Flynn et al v. Love, No. 3:2019cv00239 - Document 185 (D. Nev. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER granting ECF No. 178 Stipulation. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/17/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SMR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Flynn et al v. Love Doc. 185 Case 3:19-cv-00239-MMD-CLB Document 185 Filed 09/17/21 Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Kent R. Robison, Esq. Michael A. Burke, Esq. Hannah E. Winston, Esq. ROBISON, SHARP, SULLIVAN & BRUST 71 Washington Street Reno, Nevada 89503 Telephone: (775) 329-3151 Facsimile: (775) 329-7941 E: krobison@rssblaw.com mburke@rssblaw.com hwinston@rssblaw.com Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor Rebecca Flynn- Williams As Successor Trustee for the Laima Flynn Trust 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 12 MICHAEL J. FLYNN and PHILIP STILLMAN; 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 vs. Case No.: 3:19-CV-00239 Plaintiffs, MICHAEL E. LOVE, an individual; and JACQUELINE LOVE, an individual; MICHAEL E. LOVE as TRUSTEE OF THE MICHAEL LOVE FAMILY TRUST; MELECO, INC., a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1-10, Defendants. REBECCA FLYNN-WILLIAMS, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE LAIMA FLYNN TRUST [Proposed] Intervenor 22 Robison, Sharp, Sullivan & Brust 71 Washington St. Reno, NV 89503 (775) 329-3151 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ALLOWING REBECCA FLYNN-WILLIAMS, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE LAIMA FLYNN TRUST TO FILE A COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 24 / 23 Plaintiffs MICHAEL J. FLYNN (individually, “Flynn”) and PHILIP 24 STILLMAN (“Stillman”), in proper person (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and 25 Defendants MICHAEL E. LOVE, JACQUELINE LOVE, MICHAEL E. LOVE as 26 Trustee of the Michael Love Family Trust, and MELECO, INC. (collectively, 27 “Defendants”), through their attorneys of record, and Proposed Intervenor 28 REBECCA FLYNN-WILLIAMS, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF LAIMA 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:19-cv-00239-MMD-CLB Document 185 Filed 09/17/21 Page 2 of 12 1 2 3 FLYNN TRUST (the “Trust”), represented by Kent R. Robison, Esq., Michael A. Burke, Esq., and Hannah E. Winston, Esq., of the law offices Robison, Sharp, Sullivan & Brust, hereby stipulate to the following: 4 5 1. this matter. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2. 15 16 filed in this Action. ECF No. 121. Therefore, the Successor Trustee of the Trust desires to intervene on behalf of the Trust as of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 24(a)(2) and to file in this Action the Complaint in Intervention attached to this Stipulation as Exhibit 1. 3. expressly reserve all rights, defenses, and claims with respect to the Complaint in Intervention and the Fourth Amended Complaint. 4. Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that: 1. 21 22 The Trust, by and through the Successor Trustee, may intervene in this action. 2. 23 The Trust, by and through the Successor Trustee, shall file the 24 Complaint in Intervention attached hereto as Exhibit 1 on or before September 17, 25 2021. 3. 26 Robison, Sharp, Sullivan & Brust 71 Washington St. Reno, NV 89503 (775) 329-3151 Plaintiffs each stipulate that the Successor Trustee may file in this action the proposed Complaint in Intervention, Exhibit 1, hereto. 19 20 Defendants stipulate only that the Successor Trustee may file in this Action the proposed Complaint in Intervention, Exhibit 1, hereto. Defendants 17 18 The Successor Trustee of the Trust claims that the Trust owns a 55% interest in certain claims asserted by Plaintiffs in the Fourth Amended Complaint 13 14 On April 14, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Fourth Amended Complaint in Defendants shall file their response to the Complaint in Intervention 27 no later than 21 days from the date the Trustee files the Complaint in Intervention. 28 /// 2 Case 3:19-cv-00239-MMD-CLB Document 185 Filed 09/17/21 Page 3 of 12 1 2 IT IS SO STIPULATED. DATED this 10th ___ day of September, 2021. 3 /s/ Michael J. Flynn MICHAEL J. FLYNN, ESQ. In Proper Person 4 5 6 10th day of September, 2021. DATED this ___ /s/ Philip Stillman 7 PHILIP STILLMAN, ESQ. In Proper Person 8 9 10 DATED this 10th ___ day of September, 2021. ROBISON, SHARP, SULLIVAN & BRUST 71 Washington Street Reno, Nevada 89503 11 12 /s/ Michael A. Burke 13 KENT R. ROBISON MICHAEL A. BURKE HANNAH E. WINSTON Attorneys for the Rebecca Flynn- Williams As Successor Trustee for the Laima Flynn Trust 14 15 16 DATED this 10th ___ day of September, 2021. 17 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 18 19 /s/ Jason K. Hicks 20 VINCENT H. CHIEFFO, ESQ. MARK E. FERRARIO, ESQ. JASON K. HICKS, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 September 2021. DATED this 17th ___ day of __________, 26 27 28 Robison, Sharp, Sullivan & Brust 71 Washington St. Reno, NV 89503 (775) 329-3151 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 Case 3:19-cv-00239-MMD-CLB Document 185 Filed 09/17/21 Page 4 of 12 EXHIBIT 1 Case 3:19-cv-00239-MMD-CLB Document 185 Filed 09/17/21 Page 5 of 12 1 Kent R. Robison, Esq. Michael A. Burke, Esq. 2 Hannah E. Winston, Esq. ROBISON, SHARP, SULLIVAN & BRUST 3 71 Washington Street Reno, Nevada 89503 4 Telephone: (775) 329-3151 Facsimile: (775) 329-7941 5 E: krobison@rssblaw.com mburke@rssblaw.com 6 hwinston@rssblaw.com 7 Attorneys for Intervenor Plaintiff Rebecca Flynn- Williams As Successor Trustee for the Laima Flynn Trust 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 MICHAEL J. FLYNN and PHILIP 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ) Case No.: 3:19-cv-00239- MMD-CBC ) STILLMAN; ) ) COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) MICHAEL E. LOVE, an individual; and ) ) JACQUELINE LOVE, an individual; ) MICHAEL E. LOVE as TRUSTEE OF THE MICHAEL LOVE FAMILY TRUST; ) MELECO, INC., a Nevada corporation; and) ) DOES 1-10, ) ) Defendants. ) ) REBECCA FLYNN-WILLIAMS, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE LAIMA ) ) FLYNN TRUST ) [Proposed] Intervenor ) 22 23 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is an action based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 24 1332. The Plaintiffs MICHAEL J. FLYNN and PHILIP STILLMAN (“Plaintiffs”) reside 25 in the States of Massachusetts and Florida. The Successor Trustee for the Laima Flynn 26 Trust, Rebecca Flynn-Williams, is a resident of Oregon. Love resides in the State of 27 Nevada. Moreover, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 2. {00046690 } Venue is proper as the Love resides in or conduct business in this District. -1- Complaint in Intervention Case 3:19-cv-00239-MMD-CLB Document 185 Filed 09/17/21 Page 6 of 12 1 PARTIES 3. 2 Plaintiff Michael J. Flynn (individually, “Flynn”) is a citizen of 3 Massachusetts residing in Rancho Santa Fe, San Diego County, CA. Flynn is an 4 attorney licensed to practice in good standing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 5 Flynn was a partner in the law firm f/k/a Flynn Sheridan & Tabb and Flynn Sheridan 6 Tabb & Stillman, ("FST&S"). 4. 7 Plaintiff Philip H. Stillman (individually, “Stillman”) is a citizen of Florida 8 residing in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Stillman is an attorney in good standing who 9 is licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of 10 California. Stillman was a partner in FST&S. Flynn and Stillman are collectively 11 referred to herein as “Plaintiffs”. 5. 12 Rebecca Flynn-Williams as Successor Trustee for the Laima Flynn Trust 13 (referred to herein as the “Trust” 1) is a trust established under the laws of Oregon. 14 Rebecca Flynn-Williams resides in the State of Oregon. 6. 15 Defendant Michael E. Love (“Love”) is an individual who is a citizen of 16 Nevada and who resides in Incline Village, Nevada. Love is the Trustee of the Michael 17 Love Family Trust. Love is sued in both capacities. 7. 18 Defendants DOES 1-10, inclusive, are the fictitious names of defendants 19 who are the agents, representatives, and/or employees of the named Defendant who 20 are equally responsible for the Trust’s claims as alleged herein, in either a representative 21 capacity or by virtue of independent actions or omissions (Defendant and DOES 1-10, 22 individually and collectively referred to herein as “Defendant”). When the true names 23 and identities of these Doe Defendants are ascertained, the Trust will seek leave to 24 amend this Complaint to insert their true names and identities. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 25 8. 26 Plaintiffs have provided legal services to Love for nearly thirty years. 27 1 The Trust is excluded from the collective reference to “Plaintiffs” as defined in Paragraph 4 unless otherwise 28 indicated. {00046690 } -2- Complaint in Intervention Case 3:19-cv-00239-MMD-CLB Document 185 Filed 09/17/21 Page 7 of 12 1 9. Love was the lead singer of the music group the Beach Boys. 2 10. Relevant to this case, Plaintiffs represented Love in a lawsuit against Brian 3 Wilson in the early 1990’s regarding ownership of songwriting royalties and copyright 4 reversion rights to 35 of the Beach Boys’ most popular songs. The litigation is referred 5 to herein as “Love v. Wilson”. 6 11. As part of Plaintiffs’ legal representation of Love in Love v. Wilson, 7 Plaintiffs and Love signed a contingency fee agreement on July 27, 1992 (the “1992 Fee 8 Agreement”) wherein Love agreed that Plaintiffs’ fee for their services would be a 9 percentage of the recovery obtained in the litigation. The percentage of recovery that 10 Love agreed Plaintiffs were entitled was staggered based on the amount of recovery 11 and time it took to secure any recovery. 12 12. Therefore, if Plaintiffs secured over $6,000,000 in Love v. Wilson and at 13 trial, Plaintiffs’ fee would be 30% of the first $3,000,000, 28% of the second $3,000,000, 14 and 25% of the amount over $6,000,000. 15 13. In 1993, Plaintiffs and Love entered an amended fee agreement (the “1993 16 Agreement”), wherein Plaintiffs and Love agreed that instead of Plaintiffs taking a 17 percentage of the recovery in the litigation, Plaintiffs would be entitled to a 30% interest 18 in the songwriting royalties and copyright reversion rights to 35 of the Beach Boys’ 19 most popular songs, in exchange for Plaintiffs advancing all costs associated with 20 Love’s prosecution of the Love v. Wilson case. 21 14. On December 12, 1994, the jury entered a special verdict as to liability, 22 which confirmed that Love was a co-author of the 35 songs. 23 15. On December 20, 1994, with the damages phase of trial soon to commence, 24 Love and his litigation adversary, Brian Wilson, entered a settlement. Prior to Love 25 executing the settlement with Wilson, the Plaintiffs and Love, in consultation with 26 Love’s accountant and Love’s wife at the time, Jacquelyne Piesen Love (“JPL”), agreed 27 that the recovery under the 1992 Agreement, as amended by the 1993 Agreement, had a 28 valuation of between $50 million and $80 million. {00046690 } -3- Complaint in Intervention Case 3:19-cv-00239-MMD-CLB Document 185 Filed 09/17/21 Page 8 of 12 1 16. However, at the time, Love was unable to pay Plaintiffs their 30% fee, 2 which was no longer contingent based upon the jury verdict entered on December 12, 3 1994, on the total valuation of the "recovery" under the fee contracts – a fee in the 4 amount of at least $15 million based on a minimum valuation of $50 million for the 5 future songwriter royalties and copyright reversions. 6 17. Therefore, at Love’s request, Love and the Plaintiffs agreed that the 7 Plaintiffs would receive 30% of the cash portion of the Wilson settlement, (subject to a 8 separate agreement with Wilson involving his claims against his lawyers, JJ Little and 9 James Tierney) plus 30% of all future songwriter royalties and copyright reversions 10 Love possessed or received as a result of Plaintiffs establishing Love’s co-authorship in 11 the 35 Songs. 12 18. The parties memorialized this agreement on December 19, 1994, 13 Agreement (the “1994 Agreement”). 14 19. For the next 23 years, until the summer of 2017, Love complied with the 15 1994 Agreement and paid Plaintiff 30% of the stated royalties received as agreed upon 16 in the 1994 Agreement. 17 20. In the summer of 2017, Love unilaterally ceased payments under the 1994 18 Agreement. Therefore, Love have breached the 1994 Agreement and the 1993 19 Agreement. 20 21. Moreover, on information and belief, Love has recently sold the 35 songs 21 and did not pay Plaintiffs’ 30% of the amount he received from such sale, which is a 22 further breach of the agreements between Love and the Plaintiffs. 23 22. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to assert their breach of contract claim, among 24 others, against Love. 25 23. Pursuant to a certain Assignment of Claims Agreement dated July 20, 2021 26 (“Assignment of Claims”), the Trust now holds a 55% interest in Plaintiffs’ 30% interest 27 in the future songwriter royalties and copyright reversions owed by Love. 28 {00046690 } -4- Complaint in Intervention Case 3:19-cv-00239-MMD-CLB Document 185 Filed 09/17/21 Page 9 of 12 24. 1 The Assignment of Claims includes all contractual rights in the 1992 2 Agreement, the 1993 Agreement, the 1994 Agreement, and all equitable and tortious 3 claims or remedies that are available to Plaintiffs and appropriate for assignment to the 4 Trust. 25. 5 Therefore, the Trust intervenes as a Plaintiff in this lawsuit and asserts the 6 following claims: Breach of Contract; Quantum Meruit; Unjust Enrichment; and 7 Declaratory Relief. 26. 8 As an assignee, the Trust is in privity with the Plaintiffs regarding the 9 California arbitration that occurred between the Plaintiffs and Love and is bound to that 10 result in the same manner as the Plaintiffs. 11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 12 BREACH OF CONTRACT 27. 13 The Trust incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth 14 herein. 28. 15 The 1992 Agreement was a valid and binding written contract between 16 Love and Plaintiffs, which Love and Plaintiffs amended by entering the 1993 17 Agreement. 29. 18 The 1994 Agreement, a non-contingent agreement for a payment, confirms 19 Love and Plaintiff’s Agreement and sets forth the valuation of the recovery. The 1994 20 Agreement is a valid and binding agreement between Love and the Plaintiffs. 30. 21 Plaintiffs performed all conditions of the 1993 Agreement and 1994 22 Agreement between Love and Plaintiffs. 31. 23 Love performed pursuant to the 1994 Agreement and 1994 Agreement 24 from 1994 through the summer of 2017. 32. 25 In the summer of 2017, Love breached the 1993 Agreement and 1994 26 Agreement by refusing to make additional payments and refusing to honor Plaintiffs’ 27 30% interest in the songwriter royalties and copyright reversions for the subject 35 28 songs. {00046690 } -5- Complaint in Intervention Case 3:19-cv-00239-MMD-CLB Document 185 Filed 09/17/21 Page 10 of 12 33. 1 The Trust, as an Assignee under the Assignment of Claims, now holds a 2 55% interest in Plaintiffs’ collective 30% interest in the songwriter royalties and 3 copyright reversions from the subject 35 songs. 34. 4 The Trust, as an assignee of the contractual rights under the 1993 5 Agreement and 1994 Agreement, now sues Love for breach of these agreements. 35. 6 As a result of Love’s breaches of the 1993 Agreement and 1994 Agreement, 7 the Trust has been damaged in excess of $100,000. 8 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 9 ACCOUNTING 10 36. The Trust incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth 11 herein. 12 37. Love was required to account to the Plaintiffs for all royalties and other 13 income they received in relation to the 35 Songs. Upon information and belief, the 14 accounting provided by Love is not accurate or is incomplete. Therefore, the Trust 15 seeks an order requiring Love to provide an accounting of the monies received by them. 16 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 17 QUANTUM MERUIT 18 38. The Trust incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth 19 herein. 20 39. Alternatively, in the event that it is determined that any of the agreements 21 between Love and Plaintiffs are not enforceable, the Plaintiffs provided services and 22 conferred a benefit upon Love for which Love has not fair and reasonably compensated 23 Plaintiffs. 24 40. As assignee of the Plaintiffs’ claims and interests against Love, the Trust is 25 entitled to recover 55% of the amount of those reasonable fees earned by Plaintiffs. 26 /// 27 /// 28 {00046690 } -6- Complaint in Intervention Case 3:19-cv-00239-MMD-CLB Document 185 Filed 09/17/21 Page 11 of 12 1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 UNJUST ENRICHMENT 3 41. The Trust incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth 4 herein. 5 42. The Plaintiffs provided a benefit to Love by way of the legal services 6 Plaintiffs provided to Love over several years, which resulted in a substantial victory 7 for Love. 8 43. Love has failed to fully compensate Plaintiffs for the legal services 9 Plaintiffs provided. 10 44. It would be unjust for Love to retain the benefit that properly belongs to 11 Plaintiffs and Trust as an assignee. 12 45. As a result of Love’s unjust enrichment, the Trust has suffered damages in 13 excess of $75,000. 14 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 DECLARATORY RELIEF 16 46. The Trust incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth 17 herein. 18 47. There are several written agreements that have been entered into between 19 Plaintiffs and Love. 20 48. An actual controversy now exists between the Plaintiffs, Love, and the 21 Trust regarding those written agreements. 22 49. The Trust seeks a declaratory judgment finding that: 23 (a) The 1992 Agreement is a binding and enforceable contract between 24 25 Plaintiffs and Love that was validly amended by the 1993 Agreement. (b) 26 27 The 1994 Agreement is a valid, binding, and enforceable agreement between Love and Plaintiffs. (c) 28 Love breached the agreements by ceasing payments of Plaintiffs’ 30% interest in the songwriter royalties and copyright reversions. {00046690 } -7- Complaint in Intervention Case 3:19-cv-00239-MMD-CLB Document 185 Filed 09/17/21 Page 12 of 12 1 (d) The Trust, as an assignee, is entitled to and owns 55% of the Plaintiffs’ 30% interest in the songwriter royalties and copyright reversions. 2 3 JURY DEMAND 4 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, the Trust hereby demands trial by jury on all 5 claims so triable. 6 7 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHERFORE, the Trust requests the Court to enter judgment in favor of the Trust 8 and against Love as follows: 9 1. For a judgment awarding the Trust all actual and consequential damages as allowed by applicable law. 10 11 2. For an award of costs and attorneys’ fees as allowed by applicable law. 12 3. For a declaratory judgment as requested herein; 13 4. For Prejudgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by applicable law. 14 15 5. Any other appropriate remedy to which Plaintiff may be entitled under 16 law and equity. 17 DATED this ___ day of September, 2021. ROBISON, SHARP, SULLIVAN & BRUST 71 Washington Street Reno, Nevada 89503 18 19 ____________________________________ KENT R. ROBISON MICHAEL A. BURKE HANNAH E. WINSTON Attorneys for the Rebecca Flynn- Williams As Successor Trustee for the Laima Flynn Trust 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 {00046690 } -8- Complaint in Intervention
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
