

PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS UNDER FED.R.CIV.P. 11

Defendants, Harlem Globetrotters International, Inc. ("HGI"), Harlem Globetrotters International Foundation, Inc. ("HGIF"), and Mannie & Catherine Jackson's (collectively "HGI") Motion for Sanctions on only one ground--for "improperly naming Catherine Jackson as a party." (Memorandum, Doc. 216, at P. 2, L. 12). HGI's Motion is confusing in that HGI also seeks sanctions for improperly naming the Harlem Globetrotters Foundation and Mannie and Catherine Jackson as parties. (Memorandum, Doc. 216, at P. 6, L. 24). HGI's two other grounds are as to Lemon only and properly should have been made in a separate Motion. Plaintiffs have joined in Plaintiff Lemon's Response to HGI's Motion as to the grounds that HGI

Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version11/21/2005 Page 2 of 14 Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document 238 Filed http://www.neevia.com

1 2 3 4 5

CATHERINE JACKSON HGI cites no law as to why Catherine Jackson is an improper party nor does HGI offer any rebuttal to the presumption that HGI assets acquired during marriage of Mannie and Catherine Jackson are not marital property. Plaintiffs indeed named Ms. Jackson as a party. Plaintiffs' claims did not have an improper purpose

6 to harass Ms. Jackson. Her being a party has not caused needless increase in the cost of litigation (she 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Jackson Tr. 30, Ex. "E" emphasis added). It is noteworthy that she said "we" instead of "Mannie." 17 It is HGI that sought the removal of Plaintiffs' claims to Arizona (a community property state) from 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Defendant's corporations further support the reasonableness of, and evidentiary support for, Plaintiffs' 27 refusal to dismiss Ms. Jackson. (HGI Financial Statement/Press Release, Ex. "B"; HGI sale, Ex. A). 28 the original state of Plaintiffs' filing, Florida. Investigation and discovery by Plaintiffs revealed that even if Ms. Jackson may not have participated directly in Mr. Jackson's actions, (which include entering the FUBU licensing agreement and exploiting Plaintiffs' names without authority), she has received, or is presumed to receive under Arizona law, fifty percent of all benefits that Mr. Jackson derived from the commercial exploitation of Plaintiffs' rights of publicity. The recent events involving Mr. Jackson's paying himself a personal dividend in the millions, and the sale of 80% of HGI's assets for millions, combined with the changes in ownership and governance of appeared at one deposition for which she would have been properly set anyway as a witness even if she were not a party as her husband, Mannie Jackson, is the primary actor at the center of this dispute). HGI's counsel harps that Ms. Jackson was not "an officer or director of HGI and HGIF" (Memorandum, Doc. 216, at P. 8, L. 22), but such was not the only theory of Ms. Jackson's potential liability. It is also still uncertain as to whether Ms. Jackson is an equitable owner (if not a legal one) of HGI related assets. While she testified she didn't know if marital funds were used to buy the team in 1993 (C. Jackson Tr. 35-36, Ex. "E"), she stated in deposition "WE didn't even own the company back then." (C.

Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version11/21/2005 Page 3 of 14 Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document 238 Filed http://www.neevia.com

3

1 2 3 4 5

It is Mannie Jackson's actions which have exposed Ms. Jackson to the unpleasantness of litigation, not Plaintiffs'. Neither Plaintiffs, nor their counsel, have any motivation to subject Ms. Jackson to

unnecessary and costly distractions unless necessary to vindicate their rights. Catherine Jackson's Affidavit (HGI's Memorandum, Doc. 216, Ex. "E," C. Jackson Aff. 9/13/05) conveys her assurance that her husband Mannie owns and controls HGI, but is silent as to the ownership or

6 control of a repository of FUBU royalties--the Foundation (HGI Memorandum, Doc, 216, C. Jackson Aff., 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 not," (C. Jackson Tr. 15, Ex. "E") and, incredibly, she doesn't even know who is on the board, nor does she 17 attend meetings or look at reports. Had she looked at the reports, they would have shown that Ms. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 107, 97, 98, Ex. "I"). 27 28 Jackson's charity--Arizona Foundation for Women was paid $4,500.00 from the Foundation in 2002 and 2003 according to Foundation cash disbursement report filed with the State of Arizona. (C. Jackson Tr. 37, Ex. "E"; and Ex. "F"). The Foundation clearly was the recipient of revenues directly attributable to the sale of FUBU clothes bearing Plaintiffs' names. (FUBU Sales Report, Ex. "G"; Syracuse Tr. 42, 86, Ex. "H"; and Jackson Tr. 147-148, Ex. "J"). Yet, Plaintiffs, like HGI employees Vaughn and Dunbar, have no idea what the Foundation does with the money it makes off their names. (Thornton Tr. 50; Sanders Tr. 128; Haynes Tr. 9/13/05, at ¶ 5). Respectfully, Ms. Jackson need have only consulted public records to learn that her husband, Mannie Jackson, and his long time employees, Lenihan and Syracuse, control the Foundation. (Foundation Filing, Ex. "C"). It is no wonder Ms. Jackson doesn't know much about the Foundation-- neither does longtime alumni director, Governor Vaughn, or Coach Lou Dunbar: "I'm not quite sure exactly what it does," (Vaughn Tr. 6; see also Dunbar Tr. 82-83, Ex. "D") or who it has helped--"none that I know of." (Vaughn Tr. 7, Ex. "D"). Ms. Jackson testified that she does various charity work for Arizona Foundation for Women, (C. Jackson Tr. 15, Ex. "E"), but when asked if she did any for the Foundation (again, wholly controlled by her husband supposedly to help old needy players) she answered "absolutely

Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version11/21/2005 Page 4 of 14 Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document 238 Filed http://www.neevia.com

4

1 2 3 4 5

Public records reveal a list of numerous (presumably happy) recipients of the Foundation's largesse (earned from Plaintiffs' names) yet not one payment to any needy former player. (Foundation Report, Ex. "F"). Mannie Jackson could not name a single former Globetrotter player helped by the Foundation (Jackson Tr. 199, Ex. "J"), even though HGI's Memorandum (Doc. 216, at P. 8, L. 2), talks of "former players who need emergency assistance or are suffering other hardship," quoting Jackson (at Jackson Tr.

6 198-200). The Foundation has controlled millions of dollars, 100% at the direction and control of Jackson. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 As far a Mannie Jackson, HGI's Memorandum incredibly states that Plaintiffs have procured "no 17 information from HGI or other witnesses that HGIF, or Mannie and/or Catherine Jackson personally were 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 responsible for the licensing agreement and ensuing merchandise." (Memorandum, Doc. 216, at P. 7, L. 20). As to Mannie Jackson being a proper party: 1) 2) 3) He was, and is, 100% owner of HGI. (Corporate Filing, Ex. "L"). HGI is a Subchapter S corporation. (Ex. "M"). Jackson participated in the negotiation of the agreement with FUBU. (HGI Memorandum, Doc. 216, Jackson Aff., at ¶9). (Foundation Receipt Report, Ex. "K"). Plaintiff "Curly" Neal had asked for assistance during a tough period in 2002 and was rebuffed with a Foundation letter asking for written submittals and tax returns. (Foundation Letter, Ex. "W"). Vaughn (who doesn't know who the Foundation helps) signed the letter. As far as Ms. Jackson having "no knowledge at all about the issues in this case, even she initially testified that she recognized the hangtag bearing Plaintiffs' names saying that Marshall's and T. J. Maxx have "a ton of this stuff" and that Mannie had clothing "in his closet that still had hangtags on it." (C. Jackson Tr. 23-24, Ex. "E"). MANNIE JACKSON'S DIRECT OR VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version11/21/2005 Page 5 of 14 Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document 238 Filed http://www.neevia.com

5

1 2 3 4 5

4)

FUBU relied on Jackson's name, reputation and representations PERSONALLY when deciding to enter the licensing agreement and to not perform any due diligence as to Plaintiffs' authority. (Weisfeld Tr. 68, Ex. "N").

5) 6)

Jackson negotiated and signed the licensing agreement. (Agreement Excerpt, Ex. "O"). Jackson sent the letters to Plaintiffs regarding the division of money to the Foundation. (FUBU Sales Report, Ex. G).

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiffs' theory was that, given the royalties paid to the Foundation directly and the evidence that 17 its officer and director had committed various torts, the Foundation was vicariously liable for Mannie 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 and 2) requesting that HGI provide copies of any documents. (Plaintiffs' Letter, Ex. "Q"). HGI's counsel 27 arrogantly refused to supply any documentation, asserted that they had the right. (Garvey Letter, Ex. "R"). 28 Jackson's actions as well as an indirect infringer of Plaintiffs' marks. Plaintiffs' actions do not fall within the gambit of behavior sanctionable under Rule 11. WHY PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM WAS FILED HGI has from the inception of this dispute, conducted themselves in bad faith. Plaintiffs initially did not sue HGI, but inquired to HGI about the FUBU clothing being sold all over the country bearing their names, likenesses, and player numbers. Plaintiffs' hired counsel to make the inquiry about 1) what authority HGI had to do the FUBU deal, 8) 7) Jackson's daughter is the only employee of the Foundation and she is paid by the Foundation. (Jackson Tr. 201, Ex. "J"). Jackson himself made the decision to place merchandise revenue in the Foundation. (Jackson Letter to Alumni, Ex. "P"). Jackson's liability is, therefore, not a function of piercing the veils of his alter ego corporations. Plaintiffs had a reasonable legal basis to allege that Mannie Jackson is both directly liable and vicariously liable. THE FOUNDATION

Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version11/21/2005 Page 6 of 14 Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document 238 Filed http://www.neevia.com

6

1 2 3 4 5

Only after Plaintiffs filed suit did HGI write Plaintiffs enclosing a 1985 Gator Rivers contract stating that "every player that ever wore a Globetrotter uniform signed the same Agreement." (Garvey letter #2, Ex. "S"). Discovery later revealed that the so-called "standard" contract produced to Plaintiffs was not even in HGI's possession when they did the FUBU deal and contracts were only dug out of a warehouse AFTER Plaintiff's demand letter. (Syracuse Tr. 13-16, Ex. "T"). FUBU owner Weisfeld testified that

6 during negotiation, old player contracts were not reviewed or available "because of the bankruptcy," and 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 The Complaint was verified by all Plaintiffs. The lawsuit was filed only after being rebuffed by HGI and 17 their counsel Garvey. Litigation was actually incited by HGI as Plaintiffs' counsel made clear to HGI that it 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Plaintiffs. On September 28, 2005, Plaintiffs saw in the press that Jackson had sold the Globetrotters. But 27 28 was in Plaintiffs' best interest to negotiate a reasonably royalty under a legitimate grant of authority. HGI chose to freeze Plaintiffs' out. The legal status of HGI entities has been both misrepresented and concealed. HGI'S LATEST CONCEALMENTS On September 21, 2005 (nine days before discovery cutoff), Mannie Jackson merged HGI into a recently formed Nevada corporation of the same name--" Harlem Globetrotters International, Inc," then sold HGI to HGI Holdings, Inc. on September 27, 2005. (Ex. "A"). These actions were not disclosed to "were in a warehouse." (Weisfeld Tr. 68, Ex. "U"). After Plaintiffs' demand letter, HGI sent Plaintiffs a purported accounting of the FUBU sales of merchandise bearing their names and a check. (Ex. "G"). HGI also sent a letter to Plaintiffs saying they were being paid "even though they were not entitled to any money," and without copying Plaintiffs' counsel. (Syracuse letter, Ex. "V"). These letters were sent directly to Plaintiffs even though HGI and counsel Garvey were on notice that Plaintiffs were represented by counsel. Plaintiffs filed suit because they have never given HGI, or any of its individual Defendants, Jackson, or the Foundation, authority to use their names on a clothing line. Plaintiffs' lawsuit was filed in good faith.

Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version11/21/2005 Page 7 of 14 Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document 238 Filed http://www.neevia.com

7

1 2 3 4 5

for the press, these facts would have been successfully concealed from Plaintiffs by HGI. conference as to this problem, this Court ordered disclosure of the sale to Plaintiffs.

After a

In this atmosphere of HGI's byzantine (and undisclosed) transactions involving substantially ALL of the assets of the HGI Defendants, it was reasonable for Plaintiffs to not dismiss any parties until more light was shed. This court only recently completed its in camera inspection of the transactional documents.

6 (Order of October 7, 2005). 7 8 9 10 potential dismissal of Catherine Jackson are improper and a violation of the agreement that all discussions 11 between counsel (including HGI's settlement overtures to Plaintiffs) are confidential. Plaintiffs' willingness 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 HGI has breached the confidentiality of discussions regarding Catherine Jackson to improperly 22 influence this Court and should themselves be sanctioned. HGI's references to these discussions should be 23 24 25 26 27 28 stricken from the record y this Court. MEMORANDUM OF LAW Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) states that representations made to the court must not be, in relevant part: (1) presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; to discuss in good faith dismissal of Catherine Jackson were always conditioned upon HGI's disclosures of relevant information. HGI continued to avoid making disclosures required by the rules. Negotiations to drop, or not to drop, Ms. Jackson are irrelevant to the issue of whether Plaintiffs should be sanctioned for bringing a spurious action. Plaintiffs are in possession of communications from both HGI and FUBU as to their varying strategic attitudes toward their fellow tortfeasors. It would be improper for Plaintiffs to use these communications in such a motion. For example, if Plaintiffs were to cite to HGI's settlement overtures for the purpose of influencing this court as to HGI's liability, it would be improper. HGI'S IMPROPER DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS HGI's allusions in the public court file to confidential settlement discussions regarding Plaintiffs'

Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version11/21/2005 Page 8 of 14 Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document 238 Filed http://www.neevia.com

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(2) unsupported by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; and (3) unsupported by the evidence or unlikely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1-3). Under the first factor, the Court must evaluate, by an objective standard, whether the conduct was harassing or made for an improper purpose, G.C. & K.B. Invest., Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.2d 1096, 1110 (9th Cir. 2003). Under the second factor, the Court again objectively evaluates "whether a competent attorney would have a good faith argument for the legal theory advanced after a reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law." In re Pozsga, 158 F.R.D. 435, 437 (D.Az. 1994). Under the third factor, the Court determines whether the pleading or motion is "well-grounded in fact." If counsel or a party is determined to have violated Rule 11, the Court may "impose an appropriate

11 sanction upon the attorney, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Act claims were defective, state law still afforded a remedy). 22 Regarding Mannie Jackson, a corporate officer or director is, in general, personally liable for all torts 23 24 25 26 27 28 which he authorizes or directs or in which he participates, notwithstanding that he acted as agent of the corporation and not on his own behalf. Where a corporation's principal plays an instrumental role in a manufacturer's success from which a claim of unfair competition arises, the principal can be personally liable. Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp., 768 F.2d 1001, 1021 [51] & [52] (9th Cir. 1985), cert. violation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). The sanction, with the objective of deterring future conduct, may consist of nonmonetary directives, a payment to the Court, or an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses incurred as a result of the violation. Id. 11(c)(2). Sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1) and (3) may be brought against parties and counsel, while sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2) may only be brought against counsel. Id. 11(c)(2)(A). Plaintiffs' claims are not wholly without merit, are not frivolous, and even if a "close call," are entitled to be founded upon good faith arguments for a reconsideration of existing law. Barrus v. Sylvania, 55 F.3d 468 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that sanctions were not appropriate where, although plaintiffs Lanham

Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT trial version11/21/2005 Page 9 of 14 Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document 238 Filed http://www.neevia.com

9

1 2 3 4 5 6

denied, 474 U.S. 1059, 106 S.Ct. 802, 88 L.Ed. 2d 778 (1986); Coastal Abstract Service, Inc. v. First American Title Insurance Company, 173 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1999). Additionally, the 9th Circuit has

recognized that "where common ownership and management exists" vicarious liability may lie, and even more so, if an officer or director actually directs or controls the conduct. Holley v. Crank, 258 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2001). Regarding Ms. Jackson, existing law supports reasonably legal bases for Ms. Jackson being a party in

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Weimer v. Maricopa County Community College District, 184 F.R.D. 309 (D.Ariz., 1998). 17 Another concern of Plaintiffs was Ms. Jackson's right to challenge enforcement of a potential 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 judgment against community property of Mannie Jackson (i.e. HGI). Gagan v. Sharar, 376 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2004) (recognizing spouse's right to challenge enforcement of judgments against community property in Arizona). The central purpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings. "An erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence" is not a basis for sanctions. Newton v. Thomason, 22 F.3d 1455 (9th Cir. 1994) (reversing the trial court's Rule 11 sanctions) (citing Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. at 405, 110 S.Ct. at 2461 (1990)). this lawsuit, one of which being her status as the spouse of Mannie Jackson--the sole owner and alter ego of the HGI corporations--and because of the community property laws of the State of Arizona. Catherine Jackson has been married to Mannie Jackson twenty-seven years (C. Jackson Tr. 9, Ex. "E"), and was at the time the Harlem Globetrotters were purchased. (C. Jackson Tr. 19-20, Ex. "E"). Joint returns have been filed since they were married. (C. Jackson Tr. 33, Ex. "E"). In fact, Ms. Jackson may be an indispensable party as HGI, its stock and assets are part of the marital community under Arizona law, and in a judgment or an award of attorney fees against entities comprising the marital community, the spouse must be joined. It is possible that, in her absence, complete relief may not have been afforded to those already parties.

Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT 238 version http://www.neevia.com Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document trial Filed 11/21/2005 Page 10 of 14

10

1 2 3 4 5

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court deny HGI's Motion for Sanctions. Furthermore, HGI should be sanctioned themselves for their improper filing of this Rule 11 Motion because the filing of a motion for sanctions is itself subject to the requirements of the rule and can lead to sanctions. Furthermore, HGI has improperly prejudiced this Court by the disclosure on repeated

6 occasions of Plaintiffs' confidential settlement discussions. As a sanction, Plaintiffs respectfully request that 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 they be awarded their attorney's fees and costs incurred in opposing HGI's Motion. DATED THIS TWENTY-FIRST OF NOVEMBER, 2005 BY: ____/S/ Clay M. Townsend___________ CLAY M. TOWNSEND, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: 363375 KEITH MITNIK, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: 436127 BRANDON S. PETERS Florida Bar No.: 965685 Morgan & Morgan, PA 20 N. Orange Avenue, 16th Floor Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone (407) 420-1414 Facsimile (407) 425-8171 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fred Neal, Larry Rivers, Robert Hall, Dallas Thornton, Marques Haynes and James Sanders

Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT 238 version http://www.neevia.com Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document trial Filed 11/21/2005 Page 11 of 14

11

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 Safia Anand ­ [email protected] Vanessa Braeley, declares as follows: 1. I hereby certify that on NOVEMBER TWENTY-FIRST, 2005, a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Sanctions was electronically transmitted to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Certificate of Service Edward R. Garvey, Esq. and Christa Westerberg, Esquire GARVEY AND STODDARD 634 W. Main St. #101 Madison, WI 53703 Attorneys for Defendants Harlem Globetrotters Int'l, Inc., Harlem Globetrotters Int'l Foundation and Mannie L. & Catherine Jackson Anders Rosenquist, Jr., Esquire Florence M. Bruemmer, Esquire ROSENQUIST & ASSOCIATES 80 E. Columbus Phoenix, AZ 85012 Attorney for Plaintiff Lemon Safia A. Anand, Esquire Ira S. Sacks, Esquire DREIER, LLP 499 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Attorneys for Defendants GTFM, LLC, FUBU the Collection, LLC and GTFM of Orlando, LLC PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that copies of the above-referenced documents have been served via first class mail upon the following attorneys: Joel L. Herz, Esquire LAW OFICES OF JOEL L. HERZ LaPolma Corporate Center 3573 E. Sunrise Dr., Suite 215 Tuscon, AZ 85718-3206 Attorney for Defendants GTFM, LLC, FUBU the Collection, LLC and GTFM Of Orlando, LLC

Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT 238 version http://www.neevia.com Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document trial Filed 11/21/2005 Page 12 of 14

12

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

Florence M. Bruemmer ­ [email protected], [email protected] Joel Herz ­ [email protected], [email protected] Ira Sacks ­ [email protected] 2. I am and was at all times mentioned herein a citizen of the United States and a resident of Orange County, Florida, over 18 years of age and not a party to the within action or proceeding. My business address is 20 N. Orange Avenue, 16th Floor, Orlando, FL 32801, and I am employed as a legal assistant by Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Clay Townsend is an attorney admitted to practice in Florida and has been admitted pro hac vice in the District Court of Arizona, and directed that service be made. 3. I hereby certify that on NOVEMBER TWENTY-FIRST, 2005, a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Sanctions, postage paid thereon, was sent via U.S. Mail to the following parties, at the addresses listed, to-wit: Joel L. Herz LAW OFFICES OF JOEL L. HERZ LaPolma Corporate Center 3573 E. Sunrise Dr., Suite 215 Tuscon, AZ 85718-3206 Attorney for Defendants, GTFM, LLC, FUBU the Collection, LLC and GTFM OF Orlando, LLC Anders Rosenquist, Jr. Florence M. Bruemmer ROSENQUIST & ASSOCIATES 80 E. Columbus Phoenix, AZ 85012 Attorney for Plaintiff Lemon Edward R. Garvey Christa Westerberg GARVEY AND STODDARD 634 W. Main Street, Ste. 101 Madison, WI 53703 Attorneys for Defendants Harlem Globetrotters Intl Inc. and Harlem Globetrotters Int'l Foundation Safia Anand, Esquire and Ira S. Sacks, Esquire DREIER LLP 499 Park Ave. New York, NY 10022 Attorneys for Defendants, GTFM, LLC, FUBU the Collection, LLC and GTFM of Orlando, LLC 3. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.

Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT 238 version http://www.neevia.com Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document trial Filed 11/21/2005 Page 13 of 14

13

1 DATED THIS TWENTY-FIRST of November, 2005 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 Signed: ____/S/Vanessa L. Braeley_________ Vanessa L. Braeley Legal Assistant to Clay Townsend MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Avenue, 16th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Curly Neal, Larry Rivers, Dallas Thornton, Marques Haynes, Robert Hall and James Sanders

Created by Neevia docuPrinter LT 238 version http://www.neevia.com Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document trial Filed 11/21/2005 Page 14 of 14

14