Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/22/2022 12:00 PM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by V. Delgadillo,Deputy Clerk

1 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

Jordan D. Grotzinger (SBN 190166)
2 grotzingerj@gtlaw.com
Julianna M. Simon (SBN 307664)
3 simonju@gtlaw.com
Gaganjyot K. Sandhu (SBN 327379)
4 sandhug@gtlaw.com
1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
5 Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 586-7700
6 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800

7 Attorneys for Defendants William Morris Endeavor

Entertainment, LLC and Endeavor Content, LLC
8

9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
11
JUSTIN HURWITZ, an individual, CASE NO.: 22STCV00872
12
Assigned to Hon. Barbara M. Scheper, Dept. 30
13 Plaintiff,

14 v.
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS WILLIAM
15 WILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVOR MORRIS ENDEAVOR ENTERTAINMENT,
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, a.k.a. Endeavor LLC AND ENDEAVOR CONTENT, LLC TO
16 Operating Company, a Delaware limited liability COMPLAINT
company; ENDEAVOR CONTENT, a Delaware
17 limited liability company; and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive,
18 Action Filed: January 10, 2022
Defendants. Trial Date: None set
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
ACTIVE 62782421v3
 1 Defendants William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC (“WME”) and Endeavor Content, LLC
2 (“Endeavor Content” and collectively with WME, “Defendants”) hereby respond to the Complaint of
3 Plaintiff Justin Hurwitz (“Hurwitz” or “Plaintiff”).
4 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
5 Hurwitz is a composer who chose WME as his talent agency in 2010 to help build and enhance

6 his career. For over a decade, WME delivered and helped establish Hurwitz as an accomplished and well-

7 known artist, negotiating his work on projects such as the acclaimed film La La Land, for which Hurwitz

8 won Academy Awards and other honors. Focused on maximizing his success, in 2017, WME created an

9 additional income stream for Hurwitz by developing a live-to-film La La Land concert series that would

10 include composer royalties, conducting fees, and the opportunity to conduct concerts around the world.

11 Hurwitz did not possess the rights to La La Land and lacked the experience and resources to

12 produce such a show. WME secured a license and made arrangements to produce the series, including

13 obtaining an attachment for Hurwitz to receive significant fixed licensing fees and additional income,

14 such as conducting fees, that otherwise would not have been available to him, without Hurwitz assuming

15 any risk or cost. The production license was transferred to an entity that ultimately became Endeavor

16 Content. For its role, WME received only its standard commission for negotiating Hurwitz’s work.

17 From the outset, Hurwitz was fully aware of the initial affiliation between his talent agency and

18 the production of the La La Land in Concert series. The meticulous and Harvard-educated Hurwitz

19 understood and agreed to this arrangement, later admitting in writing that he was “fine with” Endeavor

20 Content making more money than him under the circumstances. He went on to travel the world to conduct

21 shows, enjoying substantial risk-free profit from the La La Land in Concert series and expenses paid for

22 him and his family.

23 Hurwitz earned hundreds of thousands of dollars in composer and conductor fees. But years later—

24 despite paying no costs and taking no risk—Hurwitz demanded more money, insisting on profit

25 participation in the production unparalleled in the industry. In response, WME negotiated with Endeavor

26 Content to procure a new deal in which Hurwitz would keep half of the series’ profits, while Endeavor

27 Content still produced the show, taking 100% of the risk and paying 100% of the costs. That was not

28 enough for Hurwitz. Instead of accepting an unprecedented deal that would not have been possible if not

2
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
ACTIVE 62782421v3
 1 for WME’s efforts on his behalf, Hurwitz terminated his relationship with WME and initiated this
2 unfounded lawsuit.
3 GENERAL DENIAL
4 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30, Defendants deny each and every

5 allegation asserted against Defendants in Plaintiff’s unverified Complaint and each purported claim or

6 cause of action therein. Defendants further deny that Plaintiff has suffered any injury or damage, whether

7 arising from the alleged conduct of Defendants or otherwise, and deny that he is entitled to any relief.

8 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

9 Defendants state the following affirmative defenses, and reserve the right to amend, or seek leave

10 to amend, this Answer to add additional affirmative defenses that discovery or investigation may reveal.

11 Nothing herein is intended to waive or shift any burden of proof imposed by law on any party with respect

12 to these defenses.

13 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14 (Failure to State a Cause of Action)

15 1. Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action.

16 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

17 (Statute(s) of Limitation)

18 2. The Complaint and each and every cause of action therein is barred by the applicable

19 statute(s) of limitation.

20 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21 (Informed Consent)

22 3. Plaintiff’s claims, or some of them, are barred by Plaintiff’s informed consent, express or

23 implied.

24 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25 (Waiver)

26 4. Plaintiff’s claims, or some of them, are barred by the doctrine of waiver.

27

28

3
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
ACTIVE 62782421v3
 1 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Estoppel)
3 5. Plaintiff’s claims, or some of them, are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.

4 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

5 (Fault of Plaintiff)

6 6. Plaintiff cannot recover on any of the claims alleged in the Complaint because his own

7 conduct was the sole, proximate, and legal cause of any injuries or damage he allegedly suffered (which

8 injuries and damage Defendants deny).

9 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

10 (Laches)

11 7. Plaintiff’s claims, or some of them, are barred by the doctrine of laches.

12 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13 (Unclean Hands)

14 8. Plaintiff’s claims, or some of them, are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.

15 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16 (Failure to Mitigate)

17 9. Plaintiff’s claims, or some of them, are barred or reduced by Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate

18 his alleged damages.

19 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

20 (Independent Intervening Acts)

21 10. Plaintiff’s claims, or some of them, are barred because Plaintiff’s alleged damages are the

22 result of independent acts or omissions of persons other than Defendants, over whom Defendants had no

23 control.

24 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25 (Ratification)

26 11. Plaintiff’s claims, or some of them, are barred by Plaintiff’s ratification of Defendants’

27 conduct.

28

4
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
ACTIVE 62782421v3
 1 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Speculative Damages)
3 12. Plaintiff’s alleged damages are too speculative to be recoverable.

4 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

5 (Unjust Enrichment)

6 13. Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent Plaintiff would be unjustly enriched if allowed to

7 recover what he seeks.

8 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

9 (Deduction of Costs and Expenses)

10 14. Plaintiff is not entitled to any of Defendants’ profits, or is not entitled to the full amount,

11 based on the costs and expenses Defendants incurred.

12 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13 (Scope of Duty)

14 15. The parties agreed on the scope of any duty owed to Plaintiff such that WME’s conduct

15 was lawful.

16 PRAYER

17 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that the Court enter judgment as follows:

18 i. That Plaintiff take nothing by the Complaint;

19 ii. That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice;

20 iii. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff;

21 iv. For costs of suit herein; and

22 v. For such other relief that the Court may deem just.

23 Dated: February 22, 2022 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

24
By:
25 Jordan D. Grotzinger
Julianna M. Simon
26
Gaganjyot K. Sandhu
27 Attorneys for Defendants William Morris Endeavor
Entertainment, LLC and Endeavor Content, LLC
28

5
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
ACTIVE 62782421v3
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 I am employed in the aforesaid county, State of California; I am over the age of 18 years and not
a party to the within action; my business address is 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900, Los Angeles,
4 CA 90067-2121; my email address is solorzanom@gtlaw.com.
5 On February 22, 2022, I served the document(s) described as ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS
WILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVOR ENTERTAINMENT, LLC AND ENDEAVOR CONTENT,
6
LLC TO COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action by placing the true copy thereof,
7 enclosed in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
8 FREEDMAN + TAITELMAN, LLP
Bryan J. Freedman, Esq.
9 bfreedman@ftllp.com
10 Tamar Yeghiayan, Esq.
tyeghiayan@ftllp.com
11 1801 Century Park West, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
12 Tel: 310-201-0005
Fax: 310-201-0045
13
14
(BY MAIL)
15 I deposited such envelope in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelope was mailed
with postage thereon fully prepaid.
16
I am readily familiar with the business practice of my place of employment in respect to the
17 collection and processing of correspondence, pleadings and notices for mailing with United
States Postal Service. The foregoing sealed envelope was placed for collection and mailing
18 this date consistent with the ordinary business practice of my place of employment, so that it
will be picked up this date with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in
19 the ordinary course of such business.
20 (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
21
22 Executed on February 22, 2022, at Los Angeles, California.

23
___________________________
24 Monica A. Solorzano
25
26
27
28

ACTIVE 62509613v1