Case 2:24-cv-02101-RFB-NJK Document1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 1 of 18

JAKUB P. MEDRALA, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 12822
The Medrala Law Firm, Prof. LLC
615 S. 6th Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
(702) 475-8884
(702) 938-8625 Facsimile
jmedrala@medralaw.com
Attorney
for Plaintiff
Dan B. Bilzerian
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

DAN BRANDON BILZERIAN, an

Individual,

Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
10
. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
11
IGNITE INTERNATIONAL BRANDS,
12 LTD.. a Foreign Corporation; IGNITE
INTERNATIONAL, LTD., a Foreign Case No.: 2:24-cv-2101
13 Corporation; PAUL BILZERIAN, an
Individual; SCOTT ROHLEDER, an
14 Individual; RUPY DHADWAR, an
Individual,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff DAN BRANDON BILZERIAN (“Plaintif or “Dan”) complains against
17
Defendants IGNITE INTERNATIONAL BRANDS, LTD., IGNITE INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,
18
PAUL BILZERIAN, SCOTT ROHLEDER, and RUPY DHADWAR (collectively
19
“Defendants™) as follows:
20
L
21
NATURE OF THE ACTION
22
This action has its origin in a dispute between the Plaintiff Dan Bilzerian and Defendants
23
Paul Bilzerian (“Paul”), Scott Rohleder (“Rohleder”), and Rupy Dhadwar (“Dhadwar”) over
24
1
Complaint
 Case 2:24-cv-02101-RFB-NJK Document1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 2 of 18

control of Ignite International Brands, Ltd. (“Ignite”); Plaintiff’s unlawful removal from Ignite,

which was orchestrated by Paul, Rohleder, and Dhadwar; and the subsequent unlawful use of

Plaintiff’s name and likeness by the individual Defendants and the companies they control.

Plaintiff Bilzerian (“Dan”) is the founder of Defendant Ignite and the majority

shareholder who was unlawfully pushed out of Ignite through a series of unlawful acts

orchestrated by Paul and executed by Rohleder and Dhadwar.

Paul and Rohleder are criminals who were recently indicted (together with Ignite) by the

United States of America in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case

No. 2:24-cr-00569). Dhadwar is Ignite’s purported CEO; however, his main role at Ignite

10 consists of executing orders from Paul and Rohleder.

11 Despite the Plaintiff’s removal from Ignite, Defendants continued to use and exploit

12 Dan’s recognizable likeness for their own benefit while tarnishing his name and reputation on

13 the backdrop of their criminal acts.

14 1L

15 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity ofcitizenship ofthe parties and the

17 amount in controversy. Plaintiff is a resident of Nevada, and Defendants are foreign corporations

18 and residents of foreign states and countries.

19 2. The amount in controversy exceeds the sum $75,000, exclusive of interest and

20 cost.

21 3. Additionally, federal jurisdiction in this case is appropriate because this case

22 centers on federal questions. Among other causes of action, Plaintiff brings this complaint

23 pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501 and 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Federal district courts have original

24 jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338.

2
Complaint
 Case 2:24-cv-02101-RFB-NJK Document1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 3 of 18

4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are either a

foreign corporation or residents of foreign states and/or countries with sufficient contacts with

the U.S. to render jurisdiction proper in any U.S. court, including the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada. Defendants purposefully availed themselves for doing business in the

United States and are subject to jurisdiction in any U.S. court.

5. In addition, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because the

claims in this Complaint relate to their maintenance and operation of many websites and social

media accounts that are interactive and fully accessible to residents of this District.

6. Defendants have a large portion of customers in the United States, and much of

10 the content distributed by Defendants on the World Wide Web originates from the U.S.,

11 including Plaintiff’s content.

12 7. The illegal use of Plaintiff’s name and likeness, as well distribution of his works

13 takes place partially, if not entirely in the U.S.

8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c).

16 PARTIES

17 9. Plaintiff Dan is a resident of Nevada. Plaintiff is a world-famous professional

18 poker player and social media influencer who gained fame for portraying a distinct, extravagant

19 lifestyle, as well as founding Ignite. He is the son of Defendant Paul.

20 10. Defendant Ignite International Brands, Ltd. (“Ignite”) is a Canadian corporation

21 with a principal place of business in the State of Texas. Ignite sells electronic cigarettes, apparel,

22 alcohol, water bottles, and other brand products.

23 11. Defendant Ignite International, Ltd. (“Ignite US™) is a Wyoming corporation

24 domiciled in California and Texas, and it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ignite. Upon

3
Complaint
 Case 2:24-cv-02101-RFB-NJK Document1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 4 of 18

information and belief, Ignite US, together with Ignite, markets Ignite’s products and is a licensor

of Ignite’s intellectual property rights.

12, Defendant Paul Bilzerian (“Paul”) is a resident of St. Kitts and Nevis, and he was

previously an American businessman and corporate raider. In 1989, Paul was convicted for

securities fraud in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and sentenced

to prison.

13. In 1993, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”)

obtained civil judgments against defendant Paul for his fraudulent activities. Upon information

and belief, Paul controls some of Ignite’s shareholders, including International Investments, Ltd.

(“International Investments™).

11 14. Defendant Rohleder is a resident of Florida. He is Paul’s “right-hand” and a proxy

12 in the United States. At various times, Rohleder served as a CEO of Ignite. Rohleder acts at the

13 direction and for the benefit of Paul.

14 15. Paul. Rohleder, and Ignite were recently indicted by the United States of America

15 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia for their role in a conspiracy to

16 defraud the United States, wire fraud, and securities fraud, to name a few.

17 16. Defendant Dhadwar is a citizen ofCanada. He is the purported CEO of Ignite and

a puppet of Rohleder and Paul. At all times relevant here, he acted at the direction and for the

benefit of Paul and Rohleder.

20 Iv.

21 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

22 17. Plaintiff Dan is an internationally known poker player, businessman, and a social

23 media influencer. He gained international fame for portraying a distinct, extravagant lifestyle, as

24 well as founding Ignite. He is regularly offered from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars

Complaint
 Case 2:24-cv-02101-RFB-NJK Document1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 5 of 18

to promote lifestyle brands and makes a large part of his income from utilizing his public image.

18. In2017, Dan founded Ignite. Ignite is a lifestyle brand selling disposable vapes,

spirits, and apparel. While not directly involved in Ignite’s operations, Dan’s name, likeness, and

personality became the essence of Ignite’s brand, including all of the social media and other

advertising and promotion.

19. Until December 2023, Dan served as the nominal CEO of Ignite. However, he

was not directly involved in Ignite’s operations and had a dispute with other Ignite

shareholders—who later turned out to be Paul’s agents—over the course of Ignite’s business,

the quality of Ignite’s products, and Ignite’s leadership. In essence, Dan complained about the

10 mismanagement of Ignite and Rohleder and Paul’s behind-the-scenes acts that caused harm to

11 Ignite’s business.

12 20. During the same time, he was threatened by Rohleder and Paul’s other agents that

13 he would be fired from the position of Ignite’s CEO.

14 21 In response, on December 18, 2023, Dan expressly advised the then-board of

15 directors of Ignite that if they fired him as the CEO of Ignite, they would “lose the multimillion-

16 dollar benefit of [his] social media posting” and “lose the rights to use [his] name and likeness.”

22. Despite this, on December 21, 2023, Ignite’s board of directors, which was

controlled by Rohleder and Paul, terminated Dan as the CEO of Ignite. At the regularly-

scheduled board meeting where this occurred, Dan again told the board that Ignite had no right

20 to use his name, likeness, and image.

21 23 In June 2024, Rohleder and Paul took things even further. On June 2, 2024, they

22 purported to remove Dan from the position of chairman of the board with Ignite and unilaterally

23 and unlawfully seize control of Ignite’s operations. This was done without the necessary 67%

24 shareholder vote to remove a director.

5
Complaint
 Case 2:24-cv-02101-RFB-NJK Document1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 6 of 18

24. Despite this, Ignite and the remaining Defendants continued to use Dan’s name,

image, and likeness, as well as copyrighted photographs, without his permission and without

providing him with any compensation.

25. Among other things, the Defendants, without Dan’s consent:

- Kept his name and image on numerous Ignite websites within their control,

making him a central component of the Ignite brand, despite not

compensating him for this and unlawfully removing him from Ignite;

- Crated an Instagram account called @jgnite.intl (which the Defendants, and

not Dan, control) and posted and pinned Dan’s name, likeness, and image in

10 various “stories” on that account;

11 - Used Dan’s name and image to promote sales of vapes, alcohol, clothing, and

other products;

- Used photographs personally taken by Dan on social media accounts; and

14 - Attempted to seize, through Canadian court proceedings, Dan’s Instagram

15 account.

16 26. Moreover, because of Rohleder and Paul’s criminal acts, on September 26, 2024,

17 Ignite, Paul, and Rohleder were indicted by the United States of America in the U.S. District

Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:24-cr-00569).

19 27. In addition, on September 27, 2024, Ignite, Paul, Rohleder, and its proxies Paul

20 Dowdall, John Schaefer, and International Investment, were sued by the SEC in the United States

21 District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:24-cv-07331).

22 28. The indictment and the SEC lawsuit received extensive media coverage

23 throughout the United States and the world.

24 29. This coverage, despite the lack of Dan’s involvement in any criminal activities

6
Complaint
 Case 2:24-cv-02101-RFB-NJK Document1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 7 of 18

perpetuated by Rohleder, Paul, and their proxies, brought Dan negative press specifically

because of his affinity with Ignite’s brand and his continued presence on Ignite’s websites, social

media, and marketing materials.

30. After the indictment, Rohleder resigned from the purported position of Ignite’s

CEO and appointed to this position his and Paul’s puppet, Dhadwar, whose actions remain fully

and illegally controlled by Rohleder and Paul.

31. Due to Ignite’s continuing refusal to cease from using Dan’s name and likeness,

among other things, on November 4, 2024, through his counsel, Dan again demanded that Ignite

cease and desist from using his name and likeness and otherwise exploiting his intellectual

10 property rights, to no avail.

11 32, Dhadwar, now the purported CEO of Ignite, decided to continue to unlawfully

exploit Dan’s name and likeness and refused to remove it from Ignite’s marketing materials.

13 33, Moreover, because of his unlawful removal from Ignite, Dan decided to pursue

14 alternative business opportunities, which included, among other things, selling lifestyle products

15 under his own, separate brands.

16 34. Inresponse, Ignite, Paul, Rohleder, and Dhadwar engaged in a smear campaign

17 against Dan in which they represented, and continue to represent, to potential suppliers and

18 distributors of Dan’s companies that Dan is legally prevented from competing in any way with

19 Ignite’s business.

20 35. Ignite, Paul, Rohleder, and Dhadwar have falsely represented to Dan’s potential

21 suppliers and distributors that Dan is allegedly subject to a noncompete agreement with Ignite

22 that prevents him from conducting any business that is similar to Ignite’s business.

23 36. These representations are utterly false and their sole aim is to discourage anyone

24 from working with Dan or his entities and to prevent Dan from seizing any business opportunities

Complaint
 Case 2:24-cv-02101-RFB-NJK Document1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 8 of 18

outside of Ignite.

V.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF—MISAPPROPRIATION OF PLAINTIFF’S

STATUTORY AND COMMON LAW RIGHT OF PUBLICITY

37. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations above as fully set forth herein.

38. Plaintiff is a universally known and highly recognizable personality who has

received widespread recognition for his distinct lifestyle and social media presence that has been

viewed by tens of millions of people throughout the United States and all over the world.

39, Through his hard work and use of his talents in the field of entertainment, Dan’s

10 likeness and persona have become very valuable and are invested with substantial goodwill in

11 the eyes of the public. Accordingly, Dan licenses the right to use of his name and likeness for

12 use in the United States and throughout the world—a property right with substantial commercial

13 value—which he does not agree to transfer, in whole or in part, to Defendants for any purposes.

14 40. Defendants’ use of Dan’s likeness on their websites, social media posts, or other

marketing materials without Dan’s consent constitutes a violation and misappropriation of

Plaintif’s common law right of publicity in that said Defendants, and each of them,

17 misappropriated Dan’s photograph, likeness, and persona and used it in a prominent and clearly

18 recognizable manner for commercial purposes to advertise and promote Ignite and to generally

19 promote and enhance Defendants’ goodwill and increase their profits.

20 41. Defendants’ misappropriation of Plaintiff’s valuable publicity and property

21 rights, as set forth herein above in violation of Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) 597.700 et seq.

22 and other applicable law, has resulted in a dilution of the value of the aforesaid publicity and

23 property rights, thereby diminishing the value of said publicity and property rights, all to the

24 detriment and damage of Plaintiff and has resulted in the unjust enrichment of all of the

8
Complaint
 Case 2:24-cv-02101-RFB-NJK Document1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 9 of 18

Defendants.

42. Unless temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoined and restrained by

order of this Court, Defendants’ continued acts will cause Plaintiff severe and irreparable injury,

which cannot adequately be compensated by monetary damages.

43. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to preliminary and permanent

injunctive relief, enjoining the further commercial exploitation of his name, likeness, and identity

by any of the Defendants, including but not limited to an injunction against any further broadcast,

exploitation or use of Dan’s name, likeness, persona, or pictures.

44. Asadirect and proximate result of the aforesaid wrongful acts of Defendants, and

each of them, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount that is not yet fully ascertainable but

which is in excess of the jurisdictional limit of $75,000.

12 45. The wrongful conduct of Defendants, and each of them, was fraudulent,

13 oppressive, and malicious and done with conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff.

14 Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants, and each of them, exemplary and

15 punitive damages.

16 VL

17 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF—UNFAIR COMPETITION AND

18 DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

19 46. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations above as fully set forth herein.

20 47. By virtue of the manner in which Defendants, and each of them, have improperly

21 exploited the name, likeness, and identity of Dan, Defendants, and each of them, have committed

22 acts of unfair, deceptive, confusing, untrue, and/or misleading advertising, unfair competition,

23 and unfair business practices, and the acts of Defendants described herein above constitute unfair

24 competition, deceptive trade practices, and false advertising in violation of, among other things,

Complaint
 Case 2:24-cv-02101-RFB-NJK Document1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 10 of 18

NRS 598.0915(2), (3), and (5). In doing the things alleged, Defendants have misled or at least

substantially confused the general public.

48. The conduct of Defendants alleged herein is such that Defendants falsely,

unfairly, deceptively, unlawfully, and/or misleadingly stated, suggested, or implied that Dan

endorsed the Defendants and/or their products and merchandise and that Dan consented to the

exploitation of his name, likeness, and identity in the manner alleged in this Complaint, all in a

manner likely to mislead the general public.

49. The use of his name, likeness, and identity in this context unlawfully and falsely

misled, deceived, substantially confused, and/or misinformed the general public.

50. Defendants, and each of them, knew that their conduct alleged herein would

11 mislead, deceive, substantially confuse, and/or misinform the general public, all for the

12 Defendants” pecuniary gain and to enhance Defendants” goodwill through association with and

13 the apparent endorsement by Dan.

14 51, As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them,

as alleged herein, Defendants have earned profits in an amount that has yet to be ascertained and

16 have otherwise indirectly benefited or profited from the commercial use of Dan’s name, likeness,

17 and persona without his consent. Plaintiff is entitled to receive said profits and benefits that each

18 of the Defendants should be required to disgorge, as a result of the conduct alleged in this

19 complaint.

20 52. As a result of Defendants” wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff seeks

21 disgorgement from Defendants, and each of them, of any and all profits or other consideration

22 obtained by or earned by each the Defendants as a proximate result of their deceptive trade

23 practices, false advertising, and unfair competition in violation of NRS 598.0915 and other

24 applicable statutes and common law. Plaintiff alleges that the amount of the wrongfully obtained

10
Complaint
 Case 2:24-cv-02101-RFB-NJK Document1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 11 of 18

revenues is not yet fully ascertainable but is believed to be well in excess of the jurisdictional

limit of $75,000.

53. Any continued, unauthorized commercial use by Defendants of Dan’s name,

likeness, or persona that is deceptive, misleading, and confusing to the viewing public will cause

Plaintiff irreparable harm and cannot be adequately compensated in money damages. As a result

of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff seeks issuance of and is entitled to temporary,

preliminary, and permanent injunction, enjoining Defendants, and each of them, and their agents

and employees, from engaging in the conduct alleged herein constituting unlawful and unfair

business practices, including but not limited to, Defendants’ use of Dan’s name, likeness, and

identity for commercial purposes in a manner that is misleading and confusing to potential

customers that injures Plaintiff and that unjustly enriches Defendants.

54, The aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them, were done knowingly,

intentionally, or with a conscious or reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and with the intent to

14 vex, injure, or annoy Plaintiff, such as to constitute oppression, fraud, or malice, thus entitling

15 Plaintiff to exemplary and punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an

16 example of Defendants, and each of them, and to deter such conduct in the future, the exact

17 amount of such damages subject to proof at the time of trial.

18 VIIL.

19 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF—VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (LANHAM ACT)

20 55. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations above as fully set forth herein.

21 56. Defendants, and each ofthem, violated Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.

22 § 1125(a) and (c), by expressly and impliedly making false designations or representations of

23 origin when engaging in the following acts, including (1) misappropriating Dan’s photograph,

24 likeness, and persona in advertising and promoting Ignite after December 21, 2023, including on

11

Complaint
 Case 2:24-cv-02101-RFB-NJK Document1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 12 of 18

Ignite’s websites, social media, and marketing materials, and (2) misappropriating Dan’s

photograph, likeness, and persona in generally enhancing the goodwill of Defendants.

57. As set forth above, Defendants, and each of them, have intentionally and

knowingly misappropriated, exploited, and used Plaintiff’s above-described valuable property

in connection with the goods and services advertised and promoted by Defendants for their own

gain, profits, promotion, and benefit.

58. Defendants’ misappropriation of Plaintiff’s valuable publicity and property rights

as set forth above constitutes false and deceptive advertising and promotion that was intended to

cause, and has caused, confusion and deception of the consuming public by falsely and

10 fraudulently suggesting and representing by the aforesaid misappropriation, among other things,

that after December 21, 2023, Dan endorsed, sponsored, sanctioned, authorized, or approved of

12 Defendants’ use of Dan’s image and identity in Defendants’ business enterprises and activities.

13 59. Defendants’ misappropriation of Plaintiff’s valuable publicity and property

14 rights, as set forth hereinabove, has resulted in a dilution of the value of the aforesaid publicity

15 and property rights, thereby diminishing the value of the aforesaid valuable publicity and

16 property rights, all to the detriment and damage of Plaintiff.

17 60. Asadirect and proximate result of the aforesaid wrongful acts of Defendants, and

18 each of them, Plaintiff has suffered damage in an amount that is not yet fully ascertainable but

19 which is in excess ofthe jurisdictional limit of $75,000.

20 61. Plaintiff is entitled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) to three (3) times Defendants’

21 profits, or actual damages, whichever is greater, plus costs of suit.

22 11

23 117

24 1
12
Complaint
 Case 2:24-cv-02101-RFB-NJK Document1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 13 of 18

VIIL.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF—VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1125(¢)

LANHAM ACT

62. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations above as fully set forth herein.

63. Dan’s name and likeness, as well as other aspects of his identifiable persona,

have, through regular, frequent, but carefully monitored and controlled commercial use, become

famous trademarks and service marks.

64. Defendants have knowingly and willfully traded on and intended to trade on

Dan’s reputation and willfully and intentionally diluted Dan’s trademarks and service marks by

10 unlawfully using Dan’s name, likeness, and distinctive marks to market, promote, and advertise

11 Defendants’ products and services and to enhance Defendants” goodwill.

12 65. Defendants’ wrongful conduct and misappropriation and use of Dan’s name,

13 likeness, persona, and distinctive marks lessen the ability or capacity of the trademarks to

identify, differentiate, and distinguish the services and/or goods advertised, sponsored, or offered

15 by, or in conjunction with, Plaintiff.

16 66. Defendants’ conduct is wrongful and in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).

17 67. Through their wrongful conduct as alleged above, Defendants have damaged

18 Plaintiff’s business reputation and have diluted the quality as well as the uniqueness and

19 distinctiveness of Dan’s name, likeness, image, and distinctive marks. Defendants’ wrongful

20 conduct in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) has damaged and caused irreparable injury to

21 Plaintiff.

22 68. Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction issued against

23 Defendants, and each of them, to enjoin and prohibit any continued use, exploitation, or dilution

24 of Dan’s name, likeness, image, or distinctive marks, all as provided in 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).

13
Complaint
 Case 2:24-cv-02101-RFB-NJK Document 1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 14 of 18

69. Based on the intentional and willful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff is entitled to

three times the amount of Defendants’ profits or three times the amount of Plaintiff’s damages,

whichever is greater, together with reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) and

(b); and, based on Defendants’ willful conduct in violation of § 1125(c), Defendants should be

ordered to turn over all tangible items that are in the possession of any of the Defendants and

that bear the trademarks.

IX.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF—ACCOUNTING

70. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations above as fully set forth herein.

10 71. Based on the wrongful conducts of Defendants, and each of them, as alleged

11 above, Plaintiff is entitled to a full accounting from each of the Defendants regarding each and

12 every unauthorized use of Dan’s name and/or likeness and identity for a commercial purpose

13 and a full accounting regarding the gross revenue received by each of the Defendants as a direct

14 or indirect result of said unauthorized and wrongful acts of each of the Defendants as alleged

15 above.

16 X.

17 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF—UNJUST ENRICHMENT

18 72. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations above as fully set forth herein.

19 73. Asaresult of the wrongful acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as

20 alleged above, Defendants have been unjustly enriched and should be required and ordered to

21 disgorge to Plaintiff all of the revenues and profits received by each of the Defendants as a direct

22 or indirect result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct.

23 111

24 /17
14
Complaint
 Case 2:24-cv-02101-RFB-NJK Document1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 15 of 18

XI.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF—INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH

PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

74. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations above as fully set forth herein.

75. When the Defendants learned that the Plaintiff launched separate brands and

business ventures from Ignite, they engaged in a campaign aimed at disrupting Dan’s

relationships with suppliers and distributors by misrepresenting to them that neither Dan nor his

business ventures can enter into any business relationships with such distributors or suppliers

because of Dan’s alleged noncompete agreement with Ignite.

10 76. The Defendants specifically stated to such suppliers and distributors that Dan

11 cannot produce or sell any products or services that compete in any way with Ignite, and they

12 threatened that anyone who facilitates such competing ventures will be sued by Ignite.

13 Vig The Defendants made such false representations with the intent to harm Dan and

prevent him from entering into any business relationships with suppliers or distributors of his

15 products.

16 78. Through their wrongful conduct as alleged above, Defendants have damaged

17 Plaintiff’s prospective business relationships and caused irreparable injury to the Plaintiff.

18 79. Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction issued against

19 Defendants, and each of them, to enjoin and prohibit any continued representations to anyone

20 that Dan cannot compete with Ignite’s business.

21 80. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid wrongful acts of Defendants, and

22 each of them, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount that is not yet fully ascertainable but

23 which is in excess of the jurisdictional limit of $75,000.

24
15

Complaint
 Case 2:24-cv-02101-RFB-NJK Document1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 16 of 18

81. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the wrongful conduct

of Defendants, and each of them, was fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious and done with

conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from

Defendants, and each of them, exemplary and punitive damages.

XIL

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF—DECLARATORY RELIEF

82. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations above as fully set forth herein.

83. Despite the lack of any enforceable noncompete agreement, or other legal

mandate, Defendants contest and publicly misrepresent that Dan is prevented from conducting

10 any business activities that compete with Ignite’s business.

11 84. Asaresult, Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration by this Court, in accordance with

12 NRS 30.040, that Dan is not prevented from conducting any business activities that compete

13 with Ignite’s or other businesses of the Defendants.

XIIIL.

H CL FOR RELIEF—COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

16 85. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates the allegations above as fully set forth herein.

17 86. Plaintiffis the copyright owner of the various pictures and videos unlawfully used

18 on Ignite’s websites and social media platforms that are controlled by the Defendants.

19 87. Defendants have violated the exclusive rights of the Plaintiff as copyright owner

20 as that term is used in 17 U.S.C. § 501.

21 88. Defendants have violated the copyright owner’s exclusive rights to reproduce

22 such pictures and videos and other materials of Plaintiff to prepare derivative works and to

23 distribute copies as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 106(1)-(3).

24

16
Complaint
 Case 2:24-cv-02101-RFB-NJK Document1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 17 of 18

89. Upon information and belief, Defendants have infringed on the copyright

protection of other works belonging to Plaintiff.

90. Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting Defendants from infringing on Plaintiff’s

copyrights pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502.

91. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages as provided for by statute. 17 U.S.C. § 504.

92. The exact amount of damages is presently unknown; however, upon information

and belief. the infringement was substantial, ongoing, and willful. Accordingly, statutory

damages of$150,000 per work infringed upon may be appropriate if actual damages are found

to be less than this amount. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).

10 93. Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney fees as allowed by statute. 17 U.S.C. § 505.

11 XIV.

12 JURY DEMAND

13
94. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues raised
14
in this action.
15

16 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter a judgment:

17 1. Awarding Plaintiff injunctive relief banning Defendants’ continued infringement

18 of the Plaintiff’s right of publicity, trademarks, and copyrights;

19 2. Awarding Plaintiff injunctive relief banning Defendants’ continued interference

20 with the Plaintiff’s prospective economic advantage;

21 3, Awarding Plaintiff economic damages in excess of $75,000, the exact amount to

22 be determined at trial;

23 4. Awarding Plaintiff noneconomic damages in excess of $75,000, the exact amount

24 to be determined at trial;

17
Complaint
 Case 2:24-cv-02101-RFB-NJK Document1 Filed 11/12/24 Page 18 of 18

S} Awarding Plaintiff treble damages;

6. Awarding Plaintiff exemplary or punitive damages;

7. Awarding Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

8. Awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in the prosecution

of this action;

9. Awarding Plaintiff a declaratory judgment finding that he is not prevented from

competing with Ignite or any of the other Defendants; and

10. Granting such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED this 12th day of November, 2024.

THE MEDRALA LAW FIRM, PLLC

/s/ Jakub P. Medrala

12 JAKUB P. MEDRALA, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 12822
13 615 S. 6th Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
14 Attorney for Plaintiff’
Dan B. Bilzerian
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
18

Complaint