Earthquake in LA-The Doors trial 2003-2008

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

Earthquake in LA....Rock n Roll On Trial, The Doors trial 2003-2008

I thought as it's 5 years down the line since the verdict and decision and now a part of Doors History, like it or not, that I would collate all the available information regarding the History of the LA trial between Manzarek/Krieger/Densmore so that all Doors fans with an interest can actually read some factual information regarding these events, rather than the spurious version that was the norm back in 2003/2005, in a public forum.
I believe it to be a valid and vital addition to The Doors History section in the same way the Miami trial information was here.

This thread contains several very important documents generated by the case including The Statement of Decision, the verdict by the jury, the final Judgement, objections from both sides including the Defence objection document to the SOD and several interesting points and arguments that give the reader a feel for what went on.

It also nails the labrynth of lies and deceit perpetrated by the Manzarek/Krieger camp and their allies on the Official Doors site as they tried desperately to gain control of The Doors name, in essence steal it from it's rightful owners (of whom they themselves were two), and open up the lucrative opportunities that advertising would bring if only they were able to exert a controlling influence.
The lengths that these two would go to do just that is revealed in the documents and pages below and for any Doors fan who is interested in this period the thread is a goldmine of information. It is a long thread and is sometimes hard going but well worth your time reading through the information here as it reveals to Doors fans exactly the kind of people we give our alliegence to and paints a picture and a few truths that the three Doors never wanted us to see.

First of all I think it worthwhile recording a big thank you to Sara Darkstar who is pretty much single handedly responsible for the ordinary Doors fan having the opportunity to know and understand just what was going on in an LA courtroom back in 2003-2005.
None of The Doors ever wanted any of you to know what was happening. Without Sara's tireless efforts we would never have even known what the actual verdict was, instead having to rely on the ill informed and highly biased reports of the Official Doors Forum run by Ray's webmaster and thier pro D21C affiliates such as the LA Woman site which was run by a witness for Ray's defense.
Without her we would not know the contents to the SOD and the defence objection to it. We would be blind to the events and still no wiser as to what a monumental event it was in Doors History.
For all the wrong reasons of course but we as fans are still entitled to know the truth about the people we give our devotions to.

So here we present a small but important selection of the many documents the trial generated and hopefully more will follow. The testimony of the leading players would be well worth posting here as we could then see exactly what was said during the months the first phase of the trial lasted.
Of course it's in Legalese some of the time and is sometimes difficult to follow but is worth sticking with even if you have to consult the Internet sometimes to understand what is going on.

I have attempted to explain some of the terms used in the verdict to help you understand.
I have read the documents a couple of times since 2005 and it is indeed hard to follow sometimes.
But it is indeed worth sticking with as there is something contained here that is a rare glimpse of what a once great rock band can become. A warning from History perhaps......but of course we never learn lessons from History....the fallout still resounds today from this event and the fanbase remains fractured beyond any seeming repair.
Who is to blame......that's easy....you will see three of them named in the documents that follow.

Also there are typos from time to time but Darkstar who took the considerable time and trouble to type out PDF documents, so fans could understand what was going on, for the benefit of you people had to contend with enough documents to wallpaper a front room so obviously from time to time errors were made.
Feel free to point any glaring ones out and I will amend them.

I will also collate some of the media activity from the time and a few relevant articles that give insight into what was going on.
Feel free to comment and add anything you think relevant yourself.
This is a discussion as well as an attempt to inform and why should this Doors trial be any less scrutinised than the Miami Doors trial?

It's as interesting

AN EXPLANATION OF SOME OF THE TERMS MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENTS AND JURY VERDICT

####1 Motion in limine.
Motion in limine (Latin: "at the threshold") is a motion made before the start of a trial requesting that the judge rule that certain evidence may, or may not, be introduced to the jury in a trial. This is done in judge's chambers, or in open court, but always out of hearing of the jury. If a question is to be decided in limine, it will be for the judge to decide. Usually it is used to shield the jury from possibly inadmissible and unfairly prejudicial evidence.

There were quite a few instances where the Jury was not privy to exhibits, testimony and evidence because of motions from both sides and it has to be noted that as such the Jury verdict was not based on all of the evidence presented at the trial. The mix of legal and equitable causes of actions meant that some of the Jury decisions were legally binding whilst some were advisory and subject to the interpretation of the Judge based on all the evidence presented to the court which may have been kept back from the Jury.
This explains why the Judge ruled the way he did which seemed to contradict some of the Jury's findings.
It became a bone of contention between fans back in 2005 but we were ourselves not privy to all the facts so fractured upon party lines due to lack of information.

#####2 You will see the Lanham Act mentioned a bit here and this is a wiki explanation of the main points of that act.
Named for Representative Fritz G. Lanham of Texas, the Act was passed on July 5, 1946 and signed into law by President Harry Truman, taking effect "one year from its enactment", on July 5, 1947. Act July 5, 1946, ch 540, § 46, 60 Stat. 444. In rare circumstances, a conflict will arise between trademarks that have been in use since before the Lanham Act went into effect, thus requiring the courts to examine the dispute according to the trademark act that existed prior to the Lanham Act.

The Lanham Act is divided into the following four subchapters:

Subchapter I - The Principal Register - §§ 1051-1072 (Sections 1 to 22)
Subchapter II - The Supplemental Register - §§ 1091-1096 (Sections 23 to 28)
Subchapter III - General Provisions - §§ 1111-1129 (Sections 29 to 45) [note: §§ 1128 & 1129 have no corresponding Lanham Act number]
Subchapter IV - The Madrid Protocol - §§ 1141-1141n (not part of the original Lanham Act)

Subchapters I and II
The provisions of Subchapter I set forth the right of trademark owners to attain a federal registration of their marks. Subchapter I sets forth the requirements that a mark must meet to receive a registration on the Principal Register, which bestows various rights on the trademark owner to prevent others from infringing their mark. Among the requirements are prohibitions against the registration of marks that are confusingly similar to existing marks, are generic or merely descriptive, are scandalous or immoral, or fall onto certain other prohibited categories. Subchapter I also sets forth certain procedural requirements, such as the submission of an affidavit of continued use after five years of registration.

Subchapter II sets forth a form of registration on the Supplemental Register, for certain marks that are unregistrable under Subchapter I, but may become registrable in the future, such as those that are merely descriptive. This form of registration, while not granting all the protections of registration on the Principal Register, does provide notice to potential infringers that the mark is in use, and also provides some procedural benefits.

Subchapter III
The provisions of Subchapter III are the heart of the Lanham Act, with Sections 42 and 43 of the Lanham Act setting forth the remedies that can be sought when a trademark is infringed. These provisions can be used to restrict the importation of goods that infringe or counterfeit registered trademarks, through the use of injunctions and damages.

Section 43(a) (codified at 15 USC 1125(a)) is the "likelihood of confusion" standard for infringement of an unregistered trademark or trade dress. Courts still frequently refer to this as "Section 43(a)".

Section 43(a)(1)(B ) is also often utilized in law when false or misleading statements are alleged to have hurt a business. To be proven in court a claimant must satisfy 3 principles: There was a false or misleading statement made, the statement was used in commercial advertising or promotion, and the statement creates a likelihood of harm to the plaintiff.

#####3 You will see fiduciary duty mentioned and here is a wiki explanation of what that entails.
A fiduciary duty is a legal or ethical relationship of confidence or trust between two or more parties, most commonly a fiduciary and a principal.
In a fiduciary relation one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably reposes confidence, good faith, reliance and trust in another whose aid, advice or protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation good conscience requires one to act at all times for the sole benefit and interests of another, with loyalty to those interests.

####4 Bus. & Prof, Code Section 17200 California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200, was designed to protect competitors and consumers from illegal, fraudulent, and "unfair" business practices, and Business & Professions Code Sec. 17500 prohibits false advertising.
17200. As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.


#####5 Breach Of Implied Cov. Of Good Faith & Fair Dealing. This one is a bit more general and therefore more difficult to explain. The best i can come up with in regards this case is this.
California courts have ruled that every employment contract carries with it an implied covenant that neither party will impede the other from receiving the benefits of the agreement. In deciding whether such a covenant is to be inferred, a court looks at such factors as whether the company properly followed its stated personnel policies, the length of the person's employment, any job security assurances that may have been made, a presence or lack of prior criticism of performance, and basic notions of fairness.

####6 Promissory Estoppel
Another difficult one.
Promissory estoppel is the doctrine that prevents a party from acting in a certain way because the first party promised not to, and the second party relied on that promise and acted upon it.
Promissory estoppel requires (1) an unequivocal promise by words or conduct, (2) a change in position of the promisee as a result of the promise (not necessarily to their detriment), (3) inequity if the promisor were to go back on the promise. Estoppel is "a shield not a sword" — it cannot be used as the basis of an action on its own. It also does not extinguish rights.
Estoppel is an equitable (as opposed to common law) construct and is therefore discretionary.

####7 Common Law Trade Mark Infringement
Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attaching to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees (provided that such authorization was within the scope of the license). Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers. An owner of a trademark may commence legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registration.

State Trademark Dilution
The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 is a United States federal law which protects famous trademarks from uses that dilute their distinctiveness, even in the absence of any likelihood of confusion or competition. It went into effect on January 16, 1996.

The new act defines the term "dilution" as "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of the presence or absence of

(1) competition between the owner of the famous mark and other parties, or
(2) likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception."

####8 Common Law Unfair Competion
Unfair competition in commercial law refers to a number of areas of law involving acts by one competitor or group of competitors which harm another in the field, and which may give rise to criminal offenses and civil causes of action. The most common actions falling under the banner of unfair competition include:

Trademark infringement and passing off, which occur when the maker of a product uses a name, logo, or other identifying characteristics to deceive consumers into thinking that they are buying the product of a competitor. In the United States, this form of unfair competition is prohibited under the common law and by state statutes, and governed at the federal level by the Lanham Act.

#####9 Violation of Post-Mortem Right of Publicity
California recently passed legislation that creates retroactive, descendible rights of publicity.

#####10 Governance
Corporate governance is the set of processes, customs, policies, laws, and institutions affecting the way a corporation (or company) is directed, administered or controlled. Corporate governance also includes the relationships among the many stakeholders involved and the goals for which the corporation is governed. The principal stakeholders are the shareholders, management, and the board of directors.

#####11 equitable cause of action
Equity is commonly said to "mitigate the rigor of common law", allowing courts to use their discretion and apply justice in accordance with natural law. In practice, modern equity is limited by substantive and procedural rules.
This happens on several occasions during the trial and the judge makes rulings on the jury's verdict, which is advisory regarding equitable matters, based on at times evidence that was not submitted to the jury.

#####12 disgorgement
A repayment of ill-gotten gains that is imposed on wrong-doers by the courts. Funds that were received through illegal or unethical business transactions are disgorged, or paid back, with interest to those affected by the action. Disgorgement is a remedial civil action, rather than a punitive civil action.

####13 Subpoena Duces Tecum.
In the United States legal system, a subpoena duces tecum (Latin for "bring with you under penalty of punishment") is specific form of a subpoena (summons, literally "under punishment") issued by a court ordering the parties named to appear and produce tangible evidence (documents or otherwise) for use at a hearing or trial.

####14 enjoin.
to direct or impose by authoritative order or with urgent admonition.

####15 PAROL EVIDENCE.
The parol evidence rule is a substantive common law rule in contract cases that prevents a party to a written contract from presenting evidence that contradicts or adds to the written terms of the contract that appears to be whole. In order for the rule to be effective, the contract in question must first be a final integrated writing; it must, in the judgment of the court, be the final agreement between the parties (as opposed to a mere draft, for example).
There are a number of exceptions to the parol evidence rule Extrinsic evidence can always be admitted for the following purposes:
To aid in the interpretation of existing terms.
To resolve an ambiguity in the contract.
To show that an unambiguous term in the contract is in fact a mistaken transcription of a prior valid agreement.
To show wrongful conduct such as misrepresentation, fraud, duress.
To show that consideration has not actually been paid.
To imply or incorporate a term of the contract.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

This is the first statement of decision made on may 9th 2005 and for the first time here is revealed in full.
It includes the ACTUAL verdict given by the jury which is slightly different to the slant given on the LL and other semi official sources. SEE POST #14


SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION

Dept 36
Judge: Gregory W. Alarcon

Case No. BC 289730
BC 294495

JOHN DENSMORE, individually and on behalf of California general partnership comprised of John Densmore, the Estate of Jam es Morrison, and the Estate of Pamela Courson, Raymond Manzarek and Robert Krieger,

Plaintiff,

Vs.

RAYMOND MANZAREK, an individual; ROBERT KRIEGER, an individual; IAN ASTBURY, an individual; DOORS TOURING, INC., a California corporation; and Does 1 through 20 inclusive,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS ACTION

PEARL COURSON, individually and as guardian ad litem for COLUMBUS COURSON, each on behalf of the DOORS MUSIC CO., a California general partnership and on behalf of THE DOORS, a California general partnership, and GEORGE MORRISON and CLARA MORRISON, each on behalf of the DOORS MUSIC CO., a California general partnership and on behalf of the DOORS, a California general partnership, and PEARL COURSON, individually and as guardian ad litem for COLUMBUS COURSON, and GEORGE MORRISON and CLARA MORRISON, individually with respect to the seventh cause of action,

Plaintiffs.





STATEMENT OF DECISION

I. Introduction

The above two cases were consolidated for trial which commenced on June 28, 2004. This Statement Of Decision is intended to address the issues in both cases.

In Densmore, et al v. Manzarek, et al, Case No. BC289730 (“Densmore Action”), plaintiff John Densmore (hereinafter “Densmore”), individually and in some instances on behalf of various partnerships, seeks injunctive relief, damages, and disgorgement of profits against defendants Raymond (hereinafter “Manzarek”), Robby Krieger (hereinafter “Krieger”), Ian Astbury (hereinafter “Astbury”) and Doors Touring, Inc., a California corporation. In the cross-complaint filed in the Densmore Action, Manzarek and Krieger seek damages and equitable relief against Densmore.

In Pearl Courson, et al. vs. Manzarek, et al., Case No. BC294495 (the “Estates Action”) the plaintiffs are Pearl Courson, individually and as guardian ad litem for her husband Columbus Courson (hereinafter the “Coursons”), and George and Clara Morrison (hereinafter the “Morrisons”), all individually and on behalf of certain partnerships (collectively “the Estates”). In the Estates Action, plaintiffs seek to recover damages and equitable relief against defendents Manzarek, Krieger and Astbury.

This litigation involves the determination of the relationships and agreements among the various parties and entities that have an interest in the assets and business of the American rock band The Doors. Among the issues to be decided are (1) whether the defendants are entitled to perform and record publicly as The Doors or The Doors of the 21st Century, (2) whether by doing so they have breached various alleged agreements among the parties, and (3) whether they have violated laws pertaining to the right to use the name and likeness of the late Jim Morrison. In their cross-complaint, Manzarek and Krieger allege, inter alia, that Densmore has breached certain duties by his refusal to agree to allow certain music of The Doors to be licensed for television commercials. Manzarek and Krieger also seek declaratory relief and reformation of a 1971 written agreement entered into by Densmore, Manzarek and Krieger.

II. Statement Of The Case

The Densmore Action was commenced on February 4, 2003. Densmore’s operative pleading is the Second Amendment Complaint. He seeks an injunction against the defendants, and an accounting, damages, and disgorgement of profits earned by them from what he contends to be the wrongful use of the name The Doors for touring, performing, and recording activities. In their cross-complaint, Manzarek and Krieger seek damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and reformation of a 1971 written agreement entered into by Densmore, Manzarek and Krieger. The Fourth Cause Of Action (for intentional interference with economic advantage) was previously dismissed as a result of Densmore’s anti-SLAPP motion, which was granted by the court.

The Estates Action was commenced on April 23, 2003. The Estates seek injunctive relief. Damages, disgorgement of profits, accounting, and imposition of a constructive trust.

The plaintiffs in the Densmore action previously sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from calling themselves The Doors or any name that included the name The Doors, and further sought to prevent the defendants from using the traditional logo of The Doors. Densmore’s application for preliminary injunction was denied on May 10, 2003, on the condition that the band call itself The Doors of the 21st Century.

Although Plaintiffs initially requested a trial by jury, during the jury trial, plaintiffs urged that the gravamen of their claims is equitable in nature as (1) the remedies sought sound in equity, and (2) certain alleged statutory violations also provide for equitable relief such as injunctions and disgorgement. The court agreed that there appears to be a confluence of legal and equitable issues, such that the jury should decide legal issues while reserving equitable issues for the court.

At the conclusion of trial, the parties attempted to agree on special jury instructions which would assist the court in subsequently determining the equitable issues. After considering counsel’s arguments and the extended duration of the trial, the court decided a general verdict was appropriate.

The Jury’s Verdict

One September 2, 2004, the jury began deliberations. On September 27, 2004, the jury reached the following verdicts:

Densmore’s Claims

Violation of Lanham Act No Liability
Common Law Unfair Competion No Liability
Bus. & Prof, Code Section 17200 No Liability
Breach of Oral Partnership No Liability
Breach Of Written 1971 Agreement Manzarek & Krieger liable
No Damages Awarded
Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Manzarek & Krieger liable
No Damages Awarded

The Morrison’s and The Courson’s Claims


Violation of Lanham Act No Liability
Common Law Trade Mark Infringement No Liability
Common Law Unfair Competion No Liability
Bus. & Prof, Code Section 17200 No Liability
State Trademark Dilution No Liability
Violation of Post-Mortem Right of Publicity Manzarek & Krieger liable
No Damages awarded. Astbury
Not liable
Breach of Contract No Liability
Breach Of Implied Covenant No Liability
Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Manzarek & Krieger liable
No Damages Awarded.


Manzarek’s & Krieger’s Cross-Claim

Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Densmore liable
No Damages Awarded
Breach Of Implied Cov. Of Good Faith &
Fair Dealing Densmore liable
No Damages Awarded.
Promissory Estoppel Densmore liable
No Damages Awarded
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 No Liability


On October 27 2004, counsel were permitted to state their interpretation of the jury’s general verdict and its effect on and its effect on the equitable issues and any causes of action to be decided by the court.

The court has considered the evidence presented by the parties and the jury’s verdicts on Densmore’s and the Estate’s claims. For each set of claims, the jury verdict found in favor of the complainants(s) on some causes of action (but awarded no damages) and against the complainants(s) on others. Defendents maintain that the jurys verdict is a complete vindication of their theory of defense and therefore this court should find for defendants on each cause of action, including the equitable claims that were never presented to the jury. Plaintiffs take the view that the verdicts were only advisory. They request that this court should rule in their favor on all causes of action, including the equitable ones.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Overview

From 1966 to 1971 The Doors were a legendary rock band in America. The members were Jim Morrison (the vocalist), Densmore (the drummer), Manzarek (the keyboard player), and Krieger (the guitarist). Morrison died in 1971. He was survived by Pamela Courson who, while not legally married to Morrison, was found to be his surviving widow by the probate court of the Los Angeles Superior Court. She inherited his estate as the beneficiary of his will. Courson died in 1974 without a will. Through a settlement agreement, Courson’s estate was divided evenly between her parents and Morrison’s parents.

During Jim Morrison’s life, there were partnerships involved with the business activities of The Doors. After the death of Morrison, the three surviving band members entered into a written partnership agreement. Thereafter, they performed as the Doors for about two years. Except for a performance at their induction into the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame in December 1992, and a subsequent performance in August 2000 with six different vocalists on the cable television station VH1, Densmore, Manzarek and Krieger never again performed together publicly as the Doors. Since September 2002, however, Manzarek, Krieger and Astbury have performed publicly as The Doors or The Doors of The 21st Century (hereinafter “D21C’). The actions brought by Densmore and the Estates seek to enjoin defendants from performing and recording as D21C or The Doors, claiming the defendants do not have permission from Densmore, the Morrisons, and the Coursons to use these names. Densmore maintains that the use of these names requires unanimous consent by the partnership and, in the absence of unanimity, defendants are in breach of the partnership agreements. Densmore’s claims raise issues as to the ownership of the name The Doors, the nature of the relationship between the parties, the rule of governance in decision making among the parties, if any, and trademark and unfair competition claims. In addition, the Estates raise further issues about the defendants’ use of the name and likeness of Morrison in their activities of performance and promotional activities.

Defendant’s cross-complaint raises separate issues that generally relate to the governance issues inherent in the underlying two actions. In 2001, two licensing opportunities to use their music for television commercials were offered. In the past, The Doors’ music had been licensed for dramatic films and television, but rarely for commercials. Densmore purported to veto the proposals, and Robby Krieger refused to support the proposals. Manzarek and Krieger seek to recover from Densmore the alleged lost profits resulting in Densmore’s veto. The effect of Densmore’s veto on the music license raises issues pertaining to the parties rule of governance as to who are the decision makers.

2. The Creation Of The Doors

In 1965, Morrison, Densmore, Manzarek and Krieger formed a band called The Doors. Manzarek and Morrison met in film school at UCLA. Densmore and Krieger had been friends in high school. Manzarek met Densmore and Krieger while attending meditation classes in Southern California and introduced Morrison to Krieger and Densmore. At the time, Morrison had received his bachelor’s degree from UCLA, Manzarek had a bachelor’s degree in economics from DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois and had also received a master’s degree from UCLA in film school. Densmore and Krieger had attended some college, but did not qualify for an undergraduate degree.

(NOTE: The term “governance” has been used through the papers and in the trial and refers generally to whether decisions are made by a majority versus unanimous vote and whether the Estates are included as decision making partners.)


3. The Doors Decide To Share Royalties Equally

In 1966, Morrison, Densmore, Manzarek and Krieger began performing publicity as The Doors. They filed a fictitious business statement. The Doors was a unique band in rock and roll history, not only for its memorable music, or the iconic superstar status and image of Morrison memorialized on T-Shirts and posters, but also for the band members’ egalitarian treatment of each other. For example, while Morrison was generally know as the poet/songwriter who wrote haunting lyrics, the band’s most famous song, “Light My Fire,” was actually written by Robby Krieger. Jim Morrison had a unique baritone voice and a gift for creating poetic lyrics, but each member of the group possessed a special talent that made the group unique. Manzarek had a vision fro the direction of the group, given his eclectic musical background in classical, jazz, and rock music and his gift of musical arrangement. His impressive educational background, including a bachelors degree in economics from DePaul, as well as a master’s degree in film studies from UCLA, coupled with the fact that he was older than the other members and a talented public speaker, made him the perfect spokesperson for the group. Krieger wrote many of the Doors songs and his mastery of the guitar reflected the influence of jazz, blues, rock and flamenco.

Densmore, the drummer and youngest member of the band, had a broad knowledge of jazz and rock styles. He also had a gift for arrangement, which he shared with Manzarek and Krieger. The Doors first single record, “Break On Through,” the subject of various causes of action in these consolidated actions relating to its possible licensing for a Cadillac commercial, is instantly recognizable by Densmore’s unique bossa nova drumming introducing the song.

Unlike other musical groups, wherein the songwriters carefully protect and insist on their music royalties based on their individual song writing and never share those royalties with the other band members who did not write the songs. The Doors were unique. Given the special talents of all of the members, in the spirit of unity, or as canny tactic to maintain harmony among the group, The Doors’ policy was to share equally all song writing credits, regardless of who wrote the music or the lyrics. Throughout the trial, Densmore poetically described each individual band member as a “facet of a diamond.”

Ray Manzarek described the unique relationship of the group as follows, “See, here is the way it worked with The Doors. There are four guys in the band; each person is as essential as anybody else in the band. The guitar is as important as the keyboard bass guy. Each thing contributed its 25 percent……We each had our area of expertise. That was one quarter of the pie. You remove any one of those quarters and you don’t have anything.” Ray Manzarek, The Doors Myth and Reality, The Spoken Word History, Audio CD (Monstersounds, 1996) (Side Two, “Making The Magic Circle”) (Emphasis added.)

In 1966, Max Fink served as legal counsel to the band when it entered into a recording contract with Elektra Records. The Elektra Records agreement was for six albums. The band was an immediate success. It was ultimately one of the most successful bands of all time.

The band’s first business manager and accountant was Robert Greene. He continued in that capacity until 1984. Since that time Jerry Swartz has been the business manager and accountant for The Doors. Not long after the Elektra contract was executed, Abraham Somer served as the band’s counsel. Somer continued until approximately 1984, when Gary Stiffleman and John Branca replaced him. Stiffleman continues to be the primary legal counsel for The Doors.

(NOTE: An example of Manzarek’s talent, sophistication, and extensive background in music is demonstrated by his recording of an electronic version of Carl Orff’s Carmina Burana (1935) produced by the esteemed Philip Glass in 1980.)


4. Abraham Somer Secures Publishing Rights From Elektra, and the Creation Of The Doors Music Publishing

In 1969, Somer secured from Elektra, all of the publishing rights to The Doors’ music. That same year, Somer created a partnership for Morrison, Densmore, Manzarek, and Krieger called Doors Music Company. The terms of the partnership were reflected in a written agreement signed by the four band members (hereinafter “DMC” or the “DMC Partnership”) The DMC Partnership was executed on February 8, 1969. Paragraph 6 of the DMC Partnership provided that management of the partnership would be decided by unanimous agreement of the parties.

At trial, Densmore, Somer, and Green testified that governance by unanimous agreement was consistent with the manner in which the band had conducted itself since its inception. Stiffleman and Swartz testified that unanimity was the rule of governance among The Doors’ members and that with respect to any significant opportunity to license music by the Doors, any member of The Doors had a right to veto any such proposal.

5. The Buick Car Commerical

In 1969, The Doors experienced perhaps their most significant internal rift involving the question of whether the group should sell its music for use in a car commercial. Manzarek, Krieger, and Densmore agreed that Buick should be allowed to use the hit song, “Light My Fire” in a television commercial for a the new Buick Opel automobile. Because Morrison was unavailable for reasons never clarified during the trial, the other band members gave consent. Several days later, Morrison learned of the decision and was furious. He believed that his partners had reneged on the rule of unanimity of failing to abide by ‘one for all, all for one,’ and had “sold out” to corporate America, “the Devil.” Light My Fire at 305-307. Morrison was so angry that he threatened to destroy an Opel on stage during the group’s future performances, and insisted that Somer rescind the agreement with Buick. The commercial was never aired, and apparently the band members never received any compensation.

Morrison sought the names of other lawyers from Somer to consult about possible legal action against his partners, but never initiated any legal action. On November 11, 1970, the DMC Partnership Agreement was amended to require that any decisions about licensing music require a unanimous vote signed by all of the partners.

From 1966 to the date of Morrison’s death, the Doors were a huge success, performing throughout the United States as well as abroad, selling millions of dollars worth of albums and merchandise. An no time prior to Morrison’s death did the band formally register the name The Doors with any state or federal agency.

(NOTE: Ray Manzarek characterized this incident in his autobiography as a “fiasco.” Manzarek, Light My Fire, My Life With The Doors (Putnam’s Son, 1998 at 305)

At trial, Manzarek said Morrison also objected to the commercial because his father drove a Buick.

The testimony of various witnesses during the trial was not consistent as to whether a commercial ever aired, whether all the money was returned, whether money was paid to halt the agreement and other details as to how this commercial was stopped.


6. New Orleans: The Doors Final Public Appearance (1970)

1970 was a difficult year for The Doors as a result of the arrest of Morrison for obscenity during a performance of the band in Miami. The arrest and subsequent trial, coupled with Morrison’s erratic behavior at concerts, made it difficult to get the type of bookings that The Doors had enjoyed prior to the Miami incident. In December 1970 The Doors performed in New Orleans. It was their last public performance due to Jim Morrison’s poor performance on stage, apparently the result of his severe alcohol addiction.

7. Morrison’s Poetry Album (1970)

At trial, Ray Manzarek testified about the formation of the Doors. He described Morrison’s poetry, which was later integrated in the Doors music. Morrison continued throughout his musical career to work on his craft as a poet in addition to his work as a musician. He published the poetry in limited printings and gave these publications to his friends. Morrison wanted to record his poetry without the group and agreed to a drastic cut in his customary salary to do it. On his birthday, December 8 1970, he recorded his poetry with the intent to include the material in an album.

8. Morrison Decides To Leave For France

In early 1971, Morrison announced to his fellow band members that he was going to move for a short time to Paris, France with Pamela Courson. He intended to leave for Paris shortly after the band finished recording their sixth album for Elektra, L.A. Woman.

9. The DMC Partnership Agreement Entered Into In March 1971, Effective As Of January 1, 1966.

At about the time, Somer prepared a partnership agreement for the Doors, for all purposes except music publishing. In March 1971, the four members of The Doors executed their written partnership agreement, effective January 1, 1966 (hereinafter the “Old Doors Agreement”). Somer testified that he explained the “Old Doors Agreement” to the four members of The Doors, and that it reflected the way the partnership had operated by oral agreement up until the time of its execution. It provided for unanimous agreement in the management of the business of the Doors.

10. the Administration Agreement Entered Into On March 8, 1971

On March 8, 1971, in anticipation of Morrison leaving the United States, The Doors entered into an Administration Agreement with Greene, their business manager, granting him exclusive authority to enter into licensing agreements for music of The Doors. However, to avoid what had happened in 1969 with regard to the Buick Commerical incident Greene was empowered to sign agreements for television and radio commercials only after receiving the written approval of all four partners. As of the date for the execution of the Administration Agreement, no Doors music was authorized to used for radio or television commercials. Densmore, Manzarek and Krieger all testified that while Morrison was alive, The Doors did not intend to authorize use of its music in radio or television commercials.

11. Amendment To The Old Doors Partnership Agreement (March 11, 1971)

On March 11, 1971, the parties executed a one-page amendment to the Old Doors Partnership Agreement. It sets forth a specific provision prohibiting the use of the name, The Doors, by any partner upon termination of the partnership for any reason other than the death of a partner. The amendment was prompted by a concern that after L.A. Woman was delivered to Elektra, Morrison might leave the band and form another band in Europe using the name “The Doors.” Manzarek testified that he signed the one-page amendment when it was prepared but did not read it and did not understand its purpose. Somer testified that he recalled some concern about the band splintering, and that the amendment, as well as all of the band’s agreements, were explained to the band members before they signed. The court finds Somer’s testimony credible and accepts it as true.

(NOTEL Paragraph 8 of Original Old Doors Agreement. Paragraph 2 of the Administration Agreement.)



12. Jim Morrison’s Death In Paris, France (July 3, 1971)

Morrison left for Paris in mid-march 1971. L. A. Woman was delivered to Elektra shortly thereafter. On July 3, 1971, Morrison died in Paris; the cause of death was listed as a heart attack. He was buried at Pere-Lachaise Cemetary. The grave site is a major attraction in Paris, even though other luminaries also buried in this Parisian landmark include Sarah Berhardt, Edith Piaf, Marcel Proust, Frederic Chopin, Henri Balzac and Oscar Wilde.

Music experts Nigel Williamson from England and Anthony DeCurtis of the United States testified regarding the iconic status of Jim Morrison, both during his life and for the thirty-three years since his death. Each expressed the opinion that Morrison and The Doors are likely more important and popular today than when Morrison was alive.

Jim Morrison left all of his property to Pamela Courson in his will. The DMC and the “Original Old Doors” partnership agreements provided for termination upon the death of a partner. Neither partnership had been wound up and dissolved. Partnership tax returns for the “Old Doors” have been filed since 1966, and partnership tax returns for DMC have been filed since its formation in 1969. After the death of Jim Morrison, Pamela Courson received K-1 tax schedules from the two partnerships. Following her death, the Morrison’s and the Courson’s received the K-1 schedules from the two partnerships.

(Note: A K-1 Schedule is the actual schedule attached to a partnership tax return that reflects a partner’s share of the partnership profits to be reported on his or her tax return.)

13. The New Partnership Agreement For The Surviving Members Of The Doors October 1, 1971

On October 1, 1971, Somer registered a new recording contract between Elektra and the three surviving members of the Doors for five albums, at a minimum guaranty of $250,000 per album. The three surviving band members continued performing without replacing Jim Morrison with another vocalist, choosing to sing vocals themselves. On October 1, 1971, a new written partnership agreement was entered into between among Densmore, Manzarek and Krieger for purposes of performing and recording as The Doors (hereinafter the “New Doors” partnership agreement.) The New Doors partnership agreement continued the unanimous agreement provision. In addition, the New Doors partnership agreement continued the same provision set forth in the earlier and recently signed one-page amendment to the Original Old Doors partnership agreement, namely that in the event of a termination of the partnership for any reason other than the death of a partner, none of the partners could use the name The Doors. It also provided that in the event of the termination of the partnership because of the death of a partner, the remaining partners might perform together but not separately using the name The Doors. Like the prior two written partnership agreements, the New Doors partnership was terminable at will by any partner.

While no written license permitting the three surviving members to use the name The Doors for recording and performing purposes was produced at trial, Manzarek, Kreiger and Densmore used the name without objection from Pamela Courson. She did not object to their activities although she was aware of the performances and recordings by the new band and saw them in Sausalito, California. No evidence was adduced at the trial that there was any objection by anyone to the three surviving band members using the name The Doors for recording and performing purposes.

14. The Three Surviving Members of The Doors Release Two Albums as The Doors (1971-1972)

The three band members recorded two albums as The Doors: Other Voices (1971) and Full Circle (1972), and toured in connection therewith. They did not hire a new singer, sharing vocal duties between Ray Manzarek and Robby Krieger. The three surviving members of the Doors created yet another partnership, Alchemical, for purposes of owning the publishing rights to the music recorded on their two albums (similar to the situation with DMC and the music of the Old Doors.) Alchemical continues to exist today, and files tax returns with state and federal agencies. The New Doors albums were not a success, and the band members were not enthusiastic about proceeding further without a lead vocalist.

All of the original recordings of The Doors with Jim Morrison have been reissued and continue to be available for new audiences. The previously mentioned two albums without Jim Morrison have not be repackaged and reissued in the popular CD form as of the time of the trial.

(NOTE: Paragraph 6 of the New Doors partnership agreement. Paragraph 9 of the New Doors partnership agreement.)

15. The Surviving Members of The Doors Search For A New Vocalist In England (1973)

In 1973, the three surviving members of The Doors, along with Manzarek’s wife Dorothy went to England in search of a new lead vocalist. They failed to persuade Paul McCartney or Joe Cocker to join them and they were unable to agree on an unknown singer. At some point shortly after he arrived, Manzarek characterized this departure as “quitting the band.” Manzarek, Krieger and Densmore concluded that without Jim Morrison or a suitable replacement lead vocalist, they could not perform in the musical style that had made them so successful. The three surviving members of The Doors ceased performing and touring together at that time. Somer advised Elektra that Manzarek would not be recording with his band mates, “and that at the current time there in no plan for any of the aforesaid individuals to use the name ‘The Doors’”. The agreement with Elektra was terminated and the band forfeited its $750,000 guaranty for the three remaining albums.

At the time Manzarek left England with his wife Dorothy, the New Doors partnership agreement and the Alchemical partnership were not terminated. Manzarek did not consider terminating or dissolving the New Doors partnership. None of the professional advisors of The Doors were informed that Manzarek terminated the New Doors partnership. Through 2003 tax returns for the New Doors and Alchemical, the two partnerships owned solely by the three surviving band members, continued to be filed with state and federal authorities.

After Manzarek left England, Densmore and Krieger formed a new band named The Butts Band. It performed for a few years, released two albums and thereafter ceased to exist.

16. The Three Surviving Doors Reunite For American Prayer (1978)

In approximately 1978, Manzarek, Krieger and Densmore created and released a new album called American Prayer. It was intended to be the poetry album that Jim Morrison always wanted to produce. The basis of the album was the poems recorded by Jim Morrison on December 8, 1970, set to music performed by the three surviving band members. The Estate of Jim Morrison owned the poems, and Columbus Courson, as representative of the Estate, on behalf of the Morrisons and Coursons, contributed the poetry and participated in the production of American Prayer. The album enjoyed success.

17. The Surviving Members of The Doors Separate Projects

From approximately 1975 through 1990, the three surviving band members did not perform together in public. Each continued with his own endeavors, writing books, producing albums, performing music, and performing on stage. Manzarek occasionally performed with others including poet Michael McClure. Krieger performed with his own band, called either The Robby Krieger band or The Robby Krieger Organization. Densmore performed as a musician as well as an actor.

18. Apocalypse Now (1978) and The Doors movie (1991) The Doors Reintroduction to A New Generation

Two things occurred that caused The Doors to become even more popular than it had been when the original four members performed together. In approximately 1979, Francis Ford Coppola, directed the film Apocalypse Now, a modernized version of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. The Doors’ song ‘The End’ became an integral part of the film. The movie and its soundtrack resulted in a great boost in the sales of The Doors music catalog. In approximately 1991, Oliver Stone directed the successful movie ‘The Doors’ which presents a dramatized account of The Doors from the beginnings of the band up to the death of Jim Morrison. While all of The Doors’ music was licensed for the film, Manzarek, Krieger and Densmore insisted that the classic Doors logo could not be used in any advertising for the film. This motion picture resulted in a huge boost in the sales of The Doors’ music catalog, and brought the popularity of the band again to the forefront with a soundtrack album containing original Doors compositions.

19. Previous Objections To Being Identified As The Doors With Less Than The Three Surviving Members Of The Original Band

In December 1992, The Doors were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The ceremony was attended by the three surviving band members and Morrison’s sister Anne. The three surviving band members performed during the ceremony.

In 1997, the Robby Krieger Band scheduled a short tour in Denmark. Ray Manzarek was scheduled to be a guest musician. Manzarek became ill, however, and Densmore substituted for him. The show was billed as “Robby Krieger Band with special appearance by John Densmore of The Doors.” The following year, Robby Krieger and Densmore undertook another short music tour of Europe, and the show was billed as “Robby Krieger with John Densmore of The Doors.” At least one promoter identified the performers as The Doors. Densmore strongly objected and tore up some posters that contained the erroneous description. Later, Krieger and Manzarek performed in Mexico, and again the performance was occasionally promoted erroneously as The Doors. Posters depicting the performers as The Doors were destroyed at Densmore’s request.

20. The VH-1 Storytellers Performance of “The Doors” 2000

In August 2000, cable television station VH-1 produced for its series Storytellers, a one-time studio concert of The Doors billed as a “celebration.” Manzarek, Krieger and Densmore performed together along with six lead vocalists, each of whom alternated playing lead vocalist on selected hits of The Doors. One of the vocalists was Ian Astbury, then the lead vocalist of a rock band called The Cult. The performance was recorded and later released on DVD, VHS and compact disc. The opportunity to participate in this venture was the result of the efforts of Tom Vitorino, an assistant to Krieger.

Prior to the time of the VH-1 Storytellers performance, Densmore and Manzarek had each written autobiographies detailing their experiences with The Doors. Both books featured a cover photograph of the author taken with Jim Morrison and both books took their titles from hit songs of The Doors: Riders On The Storm (Densmore , 1990) and Light My Fire (Manzarek, 1998). Testimony by Densmore and Manzarek at trial revealed that the two autobiographies were the source of friction between the two and their subsequent estrangement.

As of the beginning of 2001, The Doors’ music by the original four band members had sold more than 50 million albums. Millions of dollars worth of merchandise was sold depicting the band name and images of Jim Morrison, and millions of dollars in royalties were paid to The Doors, (including $3 million that had been advanced by Signatures Network on December 31, 1998.) Except for the VH-1 Storytellers performance and The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame performance, Densmore, Manzarek and Krieger did not perform together. They pursued their own careers.

Neither the Old Doors partnership agreement nor the DMC partnership agreement, as entered into by the original four band members, had ever been terminated, dissolved, or wound up. The “New Doors” partnership agreement and the Alchemical partnership also have not been formally terminated, dissolved or wound up. From the inception of each of the partnerships until after 2000, federal and state tax returns were filed annually by each of the four partnerships, and K-1 schedules were delivered yearly to each of the participants. Each partnership has always been represented by the same legal counsel, the same accountants, and the same business managers. In addition, Manzarek, Krieger and Densmore also had consistently been represented by professional managers, principally Danny Sugerman from the early 1980s.

The Estates were also recipients of K-1 partnership schedules each year. Legal counsel principally Mark Hurwitz in the later years, continuously represented the Coursons. The Morrisons have been represented by the same law firm, Weinstock, Manion, Reisman, Shore & Neumann, from the time of Pamela Courson’s death in 1974. From 1984, Gary Stiffleman and his law firm represented the various Doors entities and some of the members personally. There is extensive correspondence from Stiffleman over the years referred to the Estates as partners. Greene and Swartz, the accountants and business managers over the years, and Somer, the attorney for many years, all testified that the Estates were partners of the Old Doors and DMC.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

21. Attempt To Register The Name The Doors (1998)

In 1998, efforts finally were undertaken to register the name The Doors with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Michael Grace, a trademark specialist, prepared the application for registration. The owner of the name The Doors is listed in the application as a California general partnership composed of the three surviving members and the two Estates. Grace testified that the information on the application was listed correctly, as the application was to be signed under penalty of perjury. Grace testified that he did not apply for registration of The Doors as a performing band because the band was not then performing. With the exception of a single Pirelli tire commercial using the song “Riders On The Storm” in England after the death of Jim Morrison, The Doors never permitted their music to be licensed for use in a television commercial or radio commercial.

Nothwithstanding the refusal to license music for commercials, The Doors continued to be extremely profitable. Income was derived from the sale of albums, compact discs, videotapes of concerts, DVD’s, merchandise, and the licensing of music for movies and television. Up to the time of the trial, The Doors, through the partnerships, continue to earn several million dollars per year.

22. Cadillac Offers 15 Million Dollars Fro Use of the song “Break On Through”

In 2001, The Doors received a significant offer from the Cadillac motor division of General Motors. Cadillac sought to use one of The Doors’ most successful songs “Break On Through” for a worldwide campaign to sell cars. The amount offered for the exclusive right to use the song was $15 million dollars. Neither Densmore nor Krieger was in favor of granting the license. Krieger was “on the fence” about the offer, but tending to “side” with Densmore. Densmore voted against the opportunity, exercising his right to veto. The basis for his veto was: (1) the band members had never allowed their music to be used in commercials except the Pirelli tire commercial abroad, (2) a car commercial caused the internal dissension in 1969 when Jim Morrison was adamantly against a proposed Buick commercial for similar reasons, (3) The Doors were making plenty of money without “selling out” to corporate America, and (4) permitting the use of the song in a commercial was antithetical to the legacy of the band and the memory of Jim Morrison.

Manzarek was enthusiastic about excepting the offer. Stiffleman solicitied the Morrisons and Coursons who were also in favor or accepting the offer. Manzarek further attempted to have the Coursons and Morrisons influence Densmore and Krieger to change their minds. However, they were not successful and the Cadillac offer was not accepted.

Manzarek testified that not long afterward there was an offer from Apple fro the use of a Doors song in exchange for the payment of 4 million dollars. That offer was rejected because there was no unanimous vote in favor of accepting it.

23. The Nation Article

On July 8, 2002, Densmore authored an article that appeared in The Nation magazine, entitled, “Riders On The Storm.” The article was later reprinted in Rolling Stone magazine. In the article, Densmore expressed his views concerning his opposition to the use of music in commercials by noted musicians and bands. He expressed his pride in the fact that he and Krieger refused to approve of the commercial opportunities described above.

The failure to accept these two offers was not then the subject of litigation. The decision of Krieger and Densmore to vote against accepting them was accepted by the Coursons and Morrisons and at least initially by Manzarek. Admiral Morrison and the legal representatives of the Morrisons and Coursons testified that they respected the right of any partner to veto such a proposal.

Riders On The Storm - The Nation July 9 2002
www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020708&s=densmore

24. Harley Davidson Concerts (September 2002)

In early 2002, Tom Vitorino, Krieger’s manager, received a request for The Doors to perform in September 2002 as headliners at the 100th Anniversary celebration for Harley-Davidson in Fontana, California. The band was offered $150,000 for the performance, and later added an additional performance in Ontario, Canada, for which the band’s guaranty ranges from $2,000 to $10,000. Other than the Storytellers performance with a handful of lead vocalists and their brief performance at the Hall of Fame induction ceremony, The Doors had not performed publicly since the 1970s.

At the time of the Harley Davidson proposal, Densmore testified that he was suffering from the ear condition, tinnitus, the onset of which occurred during the Storytellers performance. He was unsure of his ability to play, or if he even wanted to play as The Doors, inasmuch as without Jim Morrison as the vocalist the group would not be The Doors, He also remembered the lack of success in 1971-1973 when the three surviving members performed. With some reluctance, Densmore agreed that the band would accept the Harley-Davidson performance offer, but insisted on a provision that all advertisements contain the conspicuous statement: “due to health conditions” Densmore might not appear for the performance. Harley-Davidson agreed to the added inclusion that in such an event a “world-class” drummer would replace Densmore. In addition, the agreement with Harley-Davidson specifically provided that the traditional Doors logo, which appeared on the first (The Doors), second (Strange Days), third (Waiting For The Sun”), fourth (Soft Parade)) Door’s albums, could not be used for advertising purposes. The Estates were never consulted about this proposed agreement.



As the concert dates approached, Densmore testified that his ear condition prevented him from performing. He rejected the suggestion of various enclosures to insulate him from the loud music if he chose to perform.

Stewart Copeland, a successful music composer and “world-class drummer” and who had been the drummer fro the rock band The Police, was hired as the replacement drummer fro the Fontana concert. Ian Astbury, who had performed with the band at the Storytellers celebration, was hired as lead vocalist for the performance. Both were paid fixed salaries for their performances. Astbury and Copeland testified that at the time they were hired, neother knew of any other Doors concerts being planned, and did not learn of the Canada concert for Harley-Davidson until after the concert in Fontana. The Fontana concert for Harley-Davidson took place on September 6, 2002. The Ontario, Canada concert took place on September 28, 2002.

Densmore testified that at the time he consented to The Doors performing for the Harley-Davidson concerts, he was unaware of any other contemplated performances by The Doors. Manzarek had no communications with Densmore. Krieger assumed Densmore knew of their plans to tour. Astbury and Copeland were unaware of the plans to tour.

(Note: At trial it was revealed through music experts Nigel Williams and Anthony DeCurtis that the position not to approve use of a performer’s music in commercials was a view shared by other notable performers such as The Beatles (before their publishing rights were sold to Michael Jackson), Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp, Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Brown, and Tom Waits.)

25. Changes In Management For Krieger and Manzarek (July 2002)

Jerry Swartz, the business manager and accountant for The Doors, caused defendant Doors Touring, Inc., to be formed by Stiffleman’s law firm at the end of July 2002. Manzarek and Krieger were the owners of Doors Touring, Inc. At the time Doors Touring, Inc. was created, Swartz had no idea that performances were contemplating anywhere except the two Harley-Davidson concerts in September 2002. Swartz continued as accountant and business manager for The Doors’ partnerships. In addition, shortly after the Fontana performance, and before the Canada performance, Danny Sugerman’s services in connection with Harley-Davidson and Doors Touring, Inc. were terminated by Manzarek and Krieger. Robby Krieger’s band manager, Tom Vitorino was hired to be the band manager for the new group.

Ian Astbury testified that even after the concert in Canada, he did not understand that a decision had been made for the band to become a touring band. Copeland sent a memorandum to Manzarek, Krieger and Vitorino that raised questions about what the band’s name would be if they began touring. And whether there a trademark question would arise if they called themselves The Doors or the “something Doors,” He was concerned whether they would have to compensate the “Old Doors” if they did so. He also raised the question of whether they would be required to secure the consent of the Estates and whether unanimous agreement was necessary. He also testified about a meeting at his home when he and the other band members worked on his computer, experimenting with possible new band names. Copeland also testified that after the Canadian performance for Harley Davidson, he understood that he was a member of the band, not a hired musician.

At this time, an interview of Manzarek appeared in Billboard magazine, in which he said that Stewart Copeland was The Doors drummer from now on, which Densmore believed meant that he was essentially “fired” as the drummer of The Doors.

(Note: The Soft Parade album has The Doors logo on the back of the record (or inside of the CD) but the word “the” is missing. The traditional Doors logo is on the label affixed to the compact disc of all of The Doors CDs.)

26. Krieger Informs Densmore of Tour, Accord Reached

After one or both of the Harley Davidson concerts, Krieger approached Densmore and told him that Manzarek and Krieger intended to go on tour. No further details were given.

Densmore told Krieger that he had no objection to Manzarek and Krieger performing as The Doors provided (1) that a modifier be inserted in the name to indicate that this new band was distinguished from the original Doors, and (2) that the band not use the traditional Doors logo, which had earlier been prohibited for use in the movie The Doors, as well in the contract for the Harley Davidson concerts. Densmore testified that he believed that Krieger had agreed to these conditions. According to Krieger’s testimony, he understood that words were to be included in the name to distinguish the band from the original Doors.

27. Alternate Logos Explored October 2002

In October 2002, Manzarek hired Tommy Gear, a graphic designer, to prepare logos and insignias for a band called “The 21st Centiry Doors.” Gear met twice with Manzarek, who rejected the designs. Kirby began to book performances for the new band. Until May 10, 2003 Kirby and his firm always referred to the band as The Doors, and never were told to call them anything else. In addition, Bill Young Productions was engaged to prepare print advertising materials (hereinafter “admats”) for newspaper ads, a form audio spot for radio commercials, and a form television spot for television commercials. In December 2002, the services of Tommy Gear were terminated. All of this activity occurred without the knowledge of Densmore or the Estates.

28. Advertising On The Offical Doors Website

The first concert booked by Kirgy was at the Palm Hotel in Las Vegas, on December 8, 2002. At about the same time, Manzarek and Vitorino, acting for Manzarek and Krieger, began to instruct Todd Gray, the webmaster of The Official Doors website, to announce upcoming performances by the 21st Century Doors. Densmore expressed concerns about the use of the official website for an unofficial band. In addition, Vitorino instructed the Webmaster to send e-blast messages to The Doors e-mail list of registered fans. The matter was resolved by Todd Gray limiting references to the new band’s name to the “personal pages” of Manzarek and Krieger.

(Note: The Doors maintain a presence on the World Wide Web, at www.thedoors.com. Official Doors Archivist Todd Gray is the webmaster. In addition o an extensive website, with personal pages for each of the three surviving members, one can purchase music, merchandise, and obtain current news. The website also has a message board system that allows fans to interact with one another. The server for the official website of The Doors received approximately 400,000 visitors a month.)

The Doors of the 21st Century on the Doors Official Website www.thedoors.com/band/?fa=21stc

29. Performance of “The Doors” at the Palm Hotel (January 19, 2003)

Densmore began to receive calls about The Palms Hotel billboard announcing a performance by The Doors. Resiman learned from someone of the same billboard. A series of discussions then began between Densmore and Krieger and Vitorino, about the use of the name The Doors by Manzarek and Krieger. Densmore did not know that other performances were contemplated.




30. “The Doors” Strange Days Advertisement

On January 19, 2003, an advertisement appeared in the Los Angeles, announcing a concert performance by The Doors at the Universal amphitheater in Los Angeles, California on February 7, 2003. The advertisement identified the band solely as The Doors, used the traditional Doors logo and backdrop of an outtake photograph of the session of the original group’s second album (Strange Days), and depicted a picture of Manzarek, Krieger, Astbury and Copeland, with their names printed thereon. Densmore testified that he felt betrayed by Krieger, because he had not abided by the agreement to use a modifier in the name and not to use The Doors logo.



Densmore threatened to get “heavy-handed” if the situation was not “fixed.” Vitorino testified that he tried to appease Densmore. Krieger testified that he many have “forgotten” to make changes to the name of the band. Densmore testified that he received calls and letters reflecting the belief of others than The Doors were performing, or that Densmore was performing with The Doors as well.

The advertisement that appeared in the Los Angeles Times was prepared by Bill Young Productions, with the approval of Manzarek and Krieger. The advertisement used the traditional Doors logo, and underneath the logo, in much smaller print, the words “21st Century” and “Live.” The Bill Young Productions records reflect that this admat was prepared and completed by November 13, 2002. The difference between the January 19, 2003 advertisement and the November 2002 admat was the use of the phrase at the top “Witness Rock & Roll History,” instead of the phrase “The Ceremony Is About To Begin…..Again,” which appeared on advertisements for subsequent performances.

(NOTE: Stewart Copeland was terminated soon after this ad. Ty Dennis, a drummer from Robby Krieger’s band, replaced him.)

31. “The Doors” Perform On Television

At about the same time, Manzarek, Krieger and Astbury appeared and performed on three national late-night television shows, including “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” (January 16, 2003), and The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn” (January 31, 2002), and “Last Call with Carson Daly” (February 21, 2003). In all of these performances, the defendants were identified and announced as The Doors.


32. Litigation Initiated By Densmore February 4, 2003

Densmore commenced this litigation on February 4, 2003, just before the Los Angeles concert. Since the February 7, 2003 concert in Los Angeles, Manzaek and Krieger, and Astbury had continued to perform throughout the world. The group has performed in more than 65 concerts in approximately 2 years. It has grossed more than $8 million and the performances have generated more than $2.7 million in profits, net of normal expenses, legal fees for this litigation, and salaries paid to Manzarek and Krieger. In addition, Manzarek and Krieger have received $260,000 in tax credits from taxes paid in foreign countries, and have earned an additional $275,000 from Diamond Night, LLC, and LLC owned by them that provides services for abroad for their concerts. These figures do not include an additional $1.5 million or so that was generated from the concerts Manzarek and Krieger participated in during the trial and thereafter. During this period of time, Astbury received a salary that totaled in excess of $1.1 million.

(NOTE: Jay Leno described the band as having been: (1) “reunited after 30 years,” (2) “one of the greatest rock and roll bands ever,” and (3) reminisced that he had seen the band in his senior year in high school. The original Doors logo is visible on the bass drum. Minus the “wavy gravy” word “the.”

Craig Kilborn described the group as a “brand new version of the one of the greatest rock and roll bands of all time.” The original Doors logo appears to be visible on the bass drum, but it is unclear what font the word “the” is.



Carson Daly described the group as “a bit of an updated version, same great sound, ‘The Doors’ and he later announced them as “one of the biggest names in rock history.” Again, the original Doors logo is visible, minus the wavy gravy word “the.”



33. The admats and radio spots prepared by Bill Young Productions have been altered a few times prior to this litigation. The original television and radio spots prepared by Bill Young Productions and sold to concert promoters, identified the defendants’ band as The Doors, and identified the concert as the 21st Century Live Tour. At least by June 9, 2003, after this court’s earlier order, a revised spot was created identifying the band as The Doors of the 21st Century (as evidenced by the Clear Channel promotional ad).

On February 20, 2003, after Densmore initiated this action at the direction of defendants Manzarek, Krieger and The Doors Touring, Inc., Bill Young Productions changed the admat to (1) eliminate the photo of the band members, (2) make clearer the out-take photo from the Strange Days album cover, (3) identify at the bottom the names Manzarek, Astbury and Krieger, (4) rotate the line through the two letters “o” in the word Doors, from the diagonal line that appeared in the traditional logo to one that was vertical only, (5) relocate the words “21st Century Live,” but continue to have them in a different font than the logo, and in much smaller font size, (6) change the font style of the word “the” in the logo, and (7) use the phrase “the ceremony is about to begin….again” in lieu of “witness rock & roll history.” This was the only approved admat for defendants’ concerts, until May 15, 2003. At that time, a change was made to the existing admat by adding in small type the words “of the” before 21st Century and deleting the word “live.” However, this was done only for admats to used in “all markets EXCEPT California.” Another admat, the “California version only,” was created at the same time and changed the font style completely (to the one from The Doors’ L.A. Woman album) and relocated the words “of the.” Those admats continued to be used up to the time of trial.



The defendants’ band has released compact discs and “downloading” opportunities for many of their concerts since December 31, 2003 as well as a DVD of one of their concert performances titled L.A. Woman LIVE. A video of their concert in Japan has been aired on MTV in Japan, with the rights soon to revert to the defendants.



(NOTE: Jim Morrison wrote a poem entitled “The Celebration of the Lizard” in which there is a phrase “Is Everybody In? The Ceremony Is About To Begin.” Jim Morrison used this phrase in The Doors concerts. The poem is printed on the inner sleeve of the third Doors album Waiting For The Sun, released July 1968, it was used in the record Absolutely Live, released in July 1970. It also begins the American Prayer, released November 1978. Jim Morrison repeated “Is Everybody In?” three times before starting “the ceremony is about to begin.” It also begins The Doors Collection in the first song of the video collection titled Dance On Fire.)

34. Jim Morrison Image Displayed At The Concerts

In approximately 30 concerts by this group, the image of Jim Morrison was displayed to the audience from 30 to 90 seconds at the inception of the concert. Posters of the admats are prominently displayed at some concerts (on which there is depicted the out take of the Strange Days album cover, which in turn depicts the image of the original band members.) An ad for the Universal Amphitheater concert used Jim Morrison’s picture. Jim Morrison’s voice singing Doors’ songs was used in the advertising for the band in several cities on the tour. Further, with respect to the new vocalist, Ian Astbury, Ray Manzerek was quoted stating that Astbury was the “reincarnation of Jim Morrison” and noting his “transformation” from lead singer of The Cult to an “uncanny resemblance of Jim Morrison.”

The merchandise sold at these shows included T-Shirts. Two of the shirts displayed on the front of the shirt in large red lettering, Doors with a small white letter “the” above and an equally small “21st Century” below the red lettering. Perched on the red large “D” in Doors is an iguana. Jim Morrison’s alter ego was the Lizard King. This characterization originated from a line from his poem “Celebration Of The Lizard” which states “I am the Lizard King. I can do anything.” The next T-shirt has the original Doors logo with the exception that the “the” is in traditional font rather than the original ‘wavy gravy’ font and the “D” is lowered. Underneath the word “Doors “ is “21st Century” written in a different and small type font from that the word “Doors.” On the back of the T-shirt is the phrase, also in red letters, is “No One Here Gets Out Alive.” This is the title of the most popular biography written about Jim Morrison by Jerry Hopkins and Danny Sugarman (Warner Books, Inc. 1980)


Reduced: 78% of original size [ 650 x 230 ] - Click to view full image

(NOTE: In the DVD L.A. Woman Live, in the final song “Soul Kitchen” there appears to be a staged rush of the audience by fans, many of whom are wearing the merchandise shirts presumably sold at the show. Close to the end of the song, a person on stage waves a flag that has an image of Jim Morrison. In the audience, a large flag is draped displaying the most famous “young lion” photograph of Jim Morrison stating “American Poet” and “1943 to 1971”. The camera holds on both of these images more than once.



The Strange Days record cover depicts a Felliniesque scene of a small circus with all of the performers performing their various acts in a deserted street location. To the right of the photograph is a poster which is a black and white photograph of the group, which has the traditional font The Doors and a sticker stating Strange Days placed on the bottom of the poster diagonally.)



Finally the last T-Shirt introduced into evidence has the same traditional font with the same exceptions as noted regarding exhibit 304, a color drawing of a nymph-like figure below and below her as the words “Let The Ceremony Begin….Again.” On the back of the T-Shirt are the words “birth and death and enlightenment.”

The DVD L.A. Woman LIVE has the traditional Doors logo with the exceptions that the word “the” is not in the “wavy gravy” font and the “o” is not in Doors and been changed so that they are vertical rather than diagonal and below that, in much smaller lettering and in different font is “Of The 21st Century.” The original album L.A. Woman had as an insert a high contrast photograph of a woman who appears to be placed in a crucifixion pose on a telephone pole. On the DVD there is what appears to be an airbrushed and more abstract female figure with long flowing hair that has her arms stretched but not connected to any object. In the background are palm trees and bordering the cover is a frame of silver barbed wire. The original L.A. Woman album’s color scheme is a burnt sienna and yellow; the DVD is a dark metallic red and silver. On the back of the DVD, Ray Manzarek describes the contents of the DVD as “the tour that never was” explaining that Jim Morrison died before the songs could be performed live and “hope he will be pleased.”



The majority of the songs on the DVD are songs from L.A. Woman with the exception of songs from earlier Doors records that include “Roadhouse Blues,” “Break On Through,” “Love Me Two Times,” Light My Fire,” and “Soul Kitchen.” No songs are included from Other Voices or Full Circle.

(NOTE: Manzarek is quoted on the back of the DVD cover that it is “L.A. Woman in its entirety” but the DVD seems to omit “Crawling King Snake.”)

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

III. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT

This case was tried first to a jury. At trial, but during a proceeding outside the presence of the jury, plaintiff argued that this case involved principally equitable claims. Defendants objected and stated that it was a mix of legal and equitable causes of actions. The jury returned a general verdict. This court must now examine the claims and determine which ones are equitable. This is significant because, unlike federal law, a judge’s findings of fact on equitable matters are binding on the jury. Dills vs. Delira Corp. (1956) 145 Cal. App. 2d 124, 129, compare Beacon Theatres vs. Westover (1959) 359 U.S. 500, 510-511 (legal issues must generally be tried by the jury before the equitable issues are tried by the court.) See also Dairy Queen, Inc. vs. Wood (1962) 369 U.S. 469, 477. While generally equitable issues are tried first, this court has discretion as to the order of proof. Evidence Code Section 320 Heppler vs. J.M. Peters Co., Inc. (1999) 73 Cal. Appl. 4th 1265, 1285.

As the question whether the plaintiff’s claims are equitable in nature was not raised until trial began, this court proceeded with the jury first. Because this court proceeded with the jury first, California law further instructs that the court cannot ignore the jury’s verdict and grant equable relief inconsistent with the jury’s verdict. Huges vs. Dunlap (1891) 91 Cal 385, 388. It is significant to note that the verdict reached by the jury was a general verdict. No special verdicts were submitted to the jury.

The next issue raised which has been the subject of lengthy oral argument and recent additional briefing was whether the causes of action addressed by the jury’s verdict were legal or equitable in nature. The plaintiff’s position is if they were equitable, then the verdicts are advisory, and this court is not bound by them. The defendants counter that the jury reached verdicts on legal issues, and their findings, in particular a finding of no damages, is binding on this court. The difficulty with adopting the plaintiff’s position is that the use of an advisory jury would be permissible if it were clearly stated and understood by all sides that such a procedure was being employed. In this case, there was never an understanding that counsel were presenting their case to an advisory jury. This court cannot treat the verdicts as to legal causes of action as advisory without violating the right to trial by jury. In the legal causes of actions, the court intends to enter a judgment consistent with the jury’s verdicts.

(NOTE: The comments in the California Practice Guide state “(Advisory juries are rarely used. When they are used, it is often where there is a doubt whether a particular cause of action (among many) is legal or equitable. Using an advisory jury, but not informing the jury that its verdict is only advisory, allows the judge to avoid the automatic reversal that would follow if the judge was wrong about the right to a jury trial. (This does not work, however, where the judge disagrees with the verdict…in which case, the court must ‘bite the bullet’ regarding jury entitlement.) (Civil Trials and Evidence, Section 2:171, pages 2-30-31.)

The Court’s conclusions and decisions are as follows:

A. Densmore’s Causes Of Action

1. First Cause Of Action For Violation Of Lanham Act
This action is brought by Densmore individually and on behalf of the Old Doors and DMC partnerships. The jury found in favor of defendants. The court finds that the Lanham Act is a legal claim. Dairy Queen vs. Wood (1962) 369 U.S. 469. The court enters judgment in favor of defendants.

2. Second Cause Of Action For Common Law Unfair Competion
This action us brought by Densmore individually and on behalf of the Old Doors and DMC partnerships. The jury found in favor of defendants. The court enters judgement in favor of defendants.

3. Third Cause Of Action For A Violation Of Business and Professions Code Section 17200
This action is brought by Densmore individually and on behalf of the Old Doors and DMC partnerships. It is also the Fourth Cause Of Action of the Estates. The jury found in favor of defendants. The court enters judgement in favor of defendants.

4. Fourth Cause Of Action For Breach Of Oral Partnership
This action is brought by Densmore individually and on behalf of the Old Doors and DMC partnerships. The jury found in favor defendants. The court enters judgment in favor of defendants.

5. Fifth Cause Of Action For Breach Of The 1971 New Doors Agreement
This action is brought by Densmore individually and on behalf of the Old Doors and DMC partnerships. The jury found in favor of Densmore. No damages were awarded. The court finds this is a legal claim and the jury’s verdict that there was a breach is binding on this court. Ceriale vs. Superior Court (Taback) (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 1629. 1634. This cause of action is unique to Densmore, as only he, Manzarek and Krieger were partners of the 1971 New Doors. The court agrees with the jury and finds that defendants Manzarek and Krieger breached the 1971 Agreement in two repects: (1) the 1971 agreement was not terminated in 1973, but rather in April 2003, and (2) the rule of governance for the partnership was unanimity. While the 1971 partnership existed, i.e., prior to April 18, 2003, Manzarek and Krieger needed the permission of Densmore to tour using the name The Doors. They did not secure Densmore’s permission, other than for the two Harley-Davidson concerts. The failure of Manzarek and Krieger to do so breached the written New Doors agreement, constituting the first breach.

The second breach occurred as a result of the use of the name The Doors after the New Doors agreement was terminated effect April 18, 2003. This was a violation of the post-termination prohibition of the written agreement.

Judgment is entered in favor of Densmore. The equitable remedies of disgorgement of the profits and permanent injunction are ordered.

6. Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
This action is brought by Densmore individually and on behalf of the Old Doors and DMC partnerships. The jury found in favor of Densmore. No damages were awarded. To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking equitable damages, those damages would be duplicative of those awarded in the fifth cause of action and therefore no damages are awarded on this claim.

B. The Estate’s Causes Of Action

1. First Cause Of Action For Violation Of Lanham Act
The jury found in favor of defendants. Judgment is entered in favor of defendants.

2. Second Cause Of Action For Common Law Trademark Infringement
The jury found in favor of defendants. Judgment is entered in favor of defendants.

3. Third Cause Of Action For Common Law Unfair Competition
The jury found in favor of defendants. Judgment is entered in favor of defendants.

4. Fourth Cause Of Action For Violation Of B & P Section 17200
The jury found in favor of defendants. Judgment is entered in favor of defendants.

5. Fifth Cause Of Action For Violation Of B & P Section 17500 (False Advertising)
Counsel and the court agree that this is an equitable claim, removed from the jury’s consideration. The court finds that use of the name The Doors by defendants is a violation of B & P Section 17500. By engaging in advertising which prominently displayed the logo of The Doors, in The Doors’ well-known type font, and minimizing in a different font the words “21st Century” or “of the 21st Century,” coupled with the use of the out-take photograph from the Strange Days album cover, further permitting the dissemination of radio and television ads prepared by Bill Young Productions that identified the band as The Doors and the tour as the 21st Century Live tour, the defendants have engaged in false advertising.

The court finds Manzarek and Krieger liable for false advertising. The court finds in favor of Astbury and against the Estate.

A permanent injunction shall issue in favor of the Estates and against Manzarek and Krieger enjoining them from using the name The Doors or any name containing The Doors, or using the name, voice or likeness of Jim Morrison to promote their concerts.

6. Sixth Cause Of Action For State Law Trademark Dilution In Violation Of B & P Section 14330.
The jury found in favor of defendants. The court finds is a legal claim. Judgment is entered in favor of defendants.

7. Seventh Cause Of Action For Violation Of Right To Publicity
The jury determined that the defendants Manzarek and Krieger violated the Morrisons’ and Coursons’ interest in the right under the Astaire Celebrity Image Protection Act, as codified under California Civil Code Section 3344.1. The jury also determined no liability against defendant Astbury. The court finds this is a legal claim. Abdul-Jabbar vs. GMC (9th Cir. 1985) 85 F. 3d 407, 416. Judgment is entered in favor of the Estates against defendants Manzarek and Krieger. Judgment is entered in favor of Astbury and against the Estates. In order to find defendants Manzarek and Krieger liable under that Section, the Jury had to determine the following elements: (1) that Ray Manzarek and Robby Krieger knowingly used Jim Morrison’s name, voice, photograph, likeness on merchandise or to advertise or sell products or services; (2) that Ray Manzarek and Robert Krieger’s use of Jim Morrison’s name, voice, photograph, or likeness was directly connected to Ray Manzarek and Robby Krieger’s commercial purpose; (4) that the use did not occur in connection with a news broadcast or account, a public affairs broadcast or account, a sports broadcast or account, or a political campaign; (5) that the Morrisons and Coursons were harmed; and (6) that Ray Manzarek and Robby Krieger’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the Morrisons’ and Coursons’ harm. Having necessarily found all this by their verdict, the jury did not award any monetary damages to the Morrisons and Coursons. Civil Code Section 3344.1 requires that the person who violates this Right To Publicity be liable for an amount equal to the greater of $750 or the actual damage suffered by Plaintiffs. The court requested briefing on this issue, examined the papers, and agrees with Plaintiff that under Civil Code Section 3344.1 Manzarek and Krieger must be held liable to the Estates for the statutory damages of $750. Defendants Manzarek and Krieger are enjoined from using the name, voice and likeness of Jim Morrison to promote their concerts.

8. Eight Cause Of Action For Breach Of Contract
The jury found in favor of defendants. Judgment is entered in favor of defendants.

9. Ninth Cause Of Action For Breach Of Implied In Fact Contract.
The jury found in favor of defendants. Judgment is entered in favor of defendants.

10. Tenth Cause Of Action For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
The jury found that Manzarek and Krieger breached their fiduciary duty. They awarded no damages and made no special findings.

The court finds that Densmore, Manzarek and Krieger, the Coursons and the Morrisons have treated each other as partners. With respect to the commercial opportunities of the Cadillac and Apple, the Estates’ vote and approval was sought.

The court finds importance in the fact that Manzarek sought the Estates’ alliance when he proposed a change of governance to “majority rule.” Through the actions of their advisors, the Estates have participated directly in the business of The Doors. Both business managers of The Doors, each of whom concurrently represented partners on both sides of this case, testified to their belief that the Estates were partners in those partnerships. Abe Somer concurred. Gary Stiffleman sent numerous letters to everyone accusing them of not fulfilling their fiduciary duties to their partners. No evidence was presented at trial that anyone ever corrected Stiffleman for describing the Estates as partners.

The application for registration of the name The Doors, prepared by Michael Grace, Esq., and the subsequent registrations of the name with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, acknowledge the existence of a partnership in which the Estates are partners. Manzarek, Krieger and Densmore all signed the document under penalty of perjury that this was true. Manzarek and Krieger each acknowledged that the Estates were obligated to pay their share of expenses of The Doors and receive their share of the profits of The Doors, justifying the presumption that they are partners. California Corporations Code Section 16202 c (3).

The court concludes that the Morrisons and Coursons are partners of the oral partnerships known by the parties as “Old Doors” and DMC (sharing the remaining 25% of these partnerships equally between them), each of whom currently files tax returns and issues K-1 Schedules to the partners, including the Estates. Swartz is the current accountant and business manager of these two oral partnerships.

As partners, defendants Manzarek and Krieger owed the Estates a fiduciary duty. That duty was breached. Judgment is entered in favor of the Estates. The equitable remedies of a permanent injunction and disgorgement of profits earned by Manzarek and Krieger after April 18, 2003 is ordered.

11. Eleventh Cause Of Action For Imposition Of A Constructive Trust
This equitable cause of action was not presented to the jury. The Court finds that defendants Manzarek and Krieger are required to disgorge their profits. Those profits shall, and hereby are, deemed constructively held by Manzarek and Krieger until turned over to the Old Doors Partnership pursuant to this Statement Of Decision.

12. Twelfth Cause Of Action For An Accounting
The equitable cause of action was not presented to the jury. An accounting is required in order to determine the amount of profits earned by defendants before and after April 18, 2003, the effective date of the termination of the New Doors partnership. The accounting must also update the profit information for the period after July 29, 2004, the date through which Goldman’s testimony pertained. Defendants are ordered to supply that accounting to the Court with fifteen (15) days from the date of this Statement Of Decision, after which the court will modify this Statement Of Decision accordingly.

C. Cross-Complaint Of Manzarek and Krieger Against Densmore

1. First Cause Of Action For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
The jury found Densmore liable but awarded no damages. The defendants do not seek equitable remedies and the court finds that none are appropriate for the reasons set forth below. As a result, and in the absence of any money damages, defendants have failed to demonstrate their entitlement to any relief based on this claim. Accordingly, judgment is entered in favor of Densmore.

Manzarek and Krieger urge that Densmore breached his fiduciary duty by refusing to accept the offers from Cadillac and Apple to use certain music of The Doors in television commercials. It also was asserted that such a duty was breached by Densmore’s authorship of his article in The Nation.

The music of The Doors is owned by Doors Music Co. Regardless of whether DMC has three partners (Manzarek, Krieger and Densmore) or five partners (the same three plus the two Estates), there is no circumstance in which there was sufficient votes to accept either offer for use of music in a commercial. As discussed above, Densmore and Krieger, who together own 50% of DMC, never voted to accept either offer. Densmore vetoed it. Krieger was “on the fence” leaning in support of Densmore, Whether the rule of governance was “majority rule” or unanimity, which this court finds, neither could be achieved as long as Densmore and Krieger refused to accept the offers. Whether the partners were the three of them or the three of them and the Estates, which the court finds, the result the same. Under no circumstance could the offers be accepted as long as Densmore and Krieger were not in favor, and they were not.

Assuming that only Densmore was opposed and the rule of governance of DMC was “majority rule”, the result would be the same. In those circumstances, according to Manzarek and Krieger, they would have had sufficient votes to accept the offers. But they did not accept them. The court finds that the failure to do so because of some belief that, if they did so, Densmore would sue, is not a legally sufficient basis of holding Densmore responsible for lost profits. There was no evidence that, had the offers ostensibly been “accepted” by Manzarek and Krieger, Densmore would have sued.

To the extent that this cause of action relates to Densmore’s publication if an article in The Nation, Manzarek and Krieger cannot recover equitable relief. While they proffer the argument that after reading Densmore’s article, corporate America would shun seeking the use of the music of The Doors for commercials, there is no evidence presented that such was or is the case or of any lost opportunity to license Doors music for a commercial based on The Nation article.

2. Second Cause Of Action For Breach Of The Covenant Of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
The jury found Densmore liable but awarded no damages. No equitable relief was sought by defendants and none appears appropriate. As a result, and in the absence of any money damages, defendants have failed to demonstrate their entitlement to any relief based on this claim. Accordingly, judgement is entered in favor of Densmore.

To the extent that this cause of action is intended to address the conduct of Densmore alleged to be “reneging” of his permission to allow Manzarek and Krieger to use the name The Doors after the two Harley Davidson concerts, the Court finds that Densmore never gave such unqualified consent. His consent was given conditionally, and Manzarek and Krieger failed and refused to abide by the conditions.

To the extent that this cause of action is intended to address the termination of the 1971 New Doors partnership, the Court finds no breach of duty. There is no evidence that Densmore exercised his right to terminate the at-will partnership for his personal economic gain, or that he, in fact, did personally gain from this termination.

3. Third Cause Of Action For Promissory Estoppel
The jury found against Densmore and awarded no damages. Promissory Estoppel is an equitable doctrine for which this jury’s verdict is advisory. C & K Engineering Contracts vs. Amber Steel Company, Inc. (1978) 23 Cal. 3d 1, 3. The Court finds that there was no justifiable reliance on the part of Manzarek and Krieger that Densmore “promised” Manzarek and Krieger that they could use the name The Doors for purposes of touring and performing after the two Harley Davidson concerts. Densmore actually consented to the use of the name The Doors by Manzarek and Krieger for the two Harley Davidson concerts. In fact, he considered performing until deciding that his health condition did not so permit.

The promise or consent given by Densmore was conditional. It was given on condition that (1) there be a modifier inserted in the band name to distinguish the new band from the old, and (2) that the new band not use the logo of the “Old Doors.” Manzarek did not discuss this at all with Densmore, the discussion being only with Krieger. Krieger admitted at trial that there was suppose to be a distinguishing modifier, but maybe he “didn’t get around to it.” The Court finds that there was no unconditional “promise” made by Densmore and that Manzarek and Krieger failed to satisfy the two conditions imposed by Densmore. Judgment is entered in favor of Densmore.

4. Fifth Cause Of Action For Violation Of B & P Section 17200
The jury found in favor of Densmore. Judgment is entered in favor of Densmore.

5. Sixth Cause Of Action For Declaratory Relief
This equitable cause of action was not presented to the jury. Manzarek and Krieger seek a declaration from the Court that (1) the rule of governance among them and Densmore is one of “majority rule” (although it is unclear as to what partnership this declaration is sought), (2) as between them and Densmore, Manzarek and Krieger may tour and promote themselves as The Doors or The Doors of the 21st Century, (3) said names are not likely to confuse consumers, (4) no partner of the partnership can use his vote arbitrarily to frustrate the purposes of a partnership. “and/or” (5) the partners never had a meeting of the minds as to the provisions of the Old Doors and New Doors partnership agreements.

Plaintiffs urge that the rule is one of unanimity. Manzarek and Krieger urge that it is “majority rule.” The conduct of the parties and the testimony of witnesses support the conclusion that unanimity is the rule of governance in these partnerships. The “Original Old Doors” 1966 written partnership agreement and the DMC 1969 written partnership agreement each provide that unanimity is the rule of governance in these partnership agreement each provide that unanimity was the rule while Jim Morrison was alive. This is reconfirmed by the Administration Agreement entered into the Greene. This rule was extended to the 1971 New Doors partnership after Morrison died. Evidence that the unanimity requirement was the actual practice is found by the Buick incident, and later during the Cadillac proposal through the conduct of Manzarek seeking to change the rule to a “majority rule” as reflected in his voice mail to Stiffleman.

The only suggestion to the contrary about “majority rule: comes from the defendants’ post litigation statements, but their position is belied by their own words prior to litigation. On the commentary track to The Doors Collection DVD, Manzarek admits that any member of The Doors had a veto, a statement repeated in the liner notes of his own spoken word compact disc Myth & Reality:

“The Doors all had veto power. If one guy didn’t want to do something it wasn’t done. That’s the way it always worked out with The Doors. It was a four way split of all The Doors’ money, totally democratic with veto power.”

The Court rejects the assertion that this requirement was not known to Manzarek and Krieger or that the written agreements did not accurately reflect their understanding of governance. First, these were college-educated men represented by legal counsel when the written agreements were signed.

As discussed above, as for the written 1971 partnership agreement among Densmore, Manzarek and Krieger, the rule of unanimity was plainly set forth in paragraph 6 of the agreement. This court already has found that the use of the name The Doors of the 21st Century Doors is not a name used by Manzarek and Krieger, except as a name given to Tommy Gear to prepare the logos later rejected by Manzarek in late 2002. In any event, had Manzarek and Krieger used that name instead of The Doors of the 21st Century, the decision of the court would be the same.

As for the alleged “right to tour” as The Doors or The Doors of the 21st Century, the Court has ruled previously through the granting of an injunction that Manzarek and Krieger have no such right. As for the finding that the names are not likely to confuse, the court has already ruled on that issue in the false advertising claim and through the granting of the injunction.

The Court declines to set forth a declaration whether or not a partner can use his vote in bad faith, arbitrarily, without good cause, to frustrate the purposes of the partnership. While correct, this rule of law has no application in this dispute and this court finds no such evidence of the described conduct to merit such an advisory opinion regarding potential future conduct.

As for the final matter that the parties had no meeting of the minds when the Old Doors and new Doors written partnership agreements were entered into, the Court finds no competent evidence to support such a conclusion. Manzarek’s argument that neither he nor Krieger read the agreements is unavailing and belied by the testimony of Somer. Which the court accepts as true. The court rules in favor of Densmore.

6. Seventh Cause Of Action For Reformation
This equitable cause of action was never presented to the jury. Manzarek and Krieger seek to reform the New Doors written partnership agreement, notwithstanding their position that it was terminated in 1973. Based on all of the evidence presented, the Court finds that there was no legally recognizable basis for reformatting the agreement. The parties were mature, educated men, represented by competent legal counsel when the New Doors partnership agreement was executed. Somer, their legal counsel, testified that the agreement was explained to the three of them. The provisions were substantially similar to those agreements that preceded it, including a one-page amendment to the Old Doors agreement, which amendment was executed earlier that same year. Failure to read a document, assuming arguendo that was the case, is not a viable legal justification for the Court to reform an agreement that was extant for more than 30 years. The agreement was “at will” which nobody disputes, and has been terminated. Since this court is granting the permanent injunction as to the use of the name The Doors in the future, this issue has already been resolved.

VIII. CURRENT DISPOSITION AND ORDERS OF THE COURT.


On the basis if the findings, conclusions and analysis of The Court set forth above, the Court makes the following orders:

1.With respect to complaints of Densmore/estates respectively The Court orders….

a) That defendants Manzarek & Krieger and those acting in concert with them including agents, representatives and employees be permanently enjoined from performing, touring, promoting their band, recording and otherwise holding themselves out as The Doors, The Doors of the 21st century or any other name that includes the words The Doors without written consent of all the partners of Old Doors deemed to be Krieger, Manzarek, Densmore, Morrison’s and Courson’s.

b ) All profits earned by Manzarek and Krieger from touring, performing and recording as The Doors or The Doors of the 21st century (including merchandising income) be immediately divested of defendants and turned over to plaintiff Densmore and Old Doors to be disbursed as follows..

1. One third of all profits from Jan 1st 2003 to April 18th 2003 be delivered to Densmore

2. All profits (as defined above) after April 18th be turned over to Old Doors partnership.

c) that 30 days from the date of this statement defendants are to appear and present testimony and evidence demonstrating all profits earned by defendants
from and after June 30 2003 and all profits earned by defendants prior to April 18 2003.

d) following the hearing ordered above the Court will issue an additional order reflecting the proper distribution of any additional money that remains to be turned over if any.

Manzarek and Krieger shall be and hereby are permanently enjoined from using the name, likeness, voice or image of Jim Morrison to promote their band or concerts.

2. With regards to cross complaint of Manzarek and Krieger The Court orders that said cross complainants take nothing as a result of their claims.

3. All causes brought by Densmore against Astbury have been decided by the jury or The Court in favour of Astbury.

All causes brought by the Estates against Astbury have been decided by the jury or The Court in favour of Astbury

4. All causes brought by Densmore against Doors Touring Inc have been decided by the jury or The Court in favour of Doors Touring Inc

5. This Statement of Decision shall be placed and recorded in the court files of each of the two cases consolidated for trial.

6. Counsel for Plaintiffs in each case shall prepare a proposed form of judgement and submit it to The Court within 10 days of the Final Statement of Decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated May---- 2005
Hon. Gregory W. Alarcon
Superior Court Judge

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

As a direct result of Ray and Robby continuing to use The Doors name for thier band after the proposed decision was published Judge Alarcon rushed ahead and made his decision final on July 21st 2005 with the following rider to his original statement.

UPDATE TO THE STATEMENT OF DECISION JULY 21 2005.
****The document remains intact with no changes with the exception of the following modification on July 21 2005. The Statement Of Decision is now final as of July 21 2005.****

For the reasons set forth in this Court's Statement Of Decision dated
May____, 2005, the Court issues the following Order:

Effective immediately, Defendants Raymond Manzarek and Robert Krieger, and
those acting inc concert with them, including their agents, representatives
and employees are hereby permanently enjoined from performing, touring,
promoting their band (including the sale of merchandise or the use of
advertisements or web pages), recording, and otherwise holding themselves
out as The Doors, The Doors of the 21st Century, or using any other name
that includes the words The Doors, without the written consent of all of the
parties of the Old Doors partnership, which partners today are John
Densmore, Ray Manzarek, Robert Krieger, George and Clara Morrison, and Pearl
and Columbus Courson.

Effective immediately, defendants Raymond Manzarek and Robert Krieger are
hereby permanently enjoined from using the name, likeness, voice or image of
Jim Morrison to promote their band or their concerts.

It is so ordered.

Dated May ____, 2005

Hon. Gregory Alarcon
Judge of the Superior Court

A permanent injunction was issued the same day.

FILED

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUL 21 2005

John A. Clarke, Clerk
By B, Gregg, Deputy


SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

ORDER RE PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Dept 36
Judge: Gregory W. Alarcon

Case No. BC 289730
BC 294495

JOHN DENSMORE, individually and on behalf of California general partnership comprised of John Densmore, the Estate of Jam es Morrison, and the Estate of Pamela Courson, Raymond Manzarek and Robert Krieger,

Plaintiff,

Vs.

RAYMOND MANZAREK, an individual; ROBERT KRIEGER, an individual; IAN ASTBURY, an individual; DOORS TOURING, INC., a California corporation; and Does 1 through 20 inclusive,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS ACTION

PEARL COURSON, individually and as guardian ad litem for COLUMBUS COURSON, each on behalf of the DOORS MUSIC CO., a California general partnership and on behalf of THE DOORS, a California general partnership, and GEORGE MORRISON and CLARA MORRISON, each on behalf of the DOORS MUSIC CO., a California general partnership and on behalf of the DOORS, a California general partnership, and PEARL COURSON, individually and as guardian ad litem for COLUMBUS COURSON, and GEORGE MORRISON and CLARA MORRISON, individually with respect to the seventh cause of action,

Plaintiffs.


For the reasons set forth in this Court's Statement Of Decision dated July 21, 2005 the Court issues the following Order:

Effective immediately, Defendants Raymond Manzarek and Robert Krieger, and
those acting inc concert with them, including their agents, representatives
and employees are hereby permanently enjoined from performing, touring,
promoting their band (including the sale of merchandise or the use of
advertisements or web pages), recording, and otherwise holding themselves
out as The Doors, The Doors of the 21st Century, or using any other name
that includes the words The Doors, without the written consent of all of the
parties of the Old Doors partnership, which partners today are John
Densmore, Ray Manzarek, Robert Krieger, George and Clara Morrison, and Pearl
and Columbus Courson.

Effective immediately, defendants Raymond Manzarek and Robert Krieger are
hereby permanently enjoined from using the name, likeness, voice or image of
Jim Morrison to promote their band or their concerts.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 21st day of July 2005.

Hon. Gregory Alarcon
Judge of the Superior Court

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

A Judgment was then filed on November 21 2005

FILED

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT Nov 21 2005
JOHN A CLARKE, CLERK
BY B. GREGG, DEPUTY

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Case No. BC 289730
BC 294495
JUDGEMENT
JOHN DENSMORE, individually and on behalf of California general partnership comprised of John Densmore, the Estate of Jam es Morrison, and the Estate of Pamela Courson, Raymond Manzarek and Robert Krieger,

Plaintiff,

Vs.

RAYMOND MANZAREK, an individual; ROBERT KRIEGER, an individual; IAN ASTBURY, an individual; DOORS TOURING, INC., a California corporation; and Does 1 through 20 inclusive,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS ACTION

PEARL COURSON, individually and as guardian ad litem for COLUMBUS COURSON, each on behalf of the DOORS MUSIC CO., a California general partnership and on behalf of THE DOORS, a California general partnership, and GEORGE MORRISON and CLARA MORRISON, each on behalf of the DOORS MUSIC CO., a California general partnership and on behalf of the DOORS, a California general partnership, and PEARL COURSON, individually and as guardian ad litem for COLUMBUS COURSON, and GEORGE MORRISON and CLARA MORRISON, individually with respect to the seventh cause of action,

Plaintiffs.


This action, consolidated for trial with its related case, came on regularly for trial, commencing on June 28, 2004 in Department 36 of the above-entitled Court.

On September 27, 2004, the jury reached a general verdict on the various causes of action submitted to them. For the reasons set forth in this Court’s Statement of Decision of July 21, 2005, and the general verdict of the jury, to the extent modified by the Statement of Decision, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, ORDERED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:

I. ON DENSMORE’S CAUSES OF ACTION:

A. On Densmore’s First Cause Of Action For Violation of the Lanham Act, brought individually and on behalf of the Doors Music Co. Partnership and the Old Doors Partnership, the jury found in favor of defendants. Judgment is entered in favor of the defendants Manzarek, Krieger, Astbury and DTI.

B. On Densmore’s Second Cause Of Action for Common Law Unfair Competition, brought individually and on behalf of the Doors Music Co. Partnership and the Old Doors Partnership, the jury found in favor of defendants. Judgment is entered in favor of the defendants Manzarek, Krieger, Astbury, and DTI.

C. On Densmore’s Third Cause Of Action for Violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200, brought individually and on behalf of the Doors Music Co. Partnership and the Old Doors Partnership, the jury found in favor of defendants. Judgment is entered in favor of the defendants Manzarek, Krieger, Astbury, and DTI.

D. On Densmore’s Fourth Cause Of Action for Breach of Oral Partnership brought individually and on behalf of the Doors Music Co. Partnership and the Old Doors Partnership, the jury found in favor of the defendants Manzarek, Krieger, Astbury and DTI.

E. On Densmore’s Fifth Cause Of Action For Breach of the 1971 New Doors Agreement, brought individually and on behalf of the Doors Music Co. Partnership and the Old Doors Partnership, the jury found in favor of Densmore. Judgment is entered in favor of Densmore. As a result thereof, the Court issues the permanent injunction described in Section IV.1 hereof. In addition, Manzarek and Krieger shall pay to Densmore, by way of disgorgement, the amount that is subsequently determined by the Court pursuant to Section V of this Judgment.

F. On Densmore’s Sixth Cause of Action For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty, brought individually and on behalf of the Doors Music Co. Partnership and the Old Doors Partnership, the jury found in favor of defendants. Judgment is entered in favor of Densmore, on his behalf and on behalf of the Old Doors Partnership (whose partners are John Densmore, Columbus and Pearl Courson and George and Clara Morrison, Raymond Manzarek and Robert Krieger). As a result thereof, the Court issues the permanent injunction described in Section IV.1, hereof. In addition, Manzarek and Krieger shall pay to Densmore and the Old Doors Partnership (as defined herein) the amounts that are subsequently determined by the Court pursuant to Section V of this Judgment.

II. ON THE ESTATES’ CAUSE OF ACTION:


A. On the Estates’ First Cause Of Action For Violation of the Lanham Act, brought by Plaintiffs Columbus and Pearl Courson and Plaintiffs George and Clara Morrison (collectively referred to as the “Estates”) brought on behalf of the Doors Music Co. Partnership and the Old Doors Partnership, the jury found in favor of Manzarek, Krieger and Astbury.

B. On the Estates’ Second Cause Of Action for Common Law Trademark Infringement, the jury found in favor of Manzarek, Krieger, and Astbury. Judgement is entered in favor of Manzarek, Krieger and Astbury.

C. On the Estates’ Third Cause Of Action For Common Law Unfair Competition, the jury found in favor of Manzarek, Krieger, and Astbury. Judgment is entered in favor of Manzarek, Krieger and Astbury.

D. On the Estates’ Fourth Cause Of Action For Violation Of Business & Professions Code Section 17200, the jury found in favor of Manzarek, Krieger and Astbury. Judgment is entered in favor of Manzarek, Krieger and Astbury.

E. On the Estates’ Fifth Cause Of Action For Violation Of Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (False Advertising), brought on behalf of the Doors Music Co. Partnership and the Old Doors Partnership, judgment is entered in favor of the Estates as to defendants Manzarek and Krieger and in favor of defendant Astbury. As a result thereof, the Court issues a permanent injunction described in Sections IV.1 and IV.2, hereof.

F. On the Estates’ Sixth Cause Of Action For State Law Trademark Dilution in Violation of Business & Professions Code Section 14330, brought on behalf of the Doors Music Co. Partnership and the Old Doors Partnership, the jury found in favor of defendants. Judgment is entered in favor of Manzarek, Krieger and Astbury.

G. On the Estates’ Seventh Cause Of Action For Violation Of The Right To Publicity, brought individually against defendants Manzarek, Krieger and Astbury, judgment is entered in favor of the Estates as to Manzarek and Krieger, and in favor of defendant Astbury. As a result thereof, the Court issues the permanent injunction described in Section IV.2, hereof. In addition, pursuant to Section 3344.1 of the California Civil Code, Manzarek and Krieger shall pay the Estates statutory damages in the total sum of $750.00.

H. On the Estates’ Eight Cause Of Action For Breach Of Contract, brought on behalf of the Doors Music Co. Partnership and the Old Doors Partnership, the jury found in favor of defendants Manzarek and Krieger. Judgment is entered in favor of Manzarek and Krieger.

I. On the Estates’ Ninth Cause Of Action For Breach Of Implied In Fact Contract, brought on behalf of the Doors Music Co. Partnership and the Old Doors Partnership, the jury found in favor of defendants Manzarek and Krieger. Judgment is entered in favor of Manzarek and Krieger.

J. On Estates’ Tenth Cause Of Action For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty, brought on behalf of the Doors Music Co. Partnership and the Old Doors Partnership, the jury found in favor of the Estates. Judgment is entered in favor of the Estates. Specifically, it is adjusted and determined that the Estates are partners of the oral partnerships known by the parties as the “Old Doors” and “Doors Music Co.”, and that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the Estates. The Court further finds that the “Old Doors” and “Doors Music Co.” Partnerships are governed by a rule of unanimous agreement when voting on partnership matters. In connection with this cause of action, the Court issues the permanent injunction described in Sections IV.1 and IV.2, hereof and orders the disgorgement described in Section V. hereof.

K. On the Estates’ Eleventh Cause Of Action For Imposition of Constructive Trust, brought on behalf of the Doors Music Co. Partnership and the Old Doors Partnership, judgment is entered in favor of the Estates against Manzarek and Krieger and judgment is entered in favor of Astbury. The Court’s judgment is that a constructive trust shall be, and hereby is, imposed on all profits earned by Manzarek and Krieger from and after April 18 2003, from touring (including the sale of merchandise, television rights, compact discs and DVDs), performing, and recording as The Doors or The Doors of the 21st Century. The definition of profits, and the amount thereof, shall be determined by the Court as set forth in Section V. hereof.

L. On the Estates’ Twelfth Cause Of Action For An Accounting, brought on behalf of the Doors Music Co. Partnership and the Old Doors Partnership against Manzarek and Krieger and judgment is entered in favor of Astbury. The Court’s judgment is that an accounting shall be, and hereby is, ordered to determine all profits earned by Manzarek and Krieger from and after April 18 2003 and from touring (including the sale of merchandise, television rights, compact disks and DVDs), performing, and recording as, The Doors or The Doors of the 21st Century. The definition of profits, the amount thereof, and the procedure for the accounting, shall be followed and determined as set forth in Section V hereof.

III. MANZAREK AND KRIEGER’S CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE CROSS-COMPLAINT:

A. On Manzarek and Krieger’s First Cause Of Action For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty against Densmore, the jury found Densmore liable but awarded no damages. Judgment is entered in favor of Densmore.

B. On Manzarek and Krieger’s Second Cause Of Action For Breach Of The Covenant Of Good Faith and Fair Dealing against Densmore, the jury found Densmore liable but awarded no damages. Judgment is entered in favor of Desmore.

C. On Manzarek and Krieger’s Third Cause Of Action For Promissory Estoppel against Densmore, the jury found Densmore liable but awarded no damages. Judgment is entered in favor of Densmore.

D. On Manzarek and Krieger’s Fifth Cause Of Action For Violation Of California Business & Professions Section 17200, the jury found in favor of Densmore. Judgment is entered in favor of Densmore.

E. On Manzarek and Krieger’s Sixth Cause Of Action For Declaratory Relief, the Court enters judgment as follows with regard to the rights and obligations of the parties:

1. The name The Doors was owned by the Old Doors Partnership, and now is owned by a partnership whose partners today are Densmore, Manzarek, Krieger, Columbus and Pearl Courson, and George and Clara Morrison (hereinafter the “Old Doors Partnership”);

2. The name The Doors has never been abandoned by the Old Doors Partnership, or its predecessor or affiliates, for any purpose whatsoever, including, but not limited to, performing, recording or merchandising and remained a strong mark for other purposes related to the music of The Doors. The Doors have not cause the name The Doors to become generic and/or otherwise lose its significance;

3. The rule of governance of the Old Doors Partnership and the Doors Music Co. Partnership is by the rule of unanimous agreement among all the parties. Each of the Estates, Columbus and Pearl Courson on the one hand, and George and Clara Morrison, on the other hand, possesses a half-vote. The Estates would have to unanimously oppose an action or business opportunity to prevent the others from accepting it;

4. Without the written permission of all of the partners of the Old Doors partnership, Manzarek and Krieger have no right to perform and tour in a band called The Doors or The Doors of the 21st Century or any band that includes the word “Doors,” and no such permission has been given for any concert performance from and after December 31, 2002;

5. At the time Densmore, Manzarek and Krieger entered into the written partnership agreements among them in 1971 (being the original agreement dated as of January 1, 1967, and its amendment, and the agreement dated as of October 1, 1971) there was a clear meeting of the minds, and the agreements are enforceable;


F. On Manzarek and Krieger’s Seventh Cause Of Action For Reformation against Densmore, the Court finds no legally recognizable basis for reforming the agreement among the parties, and enters judgment in favor of Denmore.


IV. ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION


1. Defendants Manzarek and Krieger, and those acting in concert with them, including their agent, representatives, and employees, are permanently enjoined from performing, touring, promoting their band, recording, and otherwise holding themselves out as The Doors, The Doors of the 21st Century, or any other name that includes the words The Doors without the written consent of all of the partners of the Old Doors, which partners today are Densmore, Manzarek, Krieger, the Morrisons and the Coursons.

2. This injunction does not prevent Manzarek and Krieger from identifying themselves as the founding or original members of The Doors as long as: 1) the names Manzarek and Krieger be listed first either to the left or above any other wording, 2) the words “original” or “founding” and “members of The Doors” are in the same or smaller type font size than the names Manzarek and Krieger, and 3) the name “The Doors” is not displayed in the classic Doors logo, which is the round letters with the diagonal intersections and the “wavy gravy” font for the word “the” displayed on the Doors’ debut record in 1967, or any font similar in style to the classic Doors logo.

3. Defendants Manzarek and Krieger, and those acting in concert with them, including their agents, representatives, and employees, are permanently enjoined from using the name, voice, likeness, or image of Jim Morrison to promote any concerts performed or to be performed by them.


V. ORDER OF ACCOUNTING AND DISGORGEMENT OF PROFITS IN FAVOR OF DENSMORE AND THE ESTATES:


1. All profits (meaning all revenues less operating expenses other than legal fees for the defense of this litigation and salaries to any defendant herein) earned by Manzarek and Krieger from touring, performing, and recording as The Doors or The Doors of the 21st Century (including merchandising income and income from Diamond Night Productions, LLC) be immediately divested of Manzarek and Krieger and turned over to Densmore and the Old Doors Partnership, as described below. The profits are to be distributed as follows:

(a) One-third of all profits (as defined above) from January 1, 2003 through April 18, 2003, be delivered to Densmore; and
(B ) All profits (as defined above) after April 18, 2003 to be turned over to the Old Doors Partnership.


VI. ADDITIONAL MATTERS


1. Manzarek and Krieger shall pay Densmore costs in the amount of $______________________________.

2. Manzarek and Krieger shall pay to Densmore attorney’s fees in the amount of $______________________________,

3. Manzarek and Krieger shall pay the Estates costs in the amount of $______________________________.

4. Manzarek and Krieger shall pay to the Estates attorney’s fees in the amount of $____________________________.

5. The Estates shall pay to Astbury costs in the amount of $______________________________.

6. The Estates shall pay to Astbury attorney’s fees in the amount of $______________________________.

7. The Estates shall pay to Doors Touring, Inc. costs in the amount of $______________________________.

8. Densmore shall pay to Doors Touring, Inc. costs in the amount of $______________________________.

9. Densmore shall pay to Astbury costs in the amount of $______________________________.



IT IS SO ORDERED.


DATED: November 21, 2005

By: Hon. Gregory W. Alarcon
Superior Court Judge

NOTE: There is NO Fourth Case of action stated in this document under section III “MANZAREK AND KRIEGER’S CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE CROSS-COMPLAINT.”

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

This document was a Densmore/Estate objection to the initial accounting made by the defendants Krieger/Manzarek in August 2005.


FILED LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
AUG 22 2005

JOHN A CLARKE, CLERK


SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Case No. BC289730
Complaint filed 2/4/03

Consolidated with
Case No. BC294495

Complaint filed 4/23/03
Assigned to Hon. Gregory Alarcon

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS “ACCOUNTING”, AND PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR GROSS RECEIPTS

Hearing:
Date: September 16, 2005
Time: 8:30am
Dept: 36

JOHN DENSMORE, individually and on behalf of California general partnerships comprised of John Densmore, the Estate of Jam es Morrison, the Estate of Pamela Courson, Raymond Manzarek and Robert Krieger.

Plaintiff,

Vs.

RAYMOND MANAREK, an individual; ROBERT KRIEGER, an individual; IAN ASTBURY, an individual’ DOORS TOURING, INC., a California corporation; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION.

PEARL COURSON, individually and as guardian ad litem for COLUMBUS COURSON, each on behalf of the DOORS MUSIC CO., a California general partnership and on behalf of THE DOORS, a California general partnership, and GEORGE MORRISON and CLARA MORRISON, each and on behalf of the DOORS MUSIC CO., a California general partnership, ad PEARL COURSON, individually and as guardian ad litem for COLUMBUS COURSON, and GEORGE MORRISON, and CLARA MORRISON, individually with respect to the seventh cause of action,

Plaintiffs,

Vs.

RAYMOND MANZAREK, ROBERT KRIEGER, IAN ASTBURY, THE DOORS TOURING COMPANY, a California entity of unknown form, and DOES 1 through 500, Inclusive,

Defendants.



TABLE OF CONTENTS



I. Introduction

II. The Court’s Statement Of Decision and the Accounting To Be Provided By Defendants

III. The So-Called “Accounting” Provided By Defendants

A. What Was Produced By Defendants

B. The “Objection” Of Plaintiffs

IV. Defendants Manzarek and Krieger has refused to present evidence of the profits earned from touring and related activities and may not now claim any deductions for operating expenses.

A. Defendants’Failure To Produce An Accounting In Response To The Court’s order Warrants An Award To Plaintiffs Of Defendants’ Gross Receipts.

B. Application Of Precisely the Same Analysis In Copyright Law

C. The Amount Due Densmore

V. Defendants Request To Pay Only 50% of the amount to be disgorged is disingenuous and should be denied

VI. Conclusion






I. INTRODUCTION

In what only can be described as arrogance, intellectual dishonesty, unbashed disdain for the Court’s Statement of Decision, and/or poor litigation tactics, in response to the Court’s Order that they supply evidence of profits (as defined by the Court), Defendants Manzarek and Krieger have filed and served a pathetic excuse for an “accounting.” At best it is an embarrassment, at worst an insult. In either event, it is a far cry from what the Court sought. Plantiffs and the Court are unable even to make the complete profit calculation contemplated.

Given the Defendants’ conscious tactic not to comply with the Court’s Order, and their resulting “failure of proof” on this issue and the amount of relevant operating expenses to be deducted from the gross receipts of the Defendants’ performances and related activities, Plaintiffs request that the Court make its profitability determination based soley on the evidence of revenues generated as a result of the performing and related activities of the Defendants, as presented at trial, and the Court’s summary of that evidence in its Statement Of Decision (See Paragraph 32 thereof). Defendants Manzarek and Krieger, have elected not to account for profits or identify their operating expenses, ought to now be determined to be liable to Plaintiffs for the gross revenues received by them and their companies from all sources related to the activities of their band from and after January 1, 2003. This is precisely the lesson of the Court Of Appeal Decision in Rosenfield, Meyer & Sussman v. Cohen, 191 Cal. App. 3d 1035, 1050-53 (1087).



II. THE COURT’S STATEMENT OF DECISION AND THE ACCOUNTING TO BE PROVIDED BY DEFENDANTS


Regardless of whether or not the Defendants agree with it, the Court’s Statement of Decision is a resounding victory for Plaintiffs John Densmore and the Estates. The Court concluded that by virtue of their unauthorized use of the name The Doors, an asset belonging to the Old Doors Partnership, with a limited license to the 1971 “New Doors” Partnership while it was extant, Manzarek and Krieger, inter alia, (1) breached the written 1071 partnership agreement with Densmore in two distinct respects, (2) by their misappropriation of a partnership asset, i.e. the name “The Doors”, breached their fiduciary duties to Densmore and the Estates as partners of the partnership that owns the name “The Doors”, and (3) must account to the Plaintiffs for the “profits” earned from the touring and related activities of their band, without permitting deductions for legal fees or the salaries paid to any defendant in this case.

The Court’s conclusion regarding restitutionary disgorgement, and the Jury’s earlier finding of liability, is consistent with Special Instruction No. 4, directing that a partner’s duty of loyalty includes “the duty to account to the partnership and hold as trustee for it any property, profit, or benefit made from a use of partnership property….” (Emphasis supplied). This instruction tracks the language of California Corporations Code 16404 (B ) )1).

That the Court intended Manzarek and Krieger to “account” to the Plaintiffs for all profits and benefits resulting from their illegal touring activities, regardless of the corporate or other vehicle into which the receipts may have been deposited at their direction, is evident from the Statement Of Decision itself. Paragraph 32 of the Statement of Decision recites that more than $8,000,000 or revenue and $2,700,000 of profit was realized in just the approximate initial two years of doing business as a band (ignoring what has been done in the past year), plus additional foreign tax credits of $260,000 and $275,000 from Diamond Night, LLC. That the liability of Manzarek and Krieger was to include all profits and benefits realized, regardless of the identity of the entity which received them, is equally clear, The Court’s definition of “profits” fro this accounting purpose, excludes compensation paid to any Defendant, and also excludes a deduction for the millions of dollars in legal fees incurred in this litigation, which fees were paid by Doors Touring, Inc., a company owned solely by Manzarek and Krieger. See paragraph 23 of Goldman’s declaration.

Defendants were ordered to account and demonstrate the profits earned from and after June 30, 2003, and all profits earned to April 18, 2003. The purpose of the upcoming “accounting hearing” is to determine the amount of “profit” and benefit derived from the misappropriation of the partnership’s assets so that it can be restored to the Old Doors Partnership or Densmore, as appropriate. For Defendants now to suggest that the amount of the profit and benefit received by Manzarek and Krieger is less than $1,500,000 when the Defendants have had, inter alia, millions of dollars of litigation attorney fees paid for them, is ludicrous and a blatant disregard of the Court’s decision. This $1,500,000 figure is $1,300,000 less than the $2,800,000 of profits preliminarily identified by the Court in its Statement Of Decision (see paragraph 32), which dealt only with the first 20 months or so of touring.

The Court’s definition of “profits” contemplates identifying gross revenue from performing and related activities, and identification by Defendants of appropriate operating expenses in connection with the generation of that revenue, which definition specifically prohibits the inclusion in operating expenses of compensation to the Defendants and the litigation fees incurred in this case. As discussed hereinafter, the “accounting” provided by Defendants does not identify any operating expenses. In response to the Court’s Order to ignore the compensation paid to the Defendants, Defendants, principally in the form of pay checks (complete with withholding information). For the Defendants now to ignore the Court’s Statement Of Decision and provide only the limited compensation information described hereinafter, which is nothing more than compensation information which the Court expressly directed be excluded as a deductible item, is just plain outrageous and insulting to everyone else involved in this litigation. The Defendants must bear the burden of their litigation tactic to ignore the Court’s Order to produce operating expense figures that might be offset against gross receipts. As a consequence of their failure of proof, they should not be entitled to deduct anything from the gross revenues.

III. THE SO-CALLED ‘ACCOUNTING’ PROVIDED BY DEFENDANTS

A. What Was Produced By Defendants

The “accounting” produced by Defendants consists solely of an identification of amounts received directly by Manzarek and Krieger, principally as salary. The Court and Plaintiffs have been provided with a declaration from Mr Goldman identifying the checks and compensation received directly by Manzarek and Krieger from Doors Touring, Inc. (principally paychecks complete with SDI and FICA withholding, and Subchapter “S” distributions), some distribution information from their LLC, and two wire transfers to each from European promoters. Defendants then submit that their “profits” (i.e. salary received) totaled $188,000 from January 1, 2003 through April 18, 2003 (Exhibit A to Goldman declaration), and $1,392,053 thereafter (Exhibit B to Goldman declaration). Exhibits C and D to Mr Goldman’s declaration reflect that the compensation from Doors Touring, Inc. are paychecks, with appropriate withholdings – precisely the type of compensation which the Court indicated was of no moment.

Equally important is the fact that in paragraph 23 of his declaration Mr Goldman states that neither Manzarek nor Krieger paid any of the legal fees in this case, which is consistent with his testimony at trial that the fees were paid by Doors Touring, Inc.

Although many of the revenues relating to that band’s activities have been identified by the Court in paragraph 32 of its Statement Of Decision, in response to the Court’s Order for an accounting the Defendants have not identified a single additional dollar of revenue from those activities. Not a single operating expense of the touring and related activities of “The Doors of the 21st Century” has been provided in response to the Court’s ordered accounting.

B. The “Objection” of Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs “object” to the “accounting” provided, to the extent Plaintiffs are required to do so, on the ground that it wholly fails to comply with the Court’s Order. The “accounting” is the worst form of “game playing.” There is virtually no way, from what was provided by Defendants, to determine the requisite profit calculations as defined and requested by the Court. The objection is made to document Plaintiffs’ acknowledgement of the Defendants’ refusal to comply with the Court’s Order. As for the consequence of the Defendants’ refusal, as discussed below, Plaintiffs accept the Defendants’ “failure of proof” on the issue of operating expenses of the tour and related activities. Plaintiffs believe that as a result of the refusal of Defendants to present evidence of operating expenses, the liability of Manzarek and Krieger should be established at not less than $10,035,000. Anything less rewards them for their arrogance and refusal to comply with the Court’s Order and makes a mockery of these proceedings.

IV. DEFENDANTS MANZAREK AND KRIEGER HAVE REFUSED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF THE PROFITS EARNED FROM TOURING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES AND MAY NOT CLAIM ANY DEDUCTION FOR OPERATING EXPENSES.

Plaintiffs are not required now to opine whether Defendants are playing games, are lazy, make poor strategic decisions, or just do no care to present the evidence and accounting ordered by the Court. Suffice it to say that the Court already is aware that there has been generated by the touring and related activities of “The Doors of the 21st Century” and its predecessor, for at least the first 20 months commencing January 2003, gross revenues of not less than $9,500,000 plus tax credits to Manzarek and Krieger and Diamond Night earnings of not less than $535,000 (see paragraph 32 of the Statement Of Decision). Given Defendants refusal to present any evidence of any operating expenses pertaining to touring and related activities, Plaintiffs believe that there is a complete “failure of proof” on the part of Defendants. In light of the Defendants’ decision, Plaintiffs contend that the amount for which Manzarek and Krieger should be liable is $10,035,000 (the amount of revenue already acknowledged by the Court), plus any additional gross revenues that are presented or disclosed at the hearing on September 16. This is the sum of the revenues known to the Court as of the date of its Statement of Decision, and as to which Defendants have not now presented a single off setting operating expense to be considered by the Court or the Plaintiffs.

A. Defendants’ Failure To Produce An Accounting In Response To The Court’s Order Warrants An Award To Plaintiffs Of Defendants’ Gross Receipts.

The Court has ruled that the Defendants must be liable for all of the profits and benefits they have realized as a result of the misappropriation of the partnership’s asset, i.e., the name The Doors, consistent with Corporation Code 15404 (B ) (1). Section 16404(B ) (1) of the Corporations Code, provides that a partner has the duty “to account to the partnership and hold as trustee for it any property, profit, or benefit derived….from a use by the partner of partnership property…” It is the Defendants’ burden and duty to account.

Where a Defendant has been ordered and fails to account for profits, benefits, and expenses within his exclusive control and knowledge, the court is empowered to base its award upon gross receipts. That is the holding of Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman v. Cohen, 191 Cal. App. 3d 1035, 1050-53 Cal. Rptr. 14 (1987). In upholding the trial court’s use of a “gross revenue” calculation of profits for distribution among a firm and its departing partners, the Court of Appeal in Rosenfeld was presented with strikingly similar facts to the case at bar. Among the many issues on appeal was that portion of the judgment concerning how profits would be distributed among the partnership and the departing partners on entertainment projects negotiated by the firm prior to its dissolution. Although it would have been a simple matter for the partnership to provide an accounting that differentiated percentage fees according to projects commenced before and after dissolution, the partnership declined to do so. Instead, the trial court concluded, the partnership had deliberately established a method of accounting to frustrate the departing partners’ ability to prove their share of business income.

Based on its analysis of the trial court record, and relying on the “duty to account” obligation of a partner, reflected in the predecessor to Corporations Code 16404, the Rosenfeld Court stated,

“(t)he position of (the firm) was not unlike that of other trustees who fail to keep proper records of the dates and amounts of receipts and expenses; such fiduciaries have the burden of establishing that data and, upon their failure to do so, a computation may be made on the basis of gross receipts, even though that approach is unfavorable to them.” (Emphasis supplied). 191 Cal. App. 3d at 1051.

Citing Larkin v. Jesburg, 191 Cal. App. 2d 272, 277, 12 Cal. Rptr. 655 (1961) (partner cannot escape liability by failing to reproduce records or testimony to account for funds chargeable to him); Kennard v. Glick 183 Cal. App. 2d 246, 250, 7 Cal. Rptr. 88 (1960) (an agent who fails to keep an account creates a presumption against himself, and brings upon the burden of accounting for all that comes into his hands); and Purdy v. Johnson, 174. Cal. 521, 530, 163 P. 893 (1917) (trustees are obligated to render full account of their dealings, and where there has been a failure to keep trust records, or a refusal account, all presumptions will be against trustee). In upholding the trial court’s award of fees on a “gross receipts” basis, the Court of Appeal in Rosenfeld reasoned,

Surely where a fiduciary has a legal duty to allocate receipts between those in which its beneficiary has some interest and those in which the beneficiary has none, and is fully and singularly capable of making that allocation but fails to do so, a court is justified in calling upon the fiduciary to bear the burden of differentiation at trial. This is true, a fortiori, where the fiduciary’s failure is deliberate and for the purpose of frustrating recovery by the beneficiary.

Id at 1051-52

Here, Defendants’ failure to comply with the Courts’ Order is even more egregious. Defendants not only have the statutory obligation to account, they were specifically ordered by this Court to render an accounting of all profits and benefits, together with any operating expenses, by August 16, 2005. Defendants have submitted an accounting that consists solely of an identification of amounts received by Manzarek and Krieger, principally as salary. Unlike the Rosenfeld firm, which claimed it was not capable of making a distinction between profits earned prior to or after dissolution, it is beyond dispute that Defendants have the requisite books and records to satisfy their accounting obligations to the Court and to Plaintiffs. Their failure to provide this information is simply a continuation of the sharp tactics and gamesmanship that have been Defendants’ modus operandi throughout this action. Their willful disregard of and disrespect for this Court’s ruling, amounts to a wholesale failure of proof, and on that basis Plaintiffs and their partnership should be awarded the gross receipts derived from Defendants’ use of the name The Doors.

Rosenfeld is strikingly similar to this case for yet another reason. There, after being faced with the dire consequence of their unsuccessful “hide the ball” litigation tactic regarding the required accounting, which is what Defendants have done here, Rosenfeld sought to reopen the evidence two months after the Statement Of Decision but before entry of judgment, so that it could provide the very data it previously refused to give. In affirming the trial court’s exercise of discretion in denying the motion to reopen the evidence, the Court said,

“The Court concluded that the failure to introduce evidence on the (accounting) issue was neither inadvertent nor excusable, but was the product of a knowing and informed choice of trial tactics.” 191 Cal. App 3d at 1052-53

This is precisely the situation now before the Court. Defendants should now be stuck with their decision not to provide the accounting information requested. They made their bed, and now they should be forced to sleep in it.

B. Application Of Precisely The Same Analysis In Copyright Law.

While Plaintiffs recognize that the instant litigation is not a copyright infringement action, the law regarding the determination of profits in that arena, albeit statutory, is remarkably similar and illustrative. Under Federal law, copyright infringers may be liable to the copyright owner for all profits realized from their unlawful activity. There, the burden of the plaintiff is to introduce evidence of the Defendants’ gross revenues from the infringing activity. It then is the burden of the infringer/wrongdoer to establish relevant and applicable expenses to be deducted from those revenues in determining the amount of profits to which the plaintiff is entitled. See 17 USC 504: Frank Music Corp. vs. MGM, 772 F2d 505, 514-515 (9th Cir. 1985).

The rationale of the copyright law is precisely the same as that which applies to a partnership’s entitlement to profits and benefits as a result of a partner’s misappropriation of assets.

C. The Amount Due Densmore

The Court ordered disgorgement in favor of Densmore of one-third of the amount of profits earned from January 1, 2003 to April 18, 2003. This consisted of six performances. As discussed above the Defendants’ failure of proof of any operating expenses during that period, Densmore should receive one-third of the gross receipts from those concerts. Exhibit 163, the Agency Group’s “Finals By Artist” report, reflects that the gross receipts after taxes received by DTI for those six performances was $1,361,826.00. For sake of simplicity, and because of the inability to calculate merchandise revenues from those six shows, Densmore is willing to accept from Defendants one-third of the content receipts for those six concerts, as defined on Exhibit 163 or $453,942.00.

V. DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO PAY ONLY 50% OF THE AMOUNT TO BE DISGORGED IS DISINGENUOUS AND SHOULD BE DENIED

Defendants urge that they should be obligated to pay to the Old Doors Partnership (whose partners are Densmore, Manzarek, Krieger and the Estates) only 50% of that partnership and will simply get back. In their words. “(f)rom an accounting standpoint, it would be superfluous to obligate Manzarek and Krieger to make payments of 100% of the disgorged amount to the Old Doors Oral Partnership, only to have 50% returned to them.” And they urge that from a “legal perspective” the Plaintiffs only can recover the “specific loss which each has suffered.”

What the Defendants conveniently ignore is that (1) the actions were brought individually and on behalf of the partnership, which the Court acknowledged by ordering the disgorgement in favor of the Old Doors Partnership, and (2) that the partnership is a distinct legal entity, with its own powers, rights and obligations. The fact that the funds are paid to a partnership does not necessarily mean that the funds are automatically or immediately disbursed to its partners. It is operating for the partnership, to be used and disbursed as the partnership deems best.

VI. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth, and especially given Defendants’ conscious decision not to provide any proper accounting of profits, as directed by the Court, Plaintiffs respectfully request that Manzarek and Krieger be ordered to pay over to Plaintiffs the gross amount of their revenues from touring and related activities, as demonstrated by the evidence adduced to date and to presented at the September 16, 2005 hearing. Plaintiffs contended this amount should be $453,842 to Densmore, and at least $8,673,174. to the Old Doors Partnership) plus such additional gross receipts determined by the Court not to have been included in its earlier calculation of $10,035,000).

(Concurrent with the filing of this Objection, Plaintiffs also are filing a Motion to Add Doors Touring, Inc., As A Judgment Debtor. That motion restates that which is obvious i.e., that the Defendants’ liability is for more than just what was received by them in the way of a “pay check:” from their loan-out corporation, and seeks to add Doors Touring, Inc. “(DTI) as an additional judgment debtor. Although the trial testimony of Alan Goldman was that DTI had no “income”, thus making it basically a worthless potential judgment debtor from an income point of view, it is equally clear that it may have assets that are a “benefit” derived from the misappropriation of the name “The Doors,” on which a constructive must be imposed. In particular, the testimony was that the intellectual property rights of the MTV Japan video of the Defendants’ concert performance was to soon revert to DTI. There may be other assets in the form of intellectual property rights related to DVDs and CDs that should be held in trust for Plaintiffs per Corporations Code 16404, e.g., rights to master recordings. There also many be other income streams about which Plaintiffs are presently unware.)

(Defendants have identified Mr Goldman as one of their two witnesses on September 16. Plaintiffs intend to serve a subpoena on Mr Goldman requesting that he produce at that time all documents reflecting the gross receipts received by Doors Touring, Inc, Diamond Night Productions, LLC, wire transfers to Manzarek and Krieger, and all other documents reflecting the amount paid by promoters, merchandisers and others relating to performances by any band in which Manzarek, Krieger and Astbury from January 1, 2003 to the date of the hearing. Furthermore, as reflected in the accompanying declaration of S. Jerome Mandel, 9, Plaintiffs now are aware that in June 2005, Defendants caused to be created a company known as D21C, Inc. The aforementioned subpoena also will request information regarding the revenues received by that Corporation related to performances by the Defendants for concerts that were scheduled and promoted as of July 22, 2005, the date the Court issued its Statement Of Decision and Order re Permanent Injunction.)


MANDEL, NORWOOD & GRANT

By: Jerome Mandel
Dated August 22 2005
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant
JOHN DENSMORE and Plaintiffs COLUMBUS AND PEARL M. COURSON

HINOJOSA & WALLET


By: Jeffery Forer
Dated August 22 2005
Attorneys For Plaintiffs GEORGE MORRSON and CLARA MORRISON

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

This was a run down of the tooings and froings during the period just after the Statement of decision was issued. Including the first appeal against the SOD in September 2005.





Case Summary

Case Number: BC289730

JOHN DENSMORE ET AL VS RAYMOND MANZAREK ET AL

Filing Date: 02/04/2003

Case Type: Other Commercial/Business Tort (General Jurisdiction)

Status: Pending


Future Hearings
None


Parties

ASTBURY IAN - Defendant/Respondent

COPELAND STEWART - Defendant/Respondent

DENSMORE JOHN - Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant

DOORS TOURING INC. - Defendant/Respondent

FORER JEFFREY ESQ. - Attorney for Deft/Respnt

KRIEGER ROBERT - Defendant and Cross-Complainant

LAVELY JOHN H. JR. LAW OFFICES OF - Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

MANDEL NORWOOD & GRANT - Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

MANZAREK RAYMOND - Defendant and Cross-Complainant

SINGER MARTIN D. ESQ. - Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl


Documents Filed

09/20/2005 Notice of Ruling
Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

09/19/2005 Ntc to Atty re Notice of Appeal
Filed by Clerk

09/16/2005 Notice of Appeal
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

09/13/2005 Points and Authorities
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

09/13/2005 Miscellaneous-Other (APPENDIX )
Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

09/09/2005 Ex-parte Request for Order (EX-PARTE APPL. OF DEFTS./X-COMPLTS RAYMOND MANZAREK AND ROBERT KRIE- GER, DEFENDANT DOORS TOURING INC. AND 3RD PARTY ALAN GOLDMAN FOR OR- DER SHORTENING TIME FOR HRING. ON MOT. TO QUASH SUBPOENA DT)
Filed by Defendant and Cross-Complainant

09/09/2005 Order (ORDER ON EX-PARTE APPL. OF DEFTS./ X-COMPLTS. KRIEGER AND MANZAREK, DEFT. DOORS TOURING INC. AND 3RD PARTY GOLDMAN TO QUASH SDT, SHORT- ENING TIME FOR HEARING TO 9-15-05 )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

09/09/2005 Notice of Ruling
Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

09/09/2005 Reply/Response
Filed by Attorney for Defendant & X-Deft

09/02/2005 Opposition Document
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

09/02/2005 Reply/Response
Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

09/02/2005 Objection Document
Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

09/02/2005 Opposition Document
Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

08/30/2005 Notice (OF UNAVAILABILITY )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

08/24/2005 Motion
Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

08/22/2005 Motion (TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTOR )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

08/22/2005 Objection Document
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

08/22/2005 Declaration (S. JEROME MANDEL )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

08/22/2005 Proof of Service
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

08/15/2005 Miscellaneous-Other (ACCOUNTING OF MANZAREK AND KREIGER DECLARATION OF ALAN GOLDMAN )
Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

08/09/2005 Notice (OF ENTRY OF ORDER RE PERMANENT INJUNCITON )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

08/08/2005 Objection Document
Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

07/21/2005 Statement of Decision
Filed by Court


Proceedings Held

09/16/2005 at 08:30 am in Department 36, Gregory W. Alarcon, Presiding
Order to Show Cause (HEARING ON ACCOUNTING ISSUES) - Submitted

09/15/2005 at 08:30 am in Department 36, Gregory W. Alarcon, Presiding
Motion Hearing - Completed

09/09/2005 at 08:30 am in Department 36, Gregory W. Alarcon, Presiding
Exparte proceeding - Granted

07/22/2005 at 08:30 am in Department 36, Gregory W. Alarcon, Presiding
Non-Appearance (Case Review) - Completed

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

This was the Suppental Declaration of S. Jerome Mandell acting on behalf of the Densmore/Estate requesting an immediate injuction be issued against Manzarek/Krieger on June 10th 2005 as a result of thier continued use of the Doors name.

CASE NO. BC289730
Complaint Filed 2/4/03

Consolidated with Case No. BC294495
Assigned to Hon. Gregory Alarcon

FILED

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
JUNE 10, 2005
JOHN A. CLARKE, CLERK
BY: L. ZULUETA, DEPUTY

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF S. JEROME MANDEL
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST THAT THE COURT
IMMEDIATELY ISSUE IT’S ORDER RE PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Date: June 16, 2005
Time: 8:30 a.m.

Department 36

S. JEROME MANDEL, SBN 51091
LILLY LEWIS, SBN 100999
MANDEL, NORWOOD, & GRANT
2001 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 270
Santa Monica, California 90403-5627

Attorney’s for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant
JOHN DENSMORE and
Plaintiffs COLUMBUS and PEARL COURSON

JEFFERY FORER, SBN 108310
HINOJOSA & WALLET
2215 Colby Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90064-1504

Attorney’s for Plaintiffs GEORGE MORRISON and CLARA MORRISON

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

JOHN DENSMORE, individually and on behalf of California general partnerships
Comprised of John Densmore, the Estate of Jams Morrison, the Estate of Pam Courson,
Raymond Manzarek and Robert Krieger,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RAYMOND MANZAREK, an individual; ROBERT KRIEGER, an individual;
IAN ASTBURY, an individual; DOORS TOURING, INC., a California corporation;
And Does 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.


AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

PEARL COURSON, individually and as guardian ad litem for COLUMBUS COURSON, each on behalf of the DOORS MUSIC CO., a California general partnership and on behalf of THE DOORS, a California general partnership, and GEORGE MORRISON and CLARA MORRISON, each on behalf of the DOORS MUSIC CO., a California general partnership and on behalf of the DOORS, a California general partnership, and PEARL COURSON, individually and as guardian ad litem for COLUMBUS COURSON and GEORGE MORRISON and CLARA MORRISON, individually with respect to the seventh cause of action,

Plaintiffs,

Vs,

RAYMOND MANZAREK, ROBERT KRIEGER, IAN ASTBURY, THE DOORS
TOURING, INC., a California entity of unknown form, and DOES 1 through 500 inclusive,

Defendants.

I, S. Jerome Mandel, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am one of the counsel of record for Plaintiff’s in this action, on whose behalf a request was made recently that this Court immediately issue its Order re Permanent Injunction.

2. Defendants Manzarek and Krieger have embarked on yet another tour, performing as The Doors of the 21st Century. This is evidenced by the tour poster/admat appended to my prior declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Request for entry of an Order re Permanent Injunction. Plaintiff’s believe, and it seems rather obvious, that unless this Court issues an Order re Permanent Injunction, defendants will continue to use the name The Doors as part of the name of their touring band, capitalizing on the goodwill of a name not owned by them and which they have no right to use, both by virtue of contract law and partnership law. The matter has urgency because of the new Strange Days Festival Tour described in my prior declaration, which commenced on June 8.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a letter dated June 2, 2005 sent by Defendants litigation counsel to Louis Reisman, Esq. It is a perfect example of how defendants and their legal counsel flaunt the law, and perceive their supposed “right” to use the name The Doors. In the fourth full paragraph of the letter, in a tortured understanding of the Court’s prior rulings and the law in this State, defendants’ counsel makes clear the position of the defendants, and the fact that they have no intention whatsoever of altering their arrogant conduct. The paragraph states:

“As you are aware, the Court has entered an Order which allows my clients to tour and promote themselves as “The Doors of the 21st Century” – a legal right my client possesses unless and until the Court enters a superseding Order. While the Court has served a Proposed Statement of Decision which contemplates a permanent injunction against Messrs. Manzarek and Krieger performing under any variation of the “Doors” name, the Court has not yet entered any such Decision, and it is incredibly presumptuous of you to assume that the Court will do so. The Court is clearly willing to entertain argument against the entry of a permanent injunction, as noted by the fact that the Court, over your clients’ vehement objections, has scheduled oral argument with regard to the Proposed Statement of Decision.”

4. In fact, there never has been an order made by this Court that “allows” the defendants to call themselves The Doors of the 21st Century. There was an order denying a motion for preliminary injunction, but that does not serve as a judicial imprimatur for the defendants’ conduct. It merely allows the defendants to proceed at their own risk if they use the name. Furthermore, at the time of the Court’s ruling granting the Plaintiffs’ in limine motion on this very subject, the Court acknowledged that the denial of that earlier motion was not an Order “allowing” defendants to so proceed. And there never has been any determination that the defendants have a “legal right (to use the name) unless and until the Court enters a superceding order.” To suggest that Mr. Reisman engaged in an outlawed act merely by his expression of the opinion that he “doubted that Messrs. Krieger and Manzarek would be able to perform under the Doors’ name in August 2005” evidences exactly the type of arrogance that compels the immediate issuance of the request Order.

5. The subject of a Perry Farrell performance with “The Doors of the 21st Century” on VH1 in August is reflected at the Perry Farrell website. The description is attached hereto as Exhibit 2, and presumably is the same performance referred to in Mr. Singer’s letter, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

6. Plaintiffs renew their request that regardless of any subsequent hearing on the amount of money for which defendants are responsible to plaintiffs, the permanent injunction issue immediately.

7. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein, and if called as a witness I would be, and am, competent to testify hereto.

Executed in Santa Monica, California this 9th day of June, 2005.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signed.

S. JEROME MANDEL




EXHIBIT 1

Lavely & Singer
Professional Corporation
Attorneys At Law
Suite 2400
3045 Century Park East
Los Angeles, California 90067-3501


June 2, 2005

BY FAX:

Louis Resiman, Esq.
WEINSTOCK, MANION,
RESIMAN, SHORE & NEUMANN
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, California 90067

Re: Robby Krieger and Ray Manzarek adv. John Densmore/Estates
Our File No: 3273-4 and 3273-10

Dear Mr. Reisman:

As you are aware, we are litigation counsel for Robert Krieger, Raymond Manzarek, Ian Astbury and Doors Touring Inc. We are writing with regard to your egregious and unlawful attempts to intentionally interfere with our clients’ valid contracts and economic expectancies.

On Tuesday, May 31, 2005, you, acting as agent for Weinstock, Manion, Reisman, Shore & Neumann, A Law Corporation, and as attorney for your clients George and Clara Morrison, spoke with musician and performer Perry Farrell with the clear intent of interfering with my clients’ economic rights and expectancies. You stated to Mr. Farrell, among other things, that an injunction was about to be entered against Messrs. Krieger and Manzarek prohibiting them from using the name, “The Doors” and that you doubted that Messrs. Krieger and Manzarek would be able to perform under the “Doors” name in August 2005. You then encouraged Mr. Farrell not to participate in the filming of an episode of the television program “Decades Rock Live” which was to feature my clients performing with Mr. Farrell. After the conversation with you, Mr. Farrell informed the television program’s producer of your statements, and the producer’s counsel informed our clients.

Your conduct constitutes a malicious and intentional attempt to deprive my clients of their legal rights, potentially exposing your clients, your law firm and yourself to a significant award of compensatory and exemplary damages. I am frankly shocked that an attorney of your experience would act so inappropriately and in a manner which places your clients and your firm in jeopardy.

As you are well aware, the Court had entered an Order which allows my clients to tour and promote themselves as “The Doors of the 21st Century” – a legal right my clients possess unless and until the Court enters a superceding Order. While the Court has served a Proposed Statement of Decision which contemplates a permanent injunction against Messrs. Manzarek and Krieger performing under any variation of the “Doors” name, the Court has not yet entered any such Decision, and it is incredibly presumptuous of you to assume that the Court will do so. The Court is clearly willing to entertain argument against the entry of a permanent injunction, as noted by the fact that the Court, over your clients’ vehement objections, has scheduled oral argument with regard to the Proposed Statement of Decision.

Your encouragement of Mr. Farrell to withdraw from the taping constitutes grossly unprofessional and unethical misconduct. Messrs. Krieger and Manzarek may perform whatever songs they like with whomever they like. Even a permanent injunction against Messrs. Krieger and Manzarek’s use of the “Doors” name would not prevent Messrs. Krieger and Manzarek from performing with Mr. Farrell. Your conduct indicates that the true intent of your clients and their co-Plaintiffs is not to protect their rights as defined by law but, instead, to maliciously and wantonly interfere with my clients’ ability to earn a living and express themselves artistically.

Consequently, on behalf of my clients, I hereby demand that you cease and desist from attempting to interfere with any of my clients’ contracts or economic expectancies. I further demand that you cease and desist from communicating in any manner with third parties with whom my client is conducting business. If even one promoter, venue, producer, guest artist or other third party cancels a performance because of your interference, my clients will not hesitate to file suit against your clients and your law firm for its interference.

You have been warned. This is a matter of the utmost seriousness. Your cavalier attitude toward your legal obligations and the Court’s Orders will not be countenanced.

Govern yourself accordingly.

Nothing contained herein is intended as, nor should be deemed to constitute, a waiver or relinquishment of any of my clients’ rights or remedies, whether legal or equitable, all of which are hereby expressly observed.

Sincerely.

Signed MARTIN D. SINGER



EXHIBIT 2

AINT NO RIGHT the Perry Farrell Website

VH1 Decades –
Perry’s Set

June 5th 2005

As previously reported, Perry will appear on the VH-1 Decades Doors Show, to be taped in early August.

Here’s the tentative Perry Set:

(Psychedelic Acoustic Segment)
People Are Strange w Perry Farrell (acoustic w Robby and Ray)
Crystal Ship w Perry Farrell (acoustic w Robby and Ray)
Touch Me w Perry Farrell (full band)

The final encore of Soul Kitchen will have everyone performing. The other guests are Macy Gray, Anitgone, Vanilla Fudge and Pat Travers plus Ian Astbury. Perry’s set is the final set before the encores.

VH1 DECADES: Perry Farrell

May 28, 2005

Perry will be performing a couple of songs with The Doors of the 21st Century at the VH1 taping of Decades at the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City in August. This news comes on the heels of the report that Perry will be producer including a recently unearthed Jim Morrison track “Woman in the Window” for Satellite Party.

www.aintnoright.com

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

The letter that follows was from the law firm of Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp LLP to Bob Greene dated January 21 1971. The document was in the files of the law firm Ziffern, Brittenham, Branca, Fischer, Gilbert-Lurie & Stiffelman LLP. The letter was written by David Berman in which he enclosed a draft of the partnership agreement requesting that Mr Greene (The Doors’ Business Manager) arrange for the four members of The Doors partnership to sign the agreement. The Agreement was subsequently signed by Morrison, Densmore, Krieger and Manzarek.

Unfortunately we have yet to see a copy of the complete General Partnership Agreement executed by all four Doors. In lieu of the Los Angeles Superior Court's release of documentation, hopefully, a copy of the Partnership Agreement will be forthcoming in the future.

Both of these letters were entered into evidence at the trial.

____________________________________________

Sherwin Samuels

David Berman

Assignment

January 5 1971

Could you please have one of the associates in the Corporate Department prepare a Partnership Agreement between James Morrison, Robert Krieger, Raymond Manzarek & John Densmore, known as “THE DOORS”.

The agreement should commence on January 1, 1966, inasmuchas “THE DOORS” have been functioning pursuant to an oral agreement since that date. A Fictitious Name Certificate was filed early in 1966 under than name.

The partnership agreement should be terminable at the election of any of the partners. All income of the partnership should be divided equally among the partners and the receipts to be included in partnership income should be as follows:

1. The so-called “writer’s share” of performance income payable by ASCAP or any other performing right society to which any of the partners belong or may here after belong.

2. All amounts received by the partnership from Doors Production Corp. for the personal appearances of “THE DOORS”.

3. All amounts received from “The Elektra Corporation” in connection with recordings of "THE DOORS” made prior to _____________________.

4. All union scale payments received by “THE DOORS” in connection with “THE DOORS” recordings as opposed to the recordings of any of the individual members of “THE DOORS”.

If there is any other information required, I will, of course, be happy to obtain the same.


END.

What follows is the reply from David Berman to Bob Greene with a copy sent to Bill Siddons along with five copies of The Doors General Partnership Agreement.






January 21, 1971

Mr Bob Greene
C/O Johnson & Harnand
10920 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90024

Dear Bob:

Enclosed please find five copies of the General Partnership Agreement between the members of THE DOORS. The enclosure corresponds to my understanding of how the partnership is to work. You should, however, carefully review it, in particular Paragraphs 5, 6D, 6E, 7 and 9.

If the enclosures are satisfactory, will you please have them executed by the members of THE DOORS and return at least one fully executed copy to me.

Kindest personal regards.

Sincerely,




For
Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp

DMB/bkp
Encl.
Cc: Mr Bill Siddons

END.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

Corporation and Partnership Information On File With the California Secetary Of State and Status thereof which all was relevant to the case in hand at the time as regards where all the money went.

Corporation
DOORS PRODUCTIONS CORP.
Number: C0554106 Date Filed: 10/1/1968 Status: dissolved
Jurisdiction: California
Address
10920 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 606
LOS ANGELES, CA 90024
Agent for Service of Process


Corporation
DOORS PROJECT INC.
Number: C1656290 Date Filed: 1/12/1990 Status: dissolved
Jurisdiction: California
Address
8800 SUNSET BLVD.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90069
Agent for Service of Process
C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
818 WEST SEVENTH STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017




Corporation
DOORS FOUNDATION
Number: C2027952 Date Filed: 3/4/1998 Status: active
Jurisdiction: California
Address
9595 WILSHIRE BLVD #1020
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
Agent for Service of Process
JERRY B SWARTZ
9595 WILSHIRE BLVD #1020
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212

Corporation
DOORS TOURING, INC.
Number: C2443861 Date Filed: 7/29/2002 Status: active
Jurisdiction: California
Address
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST 2160
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
Agent for Service of Process
ALAN S GOLDMAN
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST 2160
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067


Corporation
IAN ASTBURY, INC.
Number: C2513946 Date Filed: 4/28/2003 Status: active
Jurisdiction: California
Address
12100 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 670
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
Agent for Service of Process
BURGEE & ABRAMO FF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
20501 VENTURA BLVD STE 262
WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367


LP/LLC
DIAMOND NIGHT PRODUCTIONS, LLC
Number: 200325210251 Date Filed: 9/9/2003 Status: active
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Address
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST STE 2160
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
Agent for Service of Process
ALAN S GOLDMAN
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST STE 2160
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067


Corporation
D21C, INC.
Number: C2750812 Date Filed: 6/8/2005 Status: active
Jurisdiction: California
Address
1801 CENTURY PARK E STE 2160
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
Agent for Service of Process
ALAN GOLDMAN
1801 CENTURY PARK E STE 2160

Source:

kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/index.html



Doors Music Company
Address: % Jerry B. Swartz
9595 Wilshire Boulevard, #1020
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Contact: Carol Berman
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email:
Website:
Member of: (N) National Music Publishers' Association

Source: www.mpa.org/agency/108p.html


Additional Information:

Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky

LITIGATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION GROUP
INSURANCE COVERAGE PRACTICE

Dickstein Shapiro is a leader in providing sophisticated legal services to business entities of all types, including financial institutions and individuals. The Firm's Corporate & Finance Group is international in scope and involves representation of some of the world's largest corporations, commercial banks, investment banks, and venture capital firms. The Group's practice ranges from small, traditional transactions to large, highly complex transactions, and provides a full range of corporate, finance, and transactional legal services to its clients. To best meet all the needs and objectives of its clients, the Corporate & Finance Group offers the complete resources of the Firm for problem solving and transaction implementation. Regardless of the transaction or the client, Dickstein Shapiro brings to the table its reputation as an innovative, effective, and efficient law firm.

Insurance Coverage Representative Clients
Dickstein Shapiro attorneys represent and have represented many large industrial policyholders – as well as small companies, municipalities, utilities, and state and county governments – in actions to enforce their contractual rights to coverage against their insurance companies. The Firm’s major clients for insurance coverage include, or have included, among others:

The Doors Touring Company, Inc.

Source: www.dsmo.com/MajorClients.asp

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

The Courson family filed a seperate civil suit against Manzarek in April 2003 but both the Densmore and theirs was combined under the Densmore case when it went to trial which included the Morrison family who joined the Courson suit and eventually included Krieger and Astbury on the Manzarek side.

Case Summary

Case Number: BC294495
COLUMBUS COURSON VS RAYMOND MANZAREK

Filing Date: 04/23/2003
Case Type: Other Commercial/Business Tort (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Cons with Lead Case (see X-Ref) 06/29/2004

becoming

Case Number: BC289730
JOHN DENSMORE ET AL VS RAYMOND MANZAREK ET AL

Filing Date: 02/04/2003
Case Type: Other Commercial/Business Tort (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

The court then clarified what the Judgment meant as regards Manzarek/Krieger touring and several other points in early December 2005.

On November 21, 2005 a “Judgment” was filed in this case. The Judgment
reflects “the General Verdict of the Jury (September 27 2004), to the extent
modified by the Statement of Decision handed down July 21, 2005.”

The Permanent Injunction(s) and Disgorgement of Profit rulings were reiterated
in the Judgment although no monetary amounts were indicated with the
exception of $750 awarded to the Estates to be paid by defendants Manzarek
and Krieger. It is ordered that Defendants Manzarek and Krieger shall submit a
complete accounting to the court, which will determine the amount of
disgorgement. Defendant Ian Astbury is exonerated of all charges and in lieu of
this fact Plaintiff Densmore and the Estates are to pay an undisclosed amount to
Astbury and the Estates must pay Astbury’s attorney’s fees. A Motion Hearing
has been set for December 9, 2005 at which time a determination will be made
for “legal fees” associated with this case.

The “injunction does not prevent Manzarek and Krieger from identifying
themselves as the founding or original members of 'The Doors'” but the injunction
does indicate that any identification of either of the defendants must be adhered
to by specific terms.

Defendants cannot use the name “The Doors,” or “Doors Of The 21st Century” or
any name that includes the words, “'The Doors' without the written consent of all
of the partners of the Old Doors which partners today are Densmore, Manzarek,
Krieger, the Morrisons and the Coursons.” In addition, "defendants and those
acting in concert with them, including agents, representatives, and employees
are permanently enjoined from using the name, voice, likeness, or image of Jim
Morrison to promote any concerts performed by them." (Section 4 Page 7 & 8 of
Judgment filed Nov 21, 2005)

“All profits (meaning all revenues less operating expenses other than legal fees
for the defense of this litigation and salaries to any defendant herein) earned by
Manzarek and Krieger from touring, performing, and recording as The Doors or
The Doors of the 21st Century (including merchandising income and income from
Diamond Night Productions, LLC) be immediately divested of Manzarek and
Krieger and turned over to Densmore and the Old Doors Partnership, as
described below. The profits are to be distributed as follows:

One-third of all profits (as defined above) from January 1, 2003 through April 18,
2003, be delivered to Densmore; and All profits (as defined above) after April 18,
2003 to be turned over to the Old Doors Partnership.” (Page 8 Section 5 of
“Judgment” filed Nov 21, 2005)

It is also ordered in the “Judgment” of November 21 2005, that Densmore and
the Estates shall pay Doors Touring, Inc. an undisclosed amount and Manzarek
and Krieger are ordered to pay Densmore and the Estates attorney’s fees as well
as an undisclosed amount of money in addition to the disgorgement as stated in
Section 5 page 8 of the Judgment.

Following the Motion hearing set for December 9, 2005 the accounting should be
completed and hopefully this case will adjourn shortly thereafter pending any
appeal.

Future Hearings
12/16/2005 at 08:30 am in department 36 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion Hearing (CONTINUED TO 12-16-05 REQUEST OFDEFENSE COUNSEL)

01/10/2006 at 08:30 am in department 36 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion for Judgment (JNOV)

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

This was interesting and was pinned for quite a period onto the Official Lizard Lounge Doors forum at the end of the trial.

Official Press Release Concerning Lawsuit….

Since December of 2001 John Densmore has repeatedly been asked to participate in the band. He has declined. We will not discuss the merit of John's lawsuit that is better left to the courts. We trust and love our fans and know that they'll draw their own conclusion after all of the facts have been presented.

-The Doors of the 21st Century

** Update (September 2004) **
The jury came back with this (thanks to Ida at http://www.IdaFan.com):

WEEK FOURTEEN September 27, 2004 the verdicts have been returned

”On the first day of the 14th week of the trial of John Densmore, the Morrison family and the Courson family, versus Ray Manzarek, Robby Krieger, Ian Astbury, and Doors Touring Inc., the jury returned their verdicts. The reading of the verdicts began at 12:30 today. John & Leslie were in the courtroom, as were Robby, Ian, D21C manager Tom Vitorino, and D21C business manager Alan Goldman.

This was a very complex case with many issues, including claims for damages and counter-claims for damages, contracts and agreements, friendships and partnerships and fiduciary responsibilities. Simply put, the jurors determined that there would be NO money or damages awarded to any of the parties. It looks like The Doors of the 21st Century have a future for as long as they want to continue to play and tour. On October 27th, the judge will give the court's verdict, which could differ from the jury's verdicts on some of the points.”

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

This is an interesting one in which the Defendants Krieger/Manzarek have attempted to prevent the Plaintiff Densmore/Estates getting a close look at some of their financial documents.

BACKGROUND
The Judge ordered in his Statement Of Decision that accounting was to be complete and in reference to that fact and under penalty of perjury RM and RK accountant Alan Goldman declared the accounting submisison acurate.

Plaintiffs filed an objection requesting the Judge to make good on the Decision submitted on July 21 2005 which stipulates an accurate accounting. The objection goes further considering the fact that DTI is shown to pay out RM and RK salaries, where is the rest of the money that flowed in and out of that enity enabling payments to be made? The Objection asks for the "net worth" of a new corporation formed on June 8 2005 called D21C, Inc.

Defendants filed a motion to squash the subpoena served by Plaintiffs which requested all of the accounting figures for any enitity using The Doors name prior to the July 22. This would include DTI and D21C. In this motion the Defense also requested the date for submission of the accounting be changed to Sep 15 of which a day early date was granted.

The Judge considered the motion to squash subpoena and in Sep 15 (filed Sep 20) filed the ruling below.


Notice Of Ruling Sep 15 2005 Filed Sep 20 2005

FILED LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005

JOHN A CLARKE, CLERK
BY ELIZABETH TORRES, DEPUTY


SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Case No. BC289730
Complaint filed 2/4/03

Consolidated with
Case No. BC294495

Complaint filed 4/23/03
Assigned to Hon. Gregory Alarcon

NOTICE OF RULING

(Hon. Gregory W. Alarcon, Dept 36)

JOHN DENSMORE, etc..

Plaintiff,

Vs.

RAYMOND MANAREK, an individual; ROBERT KRIEGER, an individual; IAN ASTBURY, an individual’ DOORS TOURING, INC., a California corporation; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

RAYMOND MANZAREK and ROBERT KRIEGER, as individuals and on behalf of several California partnerships,

Cross-Complaints,

v.

JOHN DENSMORE, an individual,

Cross-Defendant.

COLUMBUS COURSON, PEARL M. COURSON, GEORGE MORRISON, CLARA MORRISON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RAYMOND MANZAREK, ROBERT KRIEGER, IAN ASTBURY, DOES 1 through 500, inclusive,

Defendants.



On Thursday, September 15, 2005, the Court heard Defendants Raymond Manzarek, Robert Krieger and Doors Touring, Inc. and Third Party Alan Goldman’s Notice of Motion and Motion To Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum of Alan Goldman. Martin D. Singer, Esq., and Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq., of Lavely & Singer, P.C., appeared on behalf of Movants. S. Jerome Mandel, Esq., of Mandel, Norwood & Grant, appeared on behalf of Plaintiff John Densmore and Plaintiffs Columbus Courson and Pearl M. Courson. Jeffery Forer, Esq., of Hinojosa and Wallet, appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs George Morrison and Clara Morrison.

The Court issued a Tentative Ruling, a copy of which is attached. After argument by all sides, the Court ADOPTED the Tentative Ruling.

Dated: September 16, 2005

LAVELY & SINGER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
MARTIN D. SINGER
WILLIAM J. BRIGGS, II
PAUL KARL LUKACS


By: Paul Karl Lukas
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainants
ROBERT KRIEGER and
RAYMOND MANZAREK and
Defendants IAN ASTBURY and
DOORS TOURING, INC.





SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CASE NO. BC 289730

TENTATIVE DECISION ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF ALAN GOLDMAN

Hearing Date: September 7, 2005
Moving Party: Defendant Cross-Complainants
RAYMOND MANZAREK and ROBERT KRIEGER and IAN ASTBURY and DOORS TOURING, INC., and Third-Party ALAN GOLDMAN

JOHN DENMORE, Etc.

v.

RAYMOND MANZAREK, an individual;
ROBERT KRIEGER, an individual;
IAN ASTBURY, an individual;
DOORS TOURING, INC., a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION


On July 21, 2005, this Court entered a Statement Of Decision (SOD) that ordered Raymond Manzarek and Robert Krieger to serve an accounting. The Court scheduled a hearing with regard to the accounting to be held on September 16, 2005. On August 19, 2005, Plaintiff Densmore caused the subpoena to be served on third party Goldman. In addition to requiring that Goldman appear, which he already planned to do, the Subpoena requires that Goldman bring 13 category of documents. Defendants filed this motion to quash or limit the document requests.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

CCP 1981.1 provides that the court may quash a subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness or the production of documents, in its entirety or partially. The Court may make any order to protect the parties from unreasonable or oppressive demands or unreasonable violations of a witness’ right of privacy.

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants contend that Goldman should not have to bring documents previously provided. The deposition of Goldman demanded the production of documents in 72 different categories. Goldman and Defendants invited counsel to copy numerous document and plaintiffs did so. This subpoena would require Goldman to once again search for, identify and produce thousands of pages previously made available to Plaintiffs.

Defendants contend that Goldman should not have to produce documents created after the State Of Decision. The Statement Of Decision required Defendants to serve an accounting with regard to contents performed under the name “Doors of the 21st Century” (D21C) and defendants ceased use of that name as of July 22, 2005, the documents should be limited to that time period.

Defendants argue that the Subpoena reaches entities other than defendants. The defendants are Krieger and Manzarek. Doors Touring, Inc., was never a defendant and Astbury was fully exonerated after trial on the merits. Several of the requests seek documents regarding entities other than Defendants, Doors Touring, Inc. or Diamond Night Productions, LLC. (For example 5, 6, 7, 8 any business entity which Manzarek or Krieger has interest; 11 & 13 All writings prepared at any time to reflect assets or depict earnings of D21C. This violates these other entities’ privacy and due process rights.

Finally, Defendants contend that the Subpoena inappropriately seeks Document regarding net worth and assets. The Court ordered that “profits” be divested. (SOD pp. 41-42). This is inappropriate unless a party is seeking the information for punitive damages. Cal. Civil Code. 3295.

Plaintiffs state that the subpoena does not require anything different from what the Court ordered (Supporting documentation for all profits earned from and after June 30, 2004 and all profits earned prior to April 18, 2003 see SOD p. 42:8-43:3)

The documents previously produced are hardly sufficient and do not account for profits after July 2004. Plaintiff have no objection to receiving a summary of previously produced documents as long as there is back-up documentation.

Plaintiffs dispute Defendants’ assertion that the Subpoena must be limited to documents prior to July 22, 2005. Defendants rely only on the Mr Goldman’s declaration that they ceased to use the name on July 22. Defendants continued to derive profits from use of that name even after ceasing to use the name since previous promotion for post July 22 concerts utilized the name.

Plaintiffs state that it is clear that Defendants must produce documents reflecting benefits that many be under any entity owned by Defendants. The document requests limit these documents to revenues that were generated by a band including Defendants. Futhermore, Defendants must produce document regarding assets as those will indicate whether any other entity should be added as debtor for purposes of ensuring, pursuant to the SOD, that the Doors name is no longer used. Plaintiffs have no interest in net worth and do not object if financial statements are redacted for “the liabilities that otherwise would be disclosed in normal course of preparation of such a document.”

The Court ordered the disgorgement of any profits that were made through the use of the names. All of the document requests seek information relevant and necessary to the determination of those figures. Defendants may have profited from use of the name even if the name ceased to be used after July 22. The requests are limited to revenues earned from a band including these Defendants. Plaintiffs do not object to Goldman summarizing or indicating which documents have already been produced, provided that there is back-up of those documents. Only Document request Number 11 seeks net worth of D21C. This request should seek only the assets or earnings statement.

IV. CONCLUSION

Defendant Cross-Complainants RAYMOND MANZAREK and ROBERT KRIEGER and IAN ASTBURY and DOORS TOURING, INC. and third-party Alan Goldman’s Motion to Quash Subpoena is DENIED.

Document Request No. 11 should redact the request for “net worth.”

Dated this 15th day of September 2005



Hon. Gregory W. Alarcon
Superior Court Judge


It is interesting that within hours of the Judges Ruling of September 15th the Defendants filed an Appeal on the morning of September 16th. This Appeal is for the Statement of Decision and Perm Injunction.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

The following very lengthy document was filed May 24, 2005 by Manzarek and Krieger's Defense Attorney's after their receipt of the Preliminary Statement Of Decision which was filed May 9 2005 and is a very interesting document to read through.

After Judge Alarcon reviewed this "Objection" Document he issued his "Final" Statement Of Decision on July 21 2005 along with a Permenant Injunction.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION AND SEPICIFICATION OF ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED THEREIN May 24 20

FILED
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
MAY 24 2005
John A. Clarke, Clerk
By L. Zulueta, Deputy

JOHN H. LAVELY, JR.
WILLIAM J. BRIGGS, II
HENRY L. SELF, III
LAVELY & SINGER, P.C.
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, California 90067-2906

Attorneys For Defendants and Cross-Complaintants
ROBERT KRIEGER AND RAYMOND MANZAREK
And Defendant IAN ASTBURY and DOORS TOURING, INC.

SUPRIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

John Densmore, Etc.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Raymond Manzarek, an individual; Robert Krieger, an individual; Ian Astbury, an individual; Doors Touring, Inc., A California corporation; and Does 1 through 20 inclusive,

Defendants.

RAYMOND MANZAREK and ROBERT KRIEGER, as individuals and on behalf of several California general partnerships.

Cross-Complainants,

v.

JOHN DENSMORE, an individual,

Cross-Defendant.

COLUMBUS COURSON, PEARL M. COURSON, GEORGE MORRISON, CLARA MORRISON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RAYMOND DANIEL MANZAREK, ROBERT KRIEGER, IAN ASTBURY, Does 1 through 500, inclusive,

Defendants


CASE NO. BC 289 730

(Consolidated With Case No. BC 294 495)

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION AND SEPICIFICATION OF ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED THEREIN

REQUEST FOR HEARING FILED
CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH

(Hon. Gregory W. Alarcon, Dept. 36)

.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
I. THE PROPOSED INJUNCTION IS ILLEGAL AND IN EQUITABLE………………………………………………………………………….1

A. In Light Of The Jury’s Verdict, There Is No Legal Basis For Imposing An
Injunction Or Other Equitable Relief……………………………………………..1

1. The Court Cannot Grant The Same Relief In Equity That The Jury
Denied In Law……………………………………………………………1

2. Equity Must Not Reward Those With Unclean Hands; The Jury
Found Against Densmore On Breach Of Fiduciary Duty, The Implied
Covenant Of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Promissory Estoppel……2

B. In Any Event, The Proposed Injunction Is Inequitable To
Defendants…………………………………………………………………………3

C. By Prohibiting Defendants From Performing As “The Doors of the 21st
Century,” The Injunction Would Inequitably Punish Conduct The Court
Expressly Authorized Two Years Ago……………………………………………4

1. Until Now, Defendants Have Prevailed On The Right To Perform
As “The Doors of the 21st Century”……………………………………….4

2. Defendants Have Acted In Reasonable Reliance and Booked A
Tour as “The Doors of the 21st Century”…………………………………..5

D. If The Court Issues Any Injunction, It Should Stay Its Effect So That
Defendants May Have Adequate Opportunity To Exercise Their Right Of
Appeal…………………………………………………………………………….6

1. The Proposed Injunction Is A Death Knell For Defendants’
Performing Careers………………………………………………………..7

2. Defendants Can Adequately Secure Plaintiffs’ Share Of Profits
(If Any) While The Appeal Is Pending……………………………………7



II FACTS NOT DECIDED……………………………………………………….7

A. The Court Has Not Decided The Critical Issue Of Who Owns
“The Doors” Name……………………………………………………………….7

B. The Court Has Not Decided The Critical Issue Of Whether Any Right
To Use The Name “The Doors” Has Been Abandoned…………………………11


III FACTS ERROONEOUSLY DECIDED……………………………………….12

A. Densmore Is Entitled To No Relief On His Cause Of Action For
Breach Of the 1971 New Doors Agreement…………………………………….12

1. Without Damages, There Can Be No Liability For Breach
Of Contract………………………………………………………………13

2. In Any Event, Densmore Is Not Entitled To Disgorgement
Of Profits………………………………………………………………...13

(a) Disgorgement Is Not A Remedy For Breach Of
Contract………………………………………………………..14

(B ) Recent Supreme Court Authority Explains Why
Disgorgement Is Unavailable For Breach Of Contract………..15


B. As The Jury Found, Densmore And the Estates Are Entitled To No
Relief On Their Causes Of Action For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty……………..16

C. The Estates Are Entitled To No Relief On Their Cause Of Action
For False Advertising……………………………………………………………18

1. There Is Nothing Untrue Or Misleading About Defendants’
Advertising………………………………………………………………19

2. The Jury’s Verdict As To The Lanham Act Claims Precludes
A Finding Of False Advertising…………………………………………19

3. There Is No Evidence Of Actual Or Likely Consumer
Confusion………………………………………………………………..20


D. Estates Are Entitled To No Relief On Their Cause Of Action
For Violation Of Right Of Publicity…………………………………………….22

1. There Is No Substantial Evidence Of A Violation Of The
Right Of Publicity………………………………………………………22

(a) Section 3344.1 Only Prohibits Unauthorized Use
On Or In, Or For Selling, Products, Merchandise, Goods
Or Services; There Was No Such Use………………………22


(B ) Defendants Cannot Be Punished For The
Conduct Of Others…………………………………………..23


(i) Defendants Are Not Responsible For Third
Party Radio Promotions………………………………23

(ii)Defendants Are Not Responsible For A Kodak
Theatre Poster…………………………………………25

(iii)The Lizard T-Shirt Does Not Violate The
Right Of Publicity…………………………………….26

(iv)Defendants Are Not Responsible For A
Universal Amphitheatre Advertisment……………….27

(v)Defendants Cannot Be Punished For Visiting
Jim Morrison’s Grave…………………………………28

(vi)Manzarek Was Entitled To Answer Press
Questions About Morrison……………………………29

(vii)Briefly Projecting Morrison’s Picture During
A Concert Was Not Proscribed Pubicity………………30

(1) Defendants’ Conduct Does Not Violate
the Language Of The Statute…………………31

(2)Defendants’ Conduct Is Constitutionally
Protected………………………………………31

2. Moreover, The Jury’s Verdict On Publicity Is Invalid
Because The Jury Was Not Properly Instructed On The Elements
Of the Claim and On Defendants First Amendment Rights………34

3. In Any Event, The Estates Are Not Entitled To Statutory
Damages; They Elected To Pursue A Different Remedy…………….35


IV DISGORGEMENT REMEDY IMPROPERLY ASSESSED……………….36


A. Ian Astbury’s Compensation Should Be A Deductible Expense…………36

B. Manzarek and Krieger’s Performance Should Be A Deductible
Expense……………………………………………………………………….37

C. Attorney’s Fees Should Be A Deductible Expense……………………….37

D. Doors Touring, Inc. Was Completely Exonerated and Cannot Be
Ordered To Disgorge………………………………………………………….38


Defendants and Cross-complainants Ray Manzarek and Robert Krieger and Defendents Ian Astbury and Doors Touring, Inc., (collectively, “Defendants”) submit the following objections to, and enumeration of issues not addressed in, the Proposed Statement of Decision released by this Court on May 9, 2005. Defendants request a hearing on these issues.

Defendants will address other liability and damages issues below, but because the Court’s proposed injunction is so immediately and irreparably devastating to Defendants’ livelihoods and careers, Defendants address that point first.

I THE PROPOSED INJUNCTION IS ILLGEAL AND INEQUITABLE

The proposed injunction would permanently ban Defendants Ray Manzarek and Robby Krieger from performing, recording or otherwise holding themselves out as “The Doors,” “The Doors 21st Century,” or any other name than includes the words “The Doors,” without John Densmore’s permission.

Such an injunction would be invalid for both legal and equitable reasons. If any injunction is to issue (as we explain below, it should not), the injunction should be limited to precluding use of a name that a reasonable person might confuse with the original “The Doors.” And any injunction should be stayed until Defendants have the opportunity to obtain appellate review.

A. In Light Of The Jury’s Verdict, There Is No Legal Basis For Imposing An Injunction Or Other Equitable Relief.

1. The Court Cannot Grant The Same Relief In Equity That The Jury Denied In Law.

The proposed Statement of Decision correctly acknowledges that “the court cannot ignore the jury’s verdict and grant equitable inconsistent with the jury’s verdict.” Proposed Statement of Decision at 28 (citing Hughes v. Dunlop, 91 Cal. 385, 388 (1891).

Yet the proposed State of Decision would do exactly that: Grant the same relief in equity that the jury denied in law.

The jury awarded no relief whatsoever to Plaintiffs, even on the few claims for which the jury found a breach of duty. There are two consequences of the jury’s verdicts. First, Defendants have no liability to plaintiffs. A breach of duty alone does not establish a cause of action; there must be a tangible injury as well. The jury found none. Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn., 105 Cal. App. 4th 604, 617 (2003) (“Actual damage as opposed to mere nominal damage is another essential element of a cause of action for breach of contract.’” (emphasis added); Navellier v. Sletten, 106 Cal. App. 4th 763, 769 (2003) (Breach of contract cause of action “fails because plaintiffs presented no evidence of damages from the breach”).

Second, the jury denied the relief as a matter of law that this Court would grant in equity. For example, as damages for breach of contract, plaintiffs claimed they lost their share of profits. The jury found they lost no such profits. By ordering disgorgement of profits, the Court would countermand the jury’s verdicts. The Court’s proposed statement admits it cannot do that.

Moreover, the only basis for granting an injunction would be to prevent Defendants from improperly profiting by their alleged breach of contract. Yet the jury found there were no such improper profits. No authority permits the Court to enjoin conduct that causes no harm. To the contrary, no injunction can issue without actual harm to the plaintiff. Vesper v. Forest Lawn Cemetery Assn., 20 Cal. App. 2d 157, 161 (1937) (no injunction authorized where “plaintiff has failed to allege, and from the nature of the facts, cannot allege, that he has sustained an injury”); see also Major v. Miraverde Homeowners Assn., 7 cal. App, 4th 618, 623 (1992) (“a cause of action must exist before injunctive relief may be granted”).

2. Equity Must Not Reward Those With Unclean Hands; The Jury Found Against Densmore On Breach Of Fiduciary Duty, The Implied Covenant Of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, And Promissory Estoppel.

“A court cannot properly exercise an equitable power without consideration of the equities on both sides of a dispute.” Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co., 23 Cal, 4th 163, 180 (2000). Or, to put it more familiar way, “one who seeks the interposition of a court of equity must come into court with clean hands.” London v. Marco, 103 Cal. App. 2d 450, 453 (1951).

If the Court is going to consider granting relief based solely on the jury’s finding of breach without damages against Defendants, then the Court should equally consider the jury’s findings of breach without damages against Densmore. In the jury’s mind, no one is entitled to affirmative relief; both sides acted inequitably. Equity should not be granted where no one has clean hands

B. In Any Event, The Proposed Injunction Is Inequitable To Defendants

The Proposed permanent injunction would be highly inequitable to Defendants for numerous reason.

For starters, Defendants’ performing as “The Doors of the 21st Century” does not actually violate any agreement among the parties. The 1971 written partnership agreement among Densmore, Krieger and Manzarek states that, upon the dissolution and/or termination of that partnership, none of the partners would have the right to use the name “The Doors” for recording purposes or in connection with personal appearances. Krieger and Manzarek are not calling themselves “The Doors”; they are a different group. “The Doors of the 21st Century.”

Furthermore, for decades, musicians have been performing as some variation of the name “The Doors” without objection from Densmore or the Estates. As the evidence established, there has been a proliferation of Doors tribute bands using the name “The Doors,” yet no action was ever taken by the Plaintiffs against any of these bands for their use of the name.

Additionally, the jury concluded that the name “The Doors of the 21st Century” cannot reasonably be confused with “The Doors.” As discussed below, the record contains no evidence of actual or likely confusion among consumers.

Finally, the Court’s Proposed injunction would violate Defendants’ Constitutional Rights of Free Speech. The injunction prohibiting any use of the words “The Doors” is impermissibly overboard. For instance, Defendants could not even call themselves, truthfully, “Ray Manzarek and Robby Krieger, of The Doors. They are clearly entitled to do so under the law, however. Kassbaum v. Steppenwolf Productions, Inc., 236 F. 3d, 487, 492-93 (9th Cir. 2000): Kingsmen v. K-Tel International, Ltd., 557 F. Supp. 178, 183-84 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).

C. By Prohibiting Defendants From Performing As “The Doors of the 21st Century,” The Injuction Would Inequitably Punish Conduct The Court Expressly Authorized Two Years Ago.

1. Until Now, Defendants Have Prevailed On The Right To Perform As “The Doors of the 21st Century.”

In May 2003, this Court denied Densmore’s motion for a preliminary injunction “excepting that defendants are enjoined from using the name “The Doors” without the qualifier ‘of the 21st Century’ in promoting/advertising their present tour.” Minute Order dated May 13, 2003, at 1.

Again in November 2003, the Estates sought to enjoin Defendants from using any variation of “The Doors,” with or without a modifier. And again the Court denied relief, simply reminding Defendants of their obligation to include “of the 21st Century” in their promotions and advertising. See Minute Order dated December 1, 2003, at 1.

In September of last year, the jurors firmly concluded that Defendants should be allowed to continue to tour indefinitely as The Doors of the 21st Century. This is established both by the logic of the jury’s verdicts and independently by the Declaration of A.J. Rolfe.

· The jury rejected all claims by Densmore and the Estates sounding in trademark law or unfair competition. The jury thus ruled that the manner in which Defendants perform and promote their performances is not likely to cause confusion among consumers regarding the origin or sponsorship of the concerts.
· The jury found no breach of any oral or implied in fact contracts.
· Most importantly, the jury found that Densmore promised Defendants that they could perform under the names “The Doors” or “The Doors of the 21st Century” and that Densmore is estopped from preventing Defendants from doing so.
· While the jury found that Manzarek and Krieger had breached the written 1871 contract, it also found that Densmore had not been harmed, nor was he entitled to any relief. Moreover, since promissory estoppel is an affirmative relief for breach of the 1971 written contract.

The other claims put to the jury also resulted either in a defense verdict or a finding of liability but no monetary award. The jury clearly intended that Defendants could continue to call themselves The Doors of the 21st Century.

2. Defendants Have Acted In Reasonable Reliance And Booked A Tour As “The Doors of the 21st Century.”

Relying upon the Court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctions (with the proviso that they be billed as “of the 21st Century”) as well as the jury’s full exoneration of Defendants from liability, coupled with the jurors’ expressed intention that Defendants should continue to tour as “The Doors of the 21st Century,” Defendants agreed to perform about 25 dates spanning from now through August 30, 2005. These performance dates have been offered and accepted, advertised, and many of them put on sale for months. Production, labor, transportation and lodging have been advanced and secured for these dates.

Defendants’ reliance was entirely reasonable under the circumstances because the jury completely rejected the plaintiffs’ theory of the entire case and Defendants expected the Court would therefore decline to enter permanent injunctive relief barring them from performing under the “of the 21st Century” moniker that was previously authorized. Defendants therefore entered into contracts with third party promoters to perform under that name, and the promoters themselves have entered into numerous contracts concerning Defendants’ summer concert dates. Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars have now been spent in anticipation of these concerts by various parties such as concert venue operators, vendors and advertisers.

It would be enormously detrimental and inequitable to force Defendants to breach their third party contractual obligations given that their reliance on the court order and verdict were fully justified. So far as one in Defendants’ position was concerned, the Court set down the law – for the time being, at least – when it denied the preliminary injunctions requested by the plaintiffs. Defendants abided by the Court’s law. “The law has been obeyed.” Cal. Civ. Code 3548. It would rock traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice if the Court were to suddenly pull the rug out from under Defendants, leaving them to face all of the third parties who have invested an enormous amount of time, effort and resources in preparation for the upcoming concert dates.

If the Court is going to issue an injunction at all, the most equitable solution is to allow Defendants to go forward with their current scheduled concerts under the name “The Doors of the 21st Century,” for which contracts have already been entered, before initiation enforcement of any injunction the Court might ultimately impose. Defendants will, of course, be willing to place any profits (properly defined) from these performances into escrow for a later accounting. Only in this manner can the Court adequately deliver justice to all involved.

D. If The Court Issues Any Injunction, It Should Stay Its Effect So That Defendants May Have Adequate Opportunity To Exercise Their Right Of Appeal.

This Court has jurisdiction to postpone the effect of an injunction pending appeal, as long as the rights of the parties can be preserved. Tulare Irr. Dist. V. Superior Court, 197 Cal, 649, 660-665 (1825); City of San Diego v. Southern etc. Tel. Corp., 42 Cal. 2d 110, 120 (1854) (“the trial court in the exercise of its discretion as a court of equity could delay the taking effect of its injunction and allow the company to use the streets until it was finally determined whether it was required to obtain a franchise. The requirement that the company continue to pay the amount due under its prior obligation adequately protected the city in the interim”).

For the following reasons, the Court should exercise its authority to stay any permanent injunction that it does issue.

1. The Proposed Injunction Is A Death Knell For Defendants’ Performing Careers.

Defendants have invested the last two years of their lives developing and marketing “The Doors of the 21st Century” as this Court authorized them to do. Prohibiting them from using that name or any name that even mentions “The Doors” would mean they would have to start nearly from scratch. For Ray Manzarek in particular, at age 66, this would be an unequitable burden.

2. Defendants Can Adequately Secure Plaintiffs’ Share Of Profits (If Any) While The Appeal Is Pending.

In order to maintain the status quo, Defendant are willing to place into escrow any profits (properly defined) derived from future performances by “The Doors of the 21st Century” so that the Court may equitably divide such proceeds among the Defendants and Plaintiffs at a later date, if that is the result dictated after the appeal is completed. This arrangement will ensure that the rights of the parties are preserved while the matter is being appealed.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

II FACTS NOT DECIDED

A. The Court Has Not Decided The Critical Issue Of Who Owns “The Doors” Name.


The Court’s Proposed Statement Of Decision fails to address the one issue central to this entire case: Who owns the name “The Doors”? That question must be answered in order to decide whether the court can even prohibit Ray Manzarek and Robby Krieger from using the name to perform, tour and promote their band.

As the evidence showed, the name. “The Doors,” was created by Jim Morrison and Ray Manzarek on Venice Beach in the summer of 1965. When the name was first used by Morrison, Manzarek, Densmore and Krieger as a band, there was no partnership. In fact, on June 3, 1966, Krieger, Densmore, Morrison and Manzarek registered the name, “The Doors,” as their fictitious business name, not as the name of a partnership. (Trial Exhibit 501.) And, the band’s first contract with Elektra Records was in the individual names of the members of the band, not in the name of a partnership. (Trial Exhibit 1379.) Moreover, the only legal entity that Elektra Records ever contracted with on behalf of Manzarek, Krieger, Densmore and Morrison was Doors Production Corporation, a California corporation. (Trial Exhibit 1379, 1380, 1382.) Doors Production Corporation was the band’s first legal entity through which the members of the band conducted business. (See Trial Exhibits 653, 901.)

At trial, Densmore called Michael Grace as a witness. Michael Grace was qualified as an expert on trademark law. On the issue of who owned the name, “The Doors,” Mr. Grace testified that it was owned by the four band members as tenants in common. We quote his testimony at length because it is pivotal and dispositive on this issue:

Q. And – well, let me just ask this, sir:

A. By using it.

Q. So you go out, call yourself a name, “the Doors,” you actually perform before an audience, you get paid for your performance, and you begin to acquire rights in that name “The Doors”?

A. The right to exclude others from using the same or confusing similar mark.

Q. And that’s how the rights are acquired?

A. That’s correct.

Q. So if, for example, before there were any partnership agreements, just four guys on the road or up on the stage performing together calling themselves “The Doors”, who would own the rights to that name?

A. It would depend upon what upon what the agreement was of among the parties. Either express in writing or orally or implied. (Michael Grace, July 22, 2004, Trial Transcript, pg. 178, Line 25 through pg. 179, Line 14.)

Q. Well, what if there was nothing in writing stated about who owns this name? What if there was nothing orally stated about who owns this name? Who would own the name?

A. Interesting hypothetical question. Sounds like a law school exam. I’d start out by looking at how -- what the parties relations actually were, in fact. How did – what did they do with the money that they got? Who managed – who entered into contracts on behalf of this entity with respect to third parties? Who did the booking? How did them split the profits? One of the assets of this amorphous entity is – would be the trademark rights, intellectual property rights. (Michael Grace, July 22, 2004, Trial Transcript, pg. 179, Lines 15 to 28.)

Q. And what if the only understanding, sir, was that we’re going to divide everything equally. One person gets a quarter and the other person gets the quarter. Who owns the name?

A. That question I can answer. What you’ve just described is something that you could call tenants in common. Where say you live in an apartment. Each of you agrees to pay a quarter of the rent, but you have an unlimited right to use the whole thing provided that your roommate isn’t already on the couch. (Michael Grace, July 22, 2004, Trial Transcript, pg. 180, Lines 1 through 26, emphasis added.)


Grace’s testimony concerning the ownership of the name, “The Doors,” was uncontradicted. He opined that the name was owned by Densmore, Manzarek, Krieger and Morrison as tenants in common.

Equally important, there was no evidence that the name held as tenants in common was ever transferred or assigned to either Doors Production Corporation, or Doors Music Company, or “The Doors.” There was no evidence that the name was transferred or exchanged with either a corporate entity or partnership with whom the individual members of the band was associated in exchange for an interest in that company or partnership. Compare, The Five Platters, Inc. v. Purdie, 419 F. Supp. 372 (D. Md. 1976) (The Five Platters, Inc. was formed and the five members of the group became the exclusive equal shareholders of the new corporation and exchanged their rights to the name “The Platters” in return for their stock interest.) Absent such evidence, the only evidence about who owns the name is the testimony of Grace, which is uncontridicted that the name, “The Doors,” was owned by Manzarek, Krieger, Densmore and Morrison as tenants in common.

Tenants In Common own separate legal title to their undivided interests in the property; any single co-owner may sell, transfer or encumber his or her undivided interest as he or she pleases. Cal. Civ. Code 686. Wilson v. S. L. Rey, Inc., 17 Cal. App. 234, 242, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 552, 555 (1993). Because Manzarek and Krieger are tenants in common of the name, “The Doors,” each owns a separate legal title to their respective quarter interest in that name. And, as tenants in common of the name, “The Doors,” Manzarek and Krieger have equal rights to possession and use of it. Meyer v. Superior Court, 200 Cal. 776, 792, 254 P. 1108, 1114 (1927); Kapner v. Meadowlark Ranch Assn., 116 Cal. App. 4th 1182, 1189, 11 Cal Rptr. 3d 138, 144 (2004).

Because Manzarek and Krieger have equal rights to the name, neither Densmore nor the Estates (if they are deemed co-owners) have the right to exclude Manzarek and Krieger from using the name. Zaslow v. Kroenert, 29 Cal. 2d 541, 548, 176 P. 2d 1, 5 (1946); Kapner v. Meadowlark Ranch Assn., 116 Cal. App. 4th at 1189. Equally important, neither Densmore nor the Estates are entitled to recover “the rental value” of the use of the name, “The Doors,” from Manzarek and Krieger. Estate of Hughes, 5 Cal. App. 1607, 1611-1612, 7 Cal. Rptr. 2d 742, 745 (1992) (there is no right to recover rental value from con-tenant: nor may one tenant in common recover the rental value of the property from a co-tenant in possession); see also Kapner v. Meadowlark Ranch Assn., 116 Cal. App. 4th at 1189 (because no single tenant in common has the exclusive right of possession, a tenant in common cannot “Trespass” on the commonly owned property).

Because Densmore nor the Estates are entitled to recover the “rental value” of the use of the name, “The Doors,” from Manzarek and Krieger, this Court cannot legally require Manzarek and Krieger to disgorge profits they have earned from touring and performing as “The Doors of the 21st Century.” Such a remedy is not legally cognizable against the tenant in common. And, the Court’s proposed injunction which would prohibit Manzarek and Krieger from the use of the name as tenants in common.

It is therefore clear that this Court must decide the ownership issue because it is the predicate fact upon which all other issues flow, and it must decide that Defendants have the right to use the name.

B. The Court Also Has Not Decided The Critical Issue Of Whether Any Right To Use The Name “The Doors” Has Been Abandoned.

Another issue this Court failed to address is that of abandonment. As Grace also indicated, nonuse of a mark for three consecutive years is prima facie evidence of abandonment under federal trademark law. Id. At 160:2-12; 15 U.S.C. 1127***. It is undisputed that, after Manzarek quit the band in 1973, none of the parties used the name “The Doors” to perform or record for a period of at least five years, until The Doors released An American Prayer on Elektra in 1978. They then waited another 22 years before using that name again.

***Footnote: (A mark shall be deemed to be ‘abandoned’ if either of the following occurs: (1) When its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use. Intent not to resume may be inferred from circumstances. Nonuse for 3 consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment…..(2) When any course of conduct of the owner, including acts of omission as well as commission, causes the mark….to lose its significance as a mark.” 15 U.S.C. 1127.)

When Manzarek left the band in 1973, he instructed Abe Somer to tell Elektra that the name “The Doors” would no longer be used. See Defendants’ Trial Exhibit No. 523 (April 19, 1973 letter from Somer to Elektra: “there is no plan for any of the aforesaid individuals to use the name “The Doors’”). Krieger and Densmore then formed another band called The Butts Band and Somer drew up documents for that later band, including a recording agreement.

As Densmore himself said, when Manzarek left in 1973, “The Doors were being closed.” Testimony of John Densmore, July 7 2005, Trial Transcript at 73:4-12. Densmore admitted that, aside from An American Prayer and two brief one-off appearances, the surviving band members did not perform, tour, record as “The Doors” for 27 years total. Testimony of John Densmore, July 9, 2005, Trial Transcript at 48:21-27; see also Deposition of Danny Sugerman, Vol. 2 at 63:5-8, 63:18-20 (after band broke up, all wanted to put “The Doors” behind them).

As a consequence, the mark “The Doors,” for purposes of touring, recording and performing, was legally abandoned. Anyone could use that name – and, indeed, anyone did use that name, as evidenced by the proliferation of Doors tribute bands using the name, “The Doors.” The fact that no action was ever taken against any of these bands for their use of the name, is strong evidence of abandonment. And, equally significant, Grace testified that he had refused to register “The Doors” in the trademark category (international class 41) for touring and performing in 1999 because the band was not at that time actually touring or performing. Testimony of Michael Grace, July 22, 2005. Trial Transcript at 120:7-13.

This issue is key because if the name, “The Doors,” is deemed abandoned, then as Michael Grace testified, the owners of the name lost the ability to exclude others from using it. Here, that means that neither Densmore nor the Estates can exclude Manzarek and Krieger from use of the name, “The Doors.”

The court cannot reach a just result without expressly deciding the issues of ownership and abandonment of the name “The Doors.” Defendants request that the court decide these two critical issues and find that on either or both grounds, Defendants have the right to use the name.

III. FACTS ERRONEOUSLY DECIDED

A. Densmore Is Entitled To No Relief On His Cause Of Action For Breach Of The 1871 New Doors Agreement.

In his fifth cause of action, Densmore claimed that Manzarek and Krieger violated the terms of those three parties’ October 1, 1971 written partnership agreement (the “1971 Agreement”). Densmore’s Second Amendment Complaint 58-62. The jury found a breach of contract but awarded no damages” No harm, no foul. The Court now purposes to enter judgment in favor of Densmore and awarded him profits and permanent injunctive relief based on the same alleged breach that the jury found was harmless. Proposed Statement of Decision at 30:7-8. Defendants object to the Court’s proposed ruling on the following grounds.

1. Without Damages, There Can Be No Liability For Breach Of Contract


“An essential element of a claim for breach of contract are damages resulting from the breach.” St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. American Dynasty Surplus Lines Lines Ins. Co., 101 Cal. App. 4th 1038, 1060, 124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 818 (2002); see also Reichert v. General Ins. Co., 101 Cal. App. 2d 822, 830, 69 Cal. Rptr. 321 (1968) (elements of cause of action for breach of contract include, “resulting damages to plaintiff”). Thus, as a matter of law, a party cannot prevail in the absence of damages.

Densmore failed to prove the existence of any harm resulting from Defendants’ alleged breach of the 1971 Agreemen, as demonstrated by the jury’s refusal to award any monetary relief. Ergo, Densmore has not actually prevailed on the cause of action. Roberts v. Los Angles County Bar Assn., 105 Cal. App. 4th 604, 617, 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 546 (2003) (“Actual damage as opposed to mere nominal damage is another essential element of a cause of action for breach of contract”) (emphasis added) (quoting Cochran v. Cochran, 56 Cal. App. 4th 1115, 1123, n. 6, 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 337 (1997); Navellier v. Sletten, 106 Cal. App. 4th 763, 769, 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 201 (2003) (breach of contract cause of action “fails because plaintiffs presented no evidence of damages from the breach”).

2. In Any Event, Densmore Is Not Entitled To Disgorgement Of Profits.

Densmore alleged that Defendants should be required to disgorge the profits resulting from their alleged breach of the 1971 written partnership agreement. Densmore’s Second Amended Complaint 60. The Court has now proposed awarding Densmore such requested relief. Proposed Statement of Decision at 30:7. But disgorgement is not available to Densmore as a remedy for breach of the 1971 Agreement.



(a) Disgorgement Is Not A Remedy For Breach Of Contract

“It is well settled in this state that one who has been injured by a breach of contract has an election to pursue any of three remedies,” to wit: (1) damages, (2) rescission and restitution, or (3) specific performance. Alder v. Drudis, 30 Cal. 2d 372, 381, 182 P. 2d 195 (1947; see also Michaelian v. Elba Land Co., 76 Cal. App, 541, 557, 245 P. 476 (1926).

Disgorgement, however, is not available to compensate for breach of contract. See B.E. Witkin, 1 Summary of California Law 797 (reviewing possible remedies for breach of contract); Restatement (Second) of Contracts 345 (same). Rather, it is an equitable tort remedy for plaintiffs who prevail on such claims as copyright infringement or trademark infringement (which Densmore did not do.) See, e.g., 17 U.S.C. 504 (B ); 15 U.S.C. 1117(a).

Disgorgement wrests ill-gotten gains from the hands of a wrongdoer. It is an equitable remedy meant to prevent the wrongdoer from enriching himself by his wrongs. Disgorgement does not aim to compensate the victims of the wrongful acts, as restitution does. Thus, a disgorgement order might be for an amount more or less than that required to make the victims whole. It is not restitution.

SEC v. Huffman, 996 F. 2d 800, 802 (5th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted); see also Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc., 23 Cal. 4th 116, 126-27, 96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 485 (2000) (distinguishing restitution from disgorgement). Disgorgement vindicates social policy by promotions for performances by Defendants in those cities. See Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibits No. 204, 295 (a), 205 (B ).

Defendants cannot be punished for what they did not do. The Estates’ grievance, if any, is with the radio stations who decided to use Jim Morrison’s voice – not with Defendants, who had nothing to do with such alleged activities. The Estates failed to present any evidence that Defendants exerted (let alone possessed) any authority or control over such third parties.


As a general rule one has no duty to control the conduct of another, and no duty to warn those who may be endangered by such conduct.” Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School District. 19 Cal. 4th 925, 933, 80 Cal. 3d 799, 806, 205 Cal. Rptr. 842 (1984). The actions of one party may be imputed to another only if “the persons involved stand in such relation to each other that it can be said that one acted through the instrumentality of the other.” 46 Cal. Jur. 3d 89 at 333 (citing Spence v. Fisher, 184 Cal. 209, 193 P. 255 (1920). The relationships that support imposition of vicarious liability are those of: principal and agent; employer and employee (respondent superior); partnerships and partners; corporate officer/director and corporation; trust and trustee; parent and child; and automobile owner and driver. See 33 Cal. Forms Pleading and Practice, Negligence at 151055 (citing cases). “Vicarious liability is a departure from the normal tort principal that liability follows fault.” Id. At 151.

Additionally, even if Defendants themselves were responsible for the radio promotions, this could not form a basis for liability under Section 3344.1 as it would be preempted by federal copyright law. See 17 U.S.C/ 301 (a), 106 (4); Sinatra v/ Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 435 F. 2d 711, 718 (9th Cir. 1970) (rejecting rule that copyright “licensee must pay each artist who has played or sung the composition and who might therefore claim” violation of right of publicity); see, e.g. Fleet v. CBS, Inc., 50 Cal. App. 4th 1911, 1918, 58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 645 (1996); Del Madera Properties v. Rhodes & Gardner, Inc., 820 F. 2d 973, 977 (9th Cir. 1987); Fisher v. Dees, 794 F. 2d 432, 440 (9th Cir. 1986)***

***Footnote: (Of course, even if Defendants had engaged in such activities, those actions would still be completely legal under the Copyright Act because all radio stations (and major music deterring others from committing similar, wrongful acts. SEC v. Cross (In re Cross), 218 B.R. 76, 78 n.2 (9th Cir. 1998).***

By sharp contrast, contract damages serve to deliver to the plaintiff the “benefit of the bargain.” Robin Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 979, 991-92, 22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352 (2004). “For the breach of an obligation arising from contract, the measure of damages….is the amount which will compensate the party aggrieved for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, or which, in the ordinary course of things, would be likely to result therefrom.” Cal. Civ. Code 3300. In other words, contract damages put the plaintiff in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract been performed. Restatement (Second) of Contracts 346(a) see also Cal. Com. Code 1106(1). It necessarily follows that “no person can recover a greater amount in damages for the breach of an obligation, than he could have gained by the full performance thereof on both sides.” Cal. Civ. Code 3358. But that is exactly what Densmore asks the Court to do here, he seeks for Krieger and Manzarek to disgorge “their profits resulting from the breach of contract. Densmore’s Second Amended Complaint 60.

***Footnote: (Contract and tort are different branches of law. Contract law exists to enforce legally binding agreements between parties; tort law is designed to vindicate social policy.” Applied Equipment Co., v. Litton Saudi Arabia, Ltd., 7 Cal. 4th 503, 515, 28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 475 (1994). “The differences between a contract and tort give rise to distinctions in assessing damages are generally limited to those with the contemplation of the parties when the Contract was entered into or at least reasonably foreseeable by them at that time; consequential damages beyond the expectations of the parties are not recoverable. This limitation on available damages serves to encourage contractual relations and commercial activity by enabling parties to estimate in advance the financial risks of their enterprise.” Id. (citations omitted). “In contrast, tort damages are awarded to compensate the victim for injury suffered.” Id. At 516. “Consistent with distinctions just discussed…..punitive or exemplary damages, which are designed to punish and deter statutorily defined types of wrongful conduct, are available only in actions for breach of an obligation not arising from contract.” Id. (citation and quotations omitted).

(B ) Recent Supreme Court Authority Explains Why Disgorgement Is Unavailable For Breach Of Contract.

The California Supreme Court recently addressed this problem and specifically precluded disgorgement in a breach of contract action. Korea Supp;y Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1151, 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 29 (2003). Our high court held that the disgorgement remedy would allow a plaintiff to obtain money “without having to meet the more rigorous pleading requirements of a negligence action, or a breach of contract suit.” Id. (emphasis added). The Supreme Court also held that it would be a due process violation for the plaintiff to be awarded disgorged monies which originated from another person who was not before the court. Id. At 1152.

The disgorgement remedy requested in this case would not require that the disgorged money or property have come from the prospective plaintiff in the first instance. Nor is there any limit on the number of times the remedy could be sought or any limit on the monetary relief available. There is a risk of unfairness not only to the defendants bit also to direct victims of the unfair practice. If (the defendant) were forced to disgorge its profits to (the plaintiff), there might be little left for the (person who paid money to defendant) to recover, even though it is the party ostensibly entitled to restitutionary relief.

Id. The Supreme Court has identified exactly the problems inherent with the disgorgement remedy when, as here the plaintiffs have not turned over the monies which they now request be transferred to them. It would result in an unfair windfall. Clear Channel, House of Blues, AEG and other promoters have paid monies to Defendants to perform. Although he Densmore did not perform with “The Doors of the 21st Century,” Densmore now wants the money.

Densmore elected to pursue contract damages. But the jury awarded him none, so he now asks the Court to instead award him disgorgement. For the sound and well established policy reasons discussed above, the Court cannot, under the guise of “equity,” step in and upset the jury’s binding verdict: Densmore is to receive no monetary relief.

B. As The Jury Found, Densmore And The Estates Are Entitled To No Relief On Their Causes Of Action For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty.

The jury concluded that Manzarek and Krieger breached certain fiduciary duties they allegedly owed to Densmore and the Estates, but the jury found there was no harm from these alleged breaches. Yet the court proposes to enter judgment against Manzarek and Krieger and, at least to the Estates, plans to award profits and injunctive relief. Proposed Statement of Decision at 33:12015, 30:10-13

As the Court readily acknowledges, it “cannot ignore the jury’s verdict and grant equitable relief inconsistent with the jury’s verdict.” Id. At 28:8-9 (citing Hughes v. Dunlap, 91 Cal. 385, 388 (1891); see also Wegner et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Trials & Evidence 2:166. However, if the Court were to award the equitable remedies of disgorgement and injunctive relief on this cause of action, doing so would impermissibly overrule the jury’s binding determination that the plaintiffs are entitled to no relief whatsoever.

As the Court also acknowledges, Plaintiffs’ fiduciary duty claims are legal in nature. GAB Business Services, Inc., v. Lindsey & Newsom Claim Services, Inc. 83 Cal. App. 4th 409 (2000); Mortimer v. Loynes, 74 Cal. App, 2d 160, 168 (1946) (plaintiff entitled to jury trial on claims that officer breached fiduciary duty to corporation; “From the fact that equitable principals are thus used to establish the alleged liability is equitable”). See Proposed Statement of Decision at 32:14-33:15, 3-0:10-13. The Court instructed the jury on Plaintiffs’ fiduciary duty claims. See, e,g, Plaintiffs Special Instruction No 3 (“Fiduciary Duties Owed By Each Partner”; No. 4 (“Duty of Loyalty”), No 5 (“Duty of Care.”), No 6 (“Definition of Gross Negligence”). The jury plainly found that, despite the purported breach of duty by Manzarek and Krieger, neither Densmore nor the Estates were harmed and thus no relief is to be awarded.***


***Footnote: (The jury intended for Manzarek, Krieger and Astbury to be able to continue to tour indefinitely as “The Doors of the 21st Century.” Declaration of A.J. Rolfe 4. The jury also determined that the Estates are not voting partners, and that the Morrisons’ and Coursons’ participation was limited to receiving a portion of the profits and paying a portion of the costs – but the Morrisons and the Coursons had no decision making ability. Id. 5.

The Court now indicates that, as to the legal causes of action (such as breach of fiduciary duty), it intends to enter a judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict.” Proposed Statement of Decision at 28:21-22. This is correct. “This court cannot treat the verdicts as to legal causes of action as advisory without violation the right to trial by jury.” Id. At 28:29-21 (citing Wegner et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Trials & Evidence 2:171).

The Court is therefore compelled to enter judgment consistent with the jury’s conclusion and deny the Plaintiffs’ request for disgorgement and injunctive relief. Indeed, the Court intends to award no relief to Defendants even though they prevailed against Densmore on their claims for his breaches of fiduciary duty – because the jury found no damages on those claims, either. Defendants do not dispute the propriety of this conclusion, but (in all fairness) the Court should employ the same logic when evaluating whether to award equitable relief to the plaintiffs.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

C. The Estates Are Entitled To No Relief On Their Cause Of Action For False Advertising

“False Advertising” is a statement (1) “which is untrue or misleading,” and (2) “which is known, or which by the exercise or reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading,” and (3) made “with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property or to perform services, professional or otherwise, or anything of any nature whatsoever or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17500.

In its proposed statement of decision, the Court concludes that Manzarek and Krieger engaged in false advertising by:


· “engaging in advertising which prominently displayed the logo of The Doors, in The Doors’ well known font type, and minimizing in a different font the words “21st Century” or “of the 21st Century”;
· using “the out-take photograph from the Strange Days album cover” and
· “permitting the dissemination of radio and television ads prepared by Bill Young Productions that identified the band as The Doors and the tour as the 21st Century Live Tour.”

Proposed Statement of Decision at 30:26-31:3

None of this constitutes false advertising.


1. There is Nothing Untrue Or Misleading About Defendants’ Advertising.

Multiple print and electronic media advertising was admitted into evidence which clearly indicated the identity of the performers on stage and the program of Doors music to be played. Expert witness Nicholas Clainos, a promoter for more than 30 years, opined that Defendants’ advertisements were above and beyond the standards of the industry in terms of their truthfulness and correctly communicated the event that would take place on stage. Plaintiff’s expert Nigel Williamson, the English rock critic, even admitted that the admat for the Universal Amphitheatre show did not promise anything more than an evening of Doors music performed by the artists identified on the front of the ad, which is exactly what consumers received.

2. The Jury’s Verdict As To The Lanham Act Claims Precludes A Finding Of False Advertising.

The jury’s finding in favor of Defendants on the Lanham Act claim also compels a finding for Defendants on the statutory false advertising claim in that the fundamental inquiry for both claims is whether or not a member of the public is likely to be deceived or confused.

The jury rejected Densmore’s and the Estates’ claims for violation of the Lanham Act and Business & Professions Code 17200. In other words, the manner in which Defendants promoted themselves and their concerts was not likely to cause confusions among consumers. These jury findings require that the Court also reject the Estates’ claim of false advertising under Business & Professions Code 17500 because the fundamental inquiry under both laws is whether or not a member of the public is likely to be deceived or confused. Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal. 4th 939, 951 (2002). See also Committee on Children’s Television, 35 Cal. 3d 197, 211 (1983); Leoni v. State Bar, 39 Cal. 3d 609, 626 (1985).

As discussed above, the Court acknowledges that it “cannot ignore the jury’s verdict and grant equitable relief inconsistent with the jury’s verdict.” Id. At 28:8-9 (citing Hughes v. Dunlap, 91 Cal. 395, 388 (189i) see also Los Angeles Protective League v. Gates, 995 F. 2d 1469, 1473 (9th Cir. 1993) (jury’s findings at law are binding on a court later sitting in equity). Thus, the jury’s finding that Defendants’ advertisements are not likely to confuse consumers obviates the entire false advertising claim.

Furthermore, Defendants cannot be held liable for the actions of third party promoters. Third party conduct is inadmissible for claims under the false advertising statue. Under Section 17500, there is no duty to investigate the truth of statements made by others. Emery v. Visa International Service Association, 95 Cal. App. 4th 952, 964 (2002). This makes sense since Section 17500, in its criminal version, does not impose strict liability. People v. Regan, 95 Cal. App, 3d Supp.1 (Super 1979). Thus, the Court cannot consider any evidence introduced by Plaintiffs (over Defendants’ objection) of actions taken by third parties.

The Estates based their false advertising claim primarily upon allegations that Defendants’ “use of the Doors name and logo (or variations thereof that are so similar to the originals as to likely cause confusion to the public) to advertise, promote and merchandise their New Band, constitutes false advertising under California Business & Professions Code 17500……” Second Amended Complaint 59. However, at every opportunity that the jury had to rule upon the legality and propriety of Defendants’ advertising, the required three-fourths majority always held that Defendants were not liable. The only consistent ruling this Court can enter is a defense verdict on the false advertising claim.

3. There Is No Evidence Of Actual Or Likely Consumer Confusion.

Plaintiffs failed to present any competent, legally sufficient evidence of confusion among consumers to adequately support the Estates’ false advertising claims. At the most, all that Plaintiffs showed was scattered, anecdotal incidents where “The Doors of the 21st Century” may have been referred to as “The Doors,” whether intentionally or inadvertently, by a few persons. This scant “proof” falls woefully short of even the barest showing required to support allegations of legally actionable consumer confusion. See Accuride International, Inc., v. Accuride Corp., 871 F. 2d 1531, 1537 (9th Cir. 1987); Nutri/System, Inc., v. Con-Stan Industries, Inc., 809 F 2d 601, 606-7 (9th Cir. 1987) ( de minimis confusion legally inadequate to sustain infringement suit). A mere “handful of anecdotal evidence is de minimus and does not support a finding of genuine issue of material fact as to the likelihood of confusion…..” King of the Mountain Sports, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 185 F 3d 1084, 1092 (10th Cir. 1999).

To demonstrate likelihood of confusion a markholder (or one claiming by, through, or under her) must show more than the theoretical possibility of confusion. Just as one tree does not constitute a forest, an isolated instance of confusion. Just as one tree does not constitute a forest, an isolated instance of confusion does not prove probable confusion. To the contrary, the law has long demanded a showing that the allegedly infringing conduct carries with it a likelihood of confounding an appreciable number of reasonably prudent purchasers exercising ordinary care. This means, of course, that confusion resulting from the consuming public’s carelessness, indifference, or ennui will not suffice.

International Assn. Of Machinists and Aerospace, 103 F. 3d 196 (1st Cir. 1996).

As Plaintiff’s own witness Michael Grace (a trademark specialist) testified during trial, sufficient confusion is typically established by commissioning one or more carefully designed and conducted consumer surveys. See E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 995 F. 2d 1327, 1339-40 (9th Cir. 1992); Levi Strauss & Co. v. Blue Bell, Inc., 778 F. 2d 1352, 1360 (9th Cir. 1985). “In borderline cases where evidence of actual confusion is not available or is not overwhelming, the gap should best be filled by a properly conducted survey of the relevant class of prospective customers of the goods or services at issue.” J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competion 23:17 (4th Ed.) Plaintiffs never bothered to conduct any such survey. The Court cannot assume a survey would support Plaintiffs.

Instead, Plaintiffs merely pointed to miscellaneous items, such as a double hearsay statement by Tom Vitorino that John Densmore told him that a few of his friends thought he was playing at the Universal Amphitheatre concert (despite the fact that all of the ads for the concert, like all “The Doors 21st Century” concerts, name all of the principal performers on the face of the ad). This “evidence” proves nothing in the way of confusion among general consumers – i.e. CD-buying, concert-going, Doors-music-listening folk, without a personal or professional relationship with the band. Plaintiff’s de minimus, anecdotal evidence is inadequate as a matter of law to support a verdict in their favor on any confusion based case of action, including false advertising. The Court should so find.

D. Estates Are Entitled To No Relief On Their Cause Of Action For Violation Of Right Of Publicity.

With respect to the Estates’ cause of action for violation of California’s postmortem right of publicity statue, the jury found a breach but, again, awarded no monetary relief: No harm, no foul. The Court nevertheless proposes to enter judgment for the Estates against Manzarek and Krieger for $750. Proposed Statement Of Decision at 32:2-8. This would be error for multiple reasons: the Estates’ evidence was legally insufficient to support any liability under Civil Code Section 3344/1; the jury was not properly instructed on liability; and the Court cannot award statuary damages which are Estates did not request.

1. There Is No Substantial Evidence Of A Violation Of The Right Of Publicity.
(a) Section 3344.1 Only Prohibits Unauthorized Use On Or In, Or For Selling, Products, Merchandise, Good Or Services; There Was No Such Use.


Section 3344.1 of the California Civil Code 3344/1 (a)(I); cf., White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F. 2d 1395, 1397-99 (9th Cir. 1992) (common law right also protects against other appropriations of identity). As a result, there can be no liability under the statute, by the way of example, for imitation of a deceased individual’s voice and style or original distinctive sound. See Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F. 2d 460, 463 (9th Cir. 1988).***

***Footnote: (The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Midler v. Ford Motor Co., that Ford Motor Company could not be held liable to Bette Midler under the identical language of Section 3344 for the defendants’ use of a sound alike singer performing one of Midler’s songs in a television commercial. See Midler, 849 F.2d at 463. “The statue affords damages to a person injured by another who uses the person’s ‘name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness, in any manner.’ The defendants did not use Midler’s name or anything else whose use is prohibited by the statue. The voice they used was (the sound alike)’s not her’s. The term ‘likeness’ refers to a visual image not a vocal imitation..” Id. Thus, even if Defendants had employed a Morrison ‘sound alike’ to carefully recreate and imitate the deceased singer’s performance style as closely as possible (which they did not), they could not be held liable under Section 3344.1 as a matter of law. The Ninth Circuit went on to rule that the defendants were liable to Midler, if at all, only under California’s common law right of publicity (which is not descendible). See Midler, supra., 849 F 2d 460 at 463.)

Section 3344.1 also requires that a “direct connection” must be established between the use and the defendant’s commercial purpose. Eastwood v. Superior Court (National Enquirer, Inc.), 149 Cal. App. 3d 409, 417-18, 198 Cal. Rptr. 342 (1983) (quoting Johnson v. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 43 Cal. App. 3d 880, 895, 118 Cal. Rptr. 370 (1974); see Cal. Civ. Code 3344.1(k).

Thus, defendants could only be held liable had the Estates presented competent, admissible evidence”

· That Defendants used Jim Morrison’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likness,
· That this use was directly connected with a commercial purpose, and
· That the use was (1) on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or (2) for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods, or services, without the Estates’ consent. See Cal. Civ. Code 3344.1(a)(1).

Because the Estates did not present so much as a scintilla of evidence showing that Defendants did so, judgment in Defendants’ favor is required by law.

(B ) Defendants Cannot Be Punished For The Conduct Of Others.


Examining each of the purported “uses” of Morrison’s identify suggested by the Estates, it is clear that none can support a judgment against Defendants for liability under Section 3344.1.

(i) Defendants Are Not Responsible For Third-Party Radio Promotions.

The Estates contended that local radio stations in Houston and Los Angeles used original recordings by “The Doors” (which included Jim Morrison’s vocals) in radio promotions for performances by Defendants in those cities. See Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibits No. 204, 205(a), 205(B ).

Defendants cannot be punished for what they did not do. The Estates’ grievance, if any, is with the radio stations who decided to use Jim Morrison’s voice – not with Defendants, who had nothing to do with such alleged activities. The Estates failed to present any evidence that Defendants exerted (let alone possessed) any authority or control over such third parties.

“As a general rule one has no duty to control the conduct of another, and no duty to warn those who may be endangered by such conduct.” Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School District., 19 Cal. 4th 925, 933, 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 811 (1998) (quoting Peterson v. San Francisco Community College Dist., 36 Cal. 3d 799, 806, 205 Cal. Rptr. 842 (1984). The actions of one party may be imputed to another only if “the persons involved stand in such relation to each other that it can be said that one acted through the instrumentality of the other.” 46 Cal. Jur. 3d 89 at 333 (citing Spence v. Fisher, 184 Cal. 209, 193 P. 255 (1920). The relationships that support imposition of vicarious liability are those of; principal and agent; employer and employee (respondent superior); partnerships and partners’ corporate officer/director and corporation; trust and trustee; parent and child; and automobile owner and driver. See 33 Cal. Forms of Pleading and Practice, Negligence at 151-55 (citing cases). “Vicarious liability is a departure from the normal tort principal that liability follows fault.” Id. At 151.

Additionally, even if Defendants themselves were responsible for the radio promotions, this could not form a basis for liability under Section 3344.1 as it would be preempted by federal copyright law. See 17 U.S.C. 301(a), 106(4); Sinatra v. Goodyear Tire & Ribber Co., 435 F. 2d 711, 718 (9th Cir. 1970) (rejecting rule that copyright “license must pay each artist who has played or sung the composition and who might therefore claim” violation of right of publicity); see, e.g., Fleet v. CBS, Inc., 50 Cal. App. 4th 1911, 1918, 58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 645 (1996); Del Madera Properties v. Rhodes & Gardner, Inc.. 820 F. 2d 973, 977 (9th Cir. 1987); Fisher v. Dees, 794 F 2d 432, 440 (9th Cir. 1986)***


*** Footnote: (Of course, even if Defendants had engaged in such activities, those actions would still be completely legal under the Copyright Act because all radio stations (and major music venues such as those that “The Doors of the 21st Century” played in) maintain expensive “blanket” public performance licenses from ASCAP and BMI, which authorize the public performance of any and all songs in “The Doors” catalog – and consequently result in substantial performance royalties paid to Doors Music Co. each year.)



(ii) Defendants Are Not Responsible For A Kodak Theatre Poster.

The Proposed Statement Of Decision concludes that “(p)osters of the admats are prominently displayed at some concerts (on which there is depicted the out take of the Strange Days album cover, which in turn depicts the image of the original band members).” Proposed Statement Of Decision at 36:3-5. This is wholly unsupported by the trial record, which only includes testimony about AEG’s single poster displayed prior to one concert, at the Kodak Theatre.

The concert promoter AEG Live, not Defendants, displayed a poster at the Kodak Theatre to promote the Defendants’ performance there on December 31, 2004.****

The poster reportedly included the “Strange Days” album cover outtake photograph.*****

See Trial testimony of Eric Koehler. Once again, the Estates would have the Court impute to Defendants liability for actions they did not commit. In the absence of even circumstantial evidence connecting Defendants with such third party actions, Defendants cannot be held liable therefore.

Furthermore, the jurors had no opportunity to ever view the poster or to ascertain for themselves whether Jim Morrison was even recognizable in it. Identifiability is an essential legal component of liability for violation of the right of publicity. See Motschenbacjer v. Reynold Tobacco Co., 498 F 2d 831, 826-27 (9th Cir. 1974) (“if Plaintiff is not identifiable in the commercial, then in no sense has Plaintiff’s identity been misappropriated nor his interest violated”); Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition 46. cmt. d (1995). Section 3344.1 itself requires that the deceased personality be “readily identifiable” in the infringing photograph. Cal. Civ. Code 3344.1(i). No witness testified that Jim Morrison was even identifiable in the poster, which predominantly featured several carnival performers rather than members of “The Doors.”******

****Footnote: (The Court concluded that “(p)osters of the admats are prominently displayed at some concerts.” Proposed Statement Of Decision at 26:3-5; see also Plaintiffs’ (Proposed) Statement Of Decision at 33:6-7 (“posters of the admat are prominently displayed at some concerts”). This contention is unsupported by the trial record, which only includes testimony about AEG’s single poster displayed prior to one concert, at the Kodak Theatre.)

*****Footnote: (The Estates apparently do not contend that the actual newspaper advertisements featuring a small, black and white image of the “Strange Days” outtake photo were themselves violations of Section 3344.1. presumably because (as noted above) the statue requires that the deceased personality be “readily identifiable.” Cal. Civ. Code 3344.1(I). Jim Morrison was in no way identifiable in the newspaper ads as they were seen by the public. See, e.g. Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibits No. 186, 187, 191, 193, 194.)

******Footnote: (Moreover, the Estates did not present to the jury any evidence that the poster actually contributed to concert ticket sales whatsoever. In fact, AEG Live representative Eric Koehler testified during trial that AEG displayed the poster to the public for only one day: the day of the show.)




(iii) The Lizard T-Shirt Does Not Violate The Right Of Publicity.


As the Court notes in its Proposed Statement of Decision, Signatures Network (formerly Sony Signatures), the exclusive manufacturer of “Doors of the 21st Century” merchandise, printed an image of a lizard on one or more of its “The Doors of the 21st Century” T-Shirt designs. Proposed Statement of Decision at 26:11-27:4; See Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibits No. 303, 304, 305. The Estates suggested that a lizard is “symbolic” of Jim Morrison. “To Doors fans, the lizard is the equivalent of using Jim’s picture to promote sales of the shirts,” they argued. Opposition to Motion for Nonsuit 6:13-14. The Court appears to agree: “Jim Morrison’s alter ego was the Lizard King.” Proposed Statement of Decision at 26:14-16.

While that might arguably be so in the minds of some Doors fans, it certainly does not violate Section 3344.1. The Statue limits recovery to five specified categories of use: “Name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness.” Cal. Civ. Code 3344.1(a)(1). A symbol, such as a lizard, is none of these things. Use of a symbol that may be associated with a personality cannot, and does not, alone support statutory liability in California. See e.g., White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F 2d 1395, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992)***; Winter v. DC Comics, 30 Cal. 4th 881, 134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 634 (2003) (publisher of comic books containing half-worm characters that evoked musicians Johnny and Edgar Winter not liable under Section 3344). Although an image of a lizard might, in someone’s opinion, call to mind Jim Morrison (or Godzilla, or a GEICO commercial, or the Night Of The Iguana), it certainly does not constitute his “likeness” within the meaning of Section 3344.1. See id. Just as Vanna White is not (and does not look like) a robot, and the Winter brothers are not actually supernatural half-worm/half-human villains, neither did Jim Morrison literally resemble a lizard.

Signatures Network therefore did not use his name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness as proscribed by California statue.

Furthermore, even if Signatures Network had violated Jim Morrison’s postmortem right of publicity, Defendants would not be vicariously liable because, again, the Estates did not present any evidence of elicit any testimony suggesting that Defendants themselves directed, authorized, sold or even saw the T-Shirt design in question.

(iv) Defendants Are Not Responsible For A Universal Amphitheatre Advertisment.

The Proposed Statement of Decision says that an. “ad for the Universal Amphitheatre (sic) concert used Jim Morrison’s picture. “ Proposed Statement Of Decision at 26:5-6.

Not so. The newspaper advertisement includes a recent photograph of Manzarek, Astbury, Krieger and Copeland accompanied by their names printed at the bottom of the ad. See Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 183. Although a portion of the “Strange Days” album cover outtake is faintly visible as a grayscale halftone behind the recent photo, Morrison cannot be seen because the poster is obscured by a wide gray stripe and the letter”s.” There is no picture of Jim Morrison anywhere in the ad. He just isn’t there.


***Footnote: (In White, the defendant used in a print advertisement an image of a female-shaped robot wearing a long gown, blond wig, and large jewelry, turning a block letter on a game board that closely resembled the famous Wheel Of Fortune television game show set. See White, 971 F. 2d at 1396. The district court ruled, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, that this did not quality as a use of Wheel Of Fortune hostess Vanna White’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness within the meaning of California law, even though there was “little doubt about the celebrity the ad (was) meant to depict.” Id. At 1399. Rejecting White’s argument that the advertisement used her “likeness,” the Ninth Circuit noted that the defendants “used a robot with mechanical features, and not, for example, a manikin molded to White’s precise features.” Id. At 1397 (citing Miller v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F. 2d 460, 463 (9th Cir. 1988). The Ninth Circuit went on to rule that the Defendants could be liable to White, if at all, only under California’s broader common law right of publicity (which is not descendible). Id at 1397-99.)


(v) Defendants Cannot Be Punished For Visiting Jim Morrison’s Grave.

The Estates complained that Defendants visited Jim Morrison’s grave while they were in Paris, on December 8 2003. See Opposition To Motion For Nonsuit 6:15-17. But so what? This activity is most obviously not actionable under Section 3344.1, which protects against commercial use of identity, i.e. (1) use on or in products, merchandise, or goods; and (2) use in “speech which does no more than purpose a commercial transaction.” Bolger v. Young Drug Products, 463 U.S. 60, 66, 103 S. Ct. 2875 (1983). Defendants’ visit to Morrison’s grave was not a commercial use of Jim Morrison’s identity. It was a trip to a cemetery. Defendants are baffled as to why the Estates would think this activity is illegal.***

Furthermore, Jim Morrison’s grave is located in Paris, France. Section 3344.1 limits the application of California’s post mortem right of publicity statue to “acts occurring directly in this state.” Cal. Civ. Code 3344.1(n). “The only reasonable interpretation of this provision from its plain language is that it applies only to claims that arise of acts occurring in California. The provision….addresses the reach of the statue’s coverage.” Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 120 F. Supp. 2d 880, 883 (C.D. Cal. 2000), aff’d 292 F. 3d 1139, 1147 (9th Cir 2002). So even if Defendants’ activities in France (or England or Japan for that matter) did somehow otherwise violate Section 3344.1, they would still not be actionable because they did not occur directly in this state. This crucial point should be borne in mind with respect to every single alleged action by Defendants (including concerts) outside of California that the Estates, in hindsight, claim violated Morrison’s post mortem right of publicity.

In any event, the fact that Defendants paid their respects at the burial site of a departed friend and fellow artist did not somehow become a commercial use of Morrison’s identity simply because reporters and/or photographers may have followed them to the scene to document the occurrence. “Publication of matters in the public interest, which rests on the right of the public to know, and the freedom of the press to tell it, cannot ordinarily be actionable.” Eastwood v. Superior Court (National Enquirer, Inc.), 149 Cal. App. 3d 409, 421, 198 Cal. Rptr. 342 (1983) In fact, Section 3344.1 categorically exempts from liability the “use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign….” Cal. Civ. Code 3344.1(j(; see also id at 3344.1(a)(2). Here, “the fact that use of the……name was descriptive and related to the constitutionally protected activity of news gathering and dissemination and not merely commercial exploitation compels the conclusion that the activity is constitutionally protected.” New Kids On The Block v. News America Pub., 745 F. Supp. 1540, 1546 (C.D. Cal. 1990).

Finally, the Estates’ evidence failed to establish that the Defendants’ visit to the grave site was “directly connected” to a commercial purpose, as required by California law. Cal. Civ. Code 3344.1(k); see Johnson v, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 43 Cal. App. 3d 880, 895, 118 Cal. Rptr. 370 (1974( (reprint of article about Plaintiff in book not directly connected to commercial purpose).
***Footnote: (Densmore testified that he, too, has visited Morrison’s grave in Paris. Apparently, according to the Estates, he also violated Section 3344.1 by doing so.


(vi) Manzarek Was Entitled To Answer Press Question About Morrison.

On July 28, 2004 the Winnipeg Sun published an article that quotes Manzarek as saying about Morrison, “He sort of appears on stage. If you are sensitive enough you’ll get an image – a glimpse of Jim Morrison on stage. I do.” In the same article, Manzarek also states, “Ian’s great – he’s a reincarnation of Jim Morrison.” Manzarek goes on” “He’s a psychic Jim Morrison in the deep dark recesses of your consciousness.” The Court now proposes to enter judgment against Krieger and Manzarek based in part on those comments in the Winnepeg Sun. See Proposed Statement Of Decision at 26:7-10.

This cannot be. If this were actionable, then so too would be every mere mention of a deceased personality in the press by an artist who works for a living. For instance, each time a current musician says he or she is “influenced by” another artist (e.g. Johnny Cash, Elvis Presley or even Jim Morrison), statutory liability would follow. That, of course is not (and cannot be) the law. See U.S. Const. Amend. I, XIV; Gionfriddo v. Major League Baseball, 94 Cal. App. 4th 400, 419-17, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 307 (2001); Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 255 F. 3d 1180, 1184-86 (9th Cir. 2001).

The right of publicity as recognized by statue and common law is fundamentally constrained by the public and constitutional interest in freedom of expression. The use of a person’s identity primarily for the purpose of communicating information or expressing ideas is not generally actionable as a violation of the person’s right of publicity. The scope of the activities embraced within this limitation on the right of publicity has been broadly construed.

Restatement (Third) Of Unfair Competition 47, cmt.b (1995)

In short, the Winnipeg Sun article (and others like it) cannot support liability under the post mortem right of publicity statue. It is not a use of Jim Morrison’s name on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, good, or services. See Cal. Civ. Code 3344.1(a)(1).

Even if it were a commercial use, it would be exempt as it is connected with a “news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account….” Id. at 3344.1(j). And even it were not exempt, it was not “directly connected” to a commercial purpose. Id. at 3344.1(k). Failing that, it would still not be actionable because Mr. Manzarek’s word were printed far from California in Canadian newspaper. See id. at 3344.1(n) (statute applies only to “acts occurring in this state”.

(vii) Briefly Projecting Morrison’s Picture During A Concert Was Not Proscribed Publicity.

During some Doors of the 21st Century concerts (most of which took place outside California), an illuminated image of Jim Morrison was projected for 30 to 90 seconds among images of numerous other cultural icons. Just like every other “use” that the Estates pointed to in support of their right of publicity claim, this is not actionable under the California right of publicity statue for deceased celebrities.




(1) Defendants’ Conduct Does Not Violate The Language Of The Statue.

Projecting a picture before and/or during a live concert performance does not qualify as a commercial use of Morrison’s photograph under Section 3344.1 because it is not (1) on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or (2) for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services. See Cal. Civ. Code 3344.1(a)(1). Defendants did not print or otherwise affix Morrison’s photograph to any type of product, merchandise or good. See Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal. 4th 387, 395, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 126 (2001) (“use must be on tangible property”). And their use was not in the context of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of good or services such as concert tickets. Rather, by the time concertgoers saw Morrison’s picture, they by definition had already bought their passes to the show. Projecting Morrison’s photo could not in any way have motivated the patron’s purchases. The projection was thus not directly connected with the commercial purpose of the concerts, as required by law. See Cal. Civ. Code 3344.1(k). “It “was not a primary reason for the (concerts); nor was it a substantial factor in the (consumer)’s purchases….” Johnson v. Harcourt, Brace, Jovaovich, Inc., 43 Cal. App. 3d 880, 895, 118 Cal. Rptr. 370 (1974).

Also, as noted above, the plain language of the statue strictly limited its application to “acts occurring directly in this state.” Cal. Civ. Code 3344.1(n). The evidence and testimony at trial showed that the vast majority (indeed, all be a few) of the Defendants’ performances as “The Doors of the 21st Century” occurred outside of California, many of those even outside the United States. Defendants’ activity during any concert outside California could not sustain a verdict in the Estates’ favor because the reach of the statute is limited solely to California state borders. Carins v. Franklin Mint Co., 292 F. 3d 1139, 1147 (9th Cir. 2002).

(2) Defendants’ Conduct Is Constitutionally Protected.



Projecting a picture of a person as part of an artistic performance is not the sort of commercial exploitation that the California law forbids. CF., Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal. 4th 387, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 126 (2001) (unauthorized lithographs and T-shirts of Three Stooges). To the contrary, it is a completely legal exercise of Defendants’ First Amendment expressive speech rights. *** See Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg Productions, 25 Cal. 3d 860, 865-75, 160 Cal. Rptr. 352 (1979) (refusing to permit cause of action based on right of publicity for use of deceased celebrity’s identity in a film) see also Rodgers v. Grimaldi, 875 F. 2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989); Joplin Enterprises v. Allen, 795 F. Supp. 349 (W.D. Wash. 1992). In fact, as noted in the margin, the Joplin court specifically mentioned a hypothetical misappropriation claim based “on a photograph in the back of a stage set” and held, “The right of publicity cannot rationally reach so far.” Id. at 351.

In California, artistic uses of an individual’s likeness that contain “significant transformative elements: are absolutely protected by the First Amendment and thus are not actionable under right of publicity law. Winter v. DC comics, 30 Cal. 4th 881, 888, 134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 634 (2003). The Supreme Court has developed a test “to determine whether a work merely appropriates a celebrity’s economic value, and this is not entitled to First Amendment protection, or has been transformed into in creative product that the First Amendment protects.” Id.

(T)he inquiry is whether the celebrity likeness is one of the “raw materials” from which an original work is synthesized, or whether the depiction or imitation of the celebrity is the very sum and substance of the work in question. We ask, in other words, whether a product containing a celebrity’s likeness is so transformed that it has become primarily the Defendant’s own expression rather than the celebrity’s likeness.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

Id. (quoting Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal. 4th 387, 406, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 126 (2001). Even if “the record contains evidence that Defendants were trading on Plaintiffs’ likeness and reputations to generate interest….and increase sales(t)his, too, is irrelevant to whether the (defendants’ goods or services) are constitutionally protected. The question is whether the work is transformative, not how it is marketed.” Id. at 891.

***Footnote: It is irrelevant that Defendants many have charged money for admission to their performances. “The First Amendment is not limited to those who publish without charge. Whether the activity involves newspaper publication or motion picture production, it does not lose its constitutional protection because it is undertaken for profit.” Guglielmi v, Spelling-Goldberg Productions, 25 Cal. 3d 860, 868. 160 Cal. Rptr. 352 (1979). The fact that Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 667, 109 S. Ct. 2678 (1089) (rejecting notion that “profit motive could somehow strip communications of the otherwise available constitutional protection.”).

The brief display of a photograph of Jim Morrison for just a few minutes as part of a musical concert performance that may last beyond one to two hours must qualify as “transformative.” Defendants added lengthy live musical performances, lighting, video, choreography and more. Jim Morrison’s photograph was just one of the innumerable “raw materials” from which “The Doors of the 21st Century” show was synthesized; it alone does not constitute “the very sum and substance” of the concert. Id. The brief glimpse of the Morrison picture, in the context of the entire performance, was “so transformed that it has become primarily the defendant’s own expression.” Id.; See also, e.g. Joplin Enterprises v. Allen, 795 F. Supp. 349 (W.D. Wash. 1992)*** , Montgomery v. Montgomery, 60 S.W.: 3d 524, 529, 30 Media L. Rep. 1045; 61 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1098 (2001) (court had “little difficulty in concluding that” tribute to deceased musician in music video was protected free expression).

Jim Morrison “became a ‘legend,’ a symbol….His lingering persona is an apt topic for poetry or song, biography or fiction.” Guglielmi, 26 Cal. 3d at 869-70. The Estates cannot stop Defendants – or anyone else, for that matter – from showing and paying respect to this great artist’s memory and accomplishments (or even from criticizing or parodying him, if so desired) by invoking Section 3344.1 “The right of publicity derived from public prominence does not confer a shield to ward off (legitimate expression). Rather, prominence invites creative comment. Surely, the range of free expression would be meaningfully reduced if prominent persons in the present and recent past were forbidden topics for the imaginations of authors’ and artists such as Krieger and Manzarek. Id at 869.


***Footnote: Applying California’s post mortem publicity rights statue, the court in Joplin dismissed on the pleadings an action against the producers of a stage show comprising two acts: a fictitious portrayal of a day in the life of late rock star Janis Joplin and a simulated Joplin concert. See Joplin Enterprises, 795 F. Supp. At 350. The court ruled that, as a matter of law, the show must be analyzed in its entirety, saying the California statue “clearly contemplates examining the use of a deceased personality’s name, voice, etc., in terms of the total context in which it appears.” Id. at 351. “Allowing plaintiffs to assert a right of publicity only in a serviceable Act II would legitimate right of publicity claims based, for example, on a photograph in the back of a stage set…..The right of publicity cannot rationally reach so far.” Id. The concert concluded that, under California law, the plaintiffs could not state a legally cognizable right of publicity claim. See Id.

(3) Moreover, The Jury’s Verdict On Publicity Is Invalid Because The Jury Was Not Properly Instructed On The Elements Of The Claim and On Defendants’ First Amendment Rights.

The jurors did the very best that they could with what they were given. The problem is that they were not given nearly enough to work with. The jury instructions were severely lacking in crucial aspects of the right of publicity, generally, and Section 3344.1, specifically. Although Defendants proposed reasonable, specific and proper instructions on these essential subjects***, the Court refused to give those instructions to the jury. See Notice of Refused Jury Instructions, passim. In fact, the Court even refused to give an official California Judicial Council form instruction regarding Comedy III’s First Amendment Principals. See CACI 1805. The jury could not reach a valid result without adequate instructions.

“A party is entitled upon request to correct, non-argumentative instructions on every theory of the case advanced by him which is supported by substantial evidence. The trial court may not force the litigant to reply on abstract generalities, but must instruct in specific terms that relate the party’s theory to the particular case.” Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal. 4th 548, 572, 34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 607 (1994). A party retains this “right to have the jury instructed as to the law applicable to all their theories of the case which were supported by the pleadings and the evidence, whether or not that evidence was considered persuasive by the trial court.” Galvez v. Frields, 88 Cal. App. 4th 1419, 1420, 107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 50 (2001) (citations and quotations omitted). The flawed jury verdict in this case, based as it was on illusory “evidence” that could never, as a matter of law, sustain right of publicity liability illustrates litigation. Defendants were denied that right in this trial.

*** See, e.g. Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions No. 27 (First Amendment defense to use or appropriation of name or likeness), 28 (use of name, photograph and/or likeness in entertainment context), 29 (sound-alike singers), 30 (identifiability).

(4) In Any Event, The Estates Are Not Entitled To Statutory Damages; They Elected To Pursue A Different Remedy.


The Court proposes to hold Manzarek and Krieger liable to the Estates for statutory damages of $750 under Civil Code Section 3344.1(a)(1). This has no support under the law and would, unfortunately, embolden the Estates to request attorney’s fees to which they are not entitled.

The Estates did not request statutory damages when they initiated their suit, nor did they ever do so in their subsequent complaints. See e.g., Estates’ Second Amended Complaint at 18:64-19:67, 26:13-28:15. When the Estates submitted their jury instructions, they elected to pursue an actual damages award of $2 to $3 million. The Estates did not elect to purse the remedy of statutory damages of $750. The jury awarded nothing, yet the Court now proposes awarding the Estates statutory damages nonetheless. This Court is powerless to do so.

Only the jury has the power to award monetary relief for a misappropriation as a person’s name or likeness. See, e.g., O’Hearn v. Hillcrest Gym & Fitness Center, Inc., 115 Cal. App. 4th 491, 497 *2004) (jury awarded $144,000); Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 978 F. 2d 1083, 1098 (9th Cir. 1992) (jury awarded $2.6 million). As noted above, a misappropriation claim is a legal claim within the province of the jury.

When the Estates were selecting their jury instructions, the Estates had a clear choice. They could choose CACI 1820, which informed the jury about only the actual damages remedy, or CACI 1821, which also gave the jury the option of awarding only $750 in statutory damages. They chose to submit CACI 1820 only. The reason is obvious. Wedded to the fantasy of a $2 to $3 million award, the Estates did not want the jury to know that it had the option of awarding only $750. The Estates elected their remedy; actual damages.

By electing to submit only CACI 1820, the Estates are now estopped from requesting the different relief of statutory damages. Mesecher v. County of San Diego, 9 Cal. App. 4th 1677, 1685-87 (1992); Mozzetti v. City of Brisbane, 67 Cal. App. 3d 565, 572-573 (1977). Because the jury did not award any damages, the Court now has “no authority to arbitrarily repudiate the jury’s judgment and substitute our own in its stead.” Dewhirst v. Leopold, 194 Cal. 424, 434 (1924). A jury’s verdict is binding on the trial court. Southern Pacific Land Co. v. Dickerson, 188 Cal. 113, 117 (1922).

In sum, the Court’s Proposed Statement of Decision on the right of publicity is factually unsupported and contrary to law.

IV. DISGOREMENT REMEDY IMPROPERLY ASSESSED.

The Court proposes to require disgorgement of profits pursuant to the following formula: “All revenue less operating expenses other than legal fees for the defense of this litigation and salaries to any defendants herein.” Proposed Statement Of Decision at 39:1-2. This formula would be both unlawful and unfair in several respects.

A. Ian Astbury’s Compensation Should Be A Deductible Expense.

As currently worded, the proposed prohibition against deducting the salaries of “any defendant herein” means that the compensation paid to defendant Ian Astbury to perform with “The Doors of the 21st Century” cannot be deducted. There is no legal or equitable basis for this exclusion.

Defendant Ian Astbury has been completely exonerated by the jury, which found in his favor with regard to every claim brought against him. Proposed Statement of Decision, p. 39:24-25. Astbury testified at trial that he was a “hired party” and that he had no involvement in decisions regarding the promotion, marketing or advertising of the band. Densmore’s argument that Astbury was somehow a “secret partner” was rejected by the jury. Consequently, the evidence demonstrates that Astbury’s conduct was unimpeachable.

Thus, this Court compensation paid to Astbury must be deducted as a bona fide touring expense. The evidence demonstrated that Astbury’s fee of 12% of the gross was negotiated at arm’s length, with Astbury demanding that he be paid more than the booking agent (who received 10% of the gross) because Astbury contributed more to the success of the enterprise. Astbury’s compensation should be as deductible as the compensation paid to roadies, guitar techs, sound engineers and other concert and road personnel. This Court should amend the Proposed Statement to allow for the full deduction of Astbury’s compensation.

B. Manzarek and Krieger’s Performance Should Be A Deductible Expense.

Even if they are improperly performing as “The Doors,” Manzarek and Krieger should be able to deduct their performing as a bona fide expense of the tour. The performance fees are not profits. Un-contradicted testimony by “The Doors of the 21st Century” business manager Alan Goldman made clear that Manzarek and Krieger would only receive a profit if the tour was financially successful. The performance fees are exactly that – compensation for services rendered in the same manner that drivers and sound engineers were compensated. The performance fees are a deductible bona fide expense.

C. Attorney’s Fees Should Be A Deductible Expense.

Contrary to the arguments made during the trial by Densmore and the Estates, there is no blanket rule against the deduction of attorney’s fees in all cases regardless of the alleged infringer’s scienter. Manzarek and Krieger were not willful and knowing infringers, as established by the jury’s verdict. Their attorney’s fees incurred to protect their right to perform and generate income should be deducible.

At the very least, Manzarek and Krieger should be allowed to deduct their attorney’s fees incurred in successfully defeating the three motions for injunctive relief. Manzarek and Krieger toured and performed pursuant to a Court Order which allowed them to do so. But of their successful opposition to the motions for injunctive relief, there would have been no tour, as “The Doors of the 21st Century” business manager Alan Goldman testified at trial. From a practical perspective, the money spent on legal fees to defeat the three injunction motions was as important and bona fide an expense as microphones, lights and amplifiers. The Proposed Statement should be amended to allow Manzarek and Krieger to deduct at least their legal fees incurred in defeating the three injunction motions.

D. Doors Touring, Inc. Was Completely Exonerated And Cannot Be Ordered To Disgorge.

The Proposed Statement of Decision defines Manzarek and Krieger as the gross participants, meaning that, in calculating disgorgement, the first line item in the formula would be the total amount of compensation received by Manzarek and Krieger. The Proposed Statement states (at p. 24) that Manzarek and Krieger have only received $275,000 in cash and $260,000 in tax credits. Thus the formula as expressed by the Court is that Manzarek and Krieger’s combined individual compensation would be reduced by the tour’s expenses to yield a net profit which would be disgorged. Give the significant expenses of the tour, this formula will result in negative income and a disgorgment of zero dollars.

This formula is correct to the extent that Manzarek and Krieger are the gross participants and that all tour expenses are deducted from the payments the two individuals have received. Densmore and the Estates will probably argue that Doors Touring, Inc. should be the gross participant for purposes of the formula and that the top line item of the formula should be the gross participant for purposes of the formula and that the top line item of the formula should be the gross revenue received by DTI and not the individual payments to Manzarek and Krieger.

But that would be wrong. As the Court notes at pages 39-40, all claims against DTI were adjudicated in favor of DTI. Consequently, this Court cannot, at law or equity, order DTI to disgorge any money. DTI did nothing wrong.

The gross revenues obtained from the tour are the property of DTI not Manzarek and Krieger. Any earnings of DTI will only become the earnings of Manzarek and Krieger if and when DTI elects to make a payment to Manzarek and Krieger. Unless and until that occurs, the tour revenues are the property of DTI and cannot be subject to any disgorgement by this Court. DTI has a property right in its revenues and it would be a gross violation of due process for this Court to order that a completely exonerated party must nonetheless disgorge money.

Consequently, Manzarek and Krieger individually need to remain the gross participants for purposes of calculating disgorgement. If the Court is to order disgorgement at all, it should be only on these equitable items.


DATED: May 24, 2005

LAVELY & SINGER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
JOHN H. LAVELY, JR.
WILLIAM J. BRIGGS, II
PAUL KARL LUKACS
HENRY L. SELF, III

By: William Briggs, II
Attorneys For Defendants/Cross Claimants
ROBERT KRIEGER and
RAYMOND MANZAREK and
Defendants IAN ASTBURY and
DOORS TOURING, INC.